Wednesday, 6/22/94 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING JUNE 22, 1994 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING I N D E X Wednesday, June 22, 1994 Briefer: Christine Shelly ANNOUNCEMENTS Forum on Global Affairs & U.S. Diplomacy ........ 1 Departure of Press Officer Maeve Dwyer .......... 1 NORTH KOREA U.S.-North Korean Communication ................. 1- 2,6 IAEA Inspectors' Activities/Extension of Visas .. 2- 3 Assistant Secretary Gallucci's Meeting Schedule . 2- 3,5-6 Resumption of North/South Dialogue .............. 4- 5 President Carter's Visit to Region .............. 4 COLOMBIA/PERU Sharing of Radar Intelligence with U.S. ......... 6- 7 Assistant Secretary Robert Gelbard's House Testimony on Counter-Narcotics Issues ......... 7 Reports of Samper Presidential Campaign/ Drug Cartel Ties............................... 7- 8 PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE ............................... 9 HAITI Update on Interdictions ......................... 9,10 Sanctions--Freezing of Assets ................... 10 BOSNIA Prospects of Bosnian Ministerial ................ 10-11 Contact Group ................................... 11 HUMAN RIGHTS Amnesty International Report .................... 11-12 MIDDLE EAST PEACE Progress on Jordan/Israeli Track ................ 12-13 Incident at King Hussein's Press Conference--6/21 13-14 RUSSIA Parliament's Decision to Send Troops to Abkhazia. 14-15 RWANDA Status/Support of French Initiative ............. 16-18
DEPARTMENT OF STATE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 1994, 1:17 P.M. (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MS. SHELLY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I have two short announcements. The first, the Department will sponsor a Forum on Global Affairs and U.S. Diplomacy tomorrow, Thursday, June 23, from 2:00 to 4:00 in the Loy Henderson Conference Room. It will be attended by non-governmental leaders.
Under Secretary for Global Affairs, Tim Wirth, will open the Forum, and the senior officials of the four Global Affairs Bureaus will then conduct simultaneous workshops. The Forum and the workshops are open to the press.
Under Secretary Wirth and the senior officials will be available to the press briefly at the end of the Forum to answer questions. For more detailed information about this, please see the Press Office following the briefing.
I have one other final thing I'd like to announce before taking your questions. Today is the last day in the Press Office of our Press Officer Maeve Dwyer. She is leaving tomorrow to take up new duties in the American Embassy in Mexico City. I know you all wish her well in her new endeavors, and we'll certainly miss her assistance to you over the course of the last couple of years.
So, Maeve, thank you very much for your help, and we wish you well in Mexico City. Thank you.
Q Amen here, too. Are you ready for questions?
MS. SHELLY: Sure. In fact, I think I'll let Maeve take the questions today.
Q Has there been anything from North Korea, either formal, informal, a response or comment, an observation, any communication from them in any form regarding -- I don't want to leave any room here for the State Department to say there's been no official response to the U.S. Apparently, there have been two communications to them about the North Korean nuclear problem, of course.
MS. SHELLY: No.
Q What do you take --
MS. SHELLY: Based on our past experience with them, we would expect a response to take probably a few days.
Q Have you been told that there will be a response?
MS. SHELLY: Not that I'm specifically aware of, but we are expecting that they will get back to us.
Q Just to clarify, if this information is correct -- was there a second clarifying message that was sent to North Korea, apart from the Gallucci letter or in addition to the Gallucci letter?
MS. SHELLY: Not that I'm aware of, Barry.
Q Do we have any report from the inspectors who are still there as to what they're doing and whether they're inspecting and whether they're doing what they set out to do, or are they waiting on the North Korean reply before they do that? What are they doing -- sitting around hotels or are they actually doing their work?
MS. SHELLY: I don't have a lot of details for you on this. We understand that North Korea extended the IAEA inspectors' visas recently and told them that they could stay at the Yongbyon nuclear facility for as long as they needed to.
My understanding is that they promised the inspectors that they and their equipment would remain in place. We're seeking confirmation from North Korea that that includes access to the facilities that the IAEA has decided or determined that they need in order to assure the continuity of safeguards.
As far as I know, there has not been any hindrance of their activities in that regard.
Q As I understand it, Gallucci has been overseas -- that was my understanding -- and that he was supposed to confer with IAEA officials. Has he --
MS. SHELLY: Assistant Secretary Gallucci, as you know, accompanied the Secretary on his trip to Brussels for the meetings which took place today with Russian Foreign Minister Kozyrev.
On Thursday, Assistant Secretary Gallucci will meet in Vienna with IAEA Director General Hans Blix and IAEA experts on the North Korean nuclear issue. His plans are to have him return to Washington on late Friday afternoon.
Q Now this reference you made a moment ago to "you're seeking assurances," does their response to that request have any connection or any link to whether you have high-level talks?
MS. SHELLY: I think you know that we addressed in the last -- several senior officials as well as the State Department here in briefings -- we've addressed the circumstances under which we would proceed to the third round. There is no change in that in the last day or two. We're ready to begin the third round upon receiving the North Korean confirmation that it will freeze the major elements of its nuclear program during the talks.
As you know, those are the three elements: No processing of the spent fuel recently removed from its reactor, no refueling of its reactor, and allowing the IAEA to maintain the continuity of safeguards at the North Korean nuclear facility.
Q So you're just going to take their word for it -- this piece of paper with them promising to be good?
MS. SHELLY: Sid, we're waiting to hear back. We've got to see what they come back to us with. I can't really be anymore specific than that.
Q But that's what you want to start the third round -- you want a letter from them? That's all?
MS. SHELLY: We would like a communication back from them. I don't know whether we have specifically designated in what form it should come back.
Q There's nothing else like letting the inspectors do X, Y, or Z, or something like that? Just their assurances?
MS. SHELLY: Their confirmation of what we laid out is our understanding of the conditions necessary to go forward.
Q Christine, could you further amplify or define the third point with regard to the IAEA people, what they are to be allowed to do? Was that defined in the letter? And, secondly - - for the second point, the refueling of the reactor, why have we asked them not to refuel?
MS. SHELLY: Because we want the program frozen. That's the answer to the -- that's the necessary precondition for the talks. So if you don't have that, then you don't have the freezing of the program, and I already answered the first part of your question in the first question about what the inspectors were up to.
Q Any response to the formal agreement to have these preliminary talks on June 28?
MS. SHELLY: I don't have a big reaction on that. We, of course, welcome the resumption of the North-South dialogue. We understand that they are supposed to have a meeting next week, June 28, to work out the arrangements for a summit which would then follow at some point.
Certainly, the issues separating North and South Korea are ones which should be resolved and will have to be resolved through direct dialogue. We certainly welcome the news that they're going to meet soon on this, and would expect that they will be able to move on to sort out the modalities for the summit.
Q Can I follow on that?
MS. SHELLY: Sure.
Q There's been a lot of sniping at President Carter. People have criticized that his mission muddied the waters, it didn't accomplish that much. Is this or is it not a tangible result of his meeting last week? Is there credit due President Carter on this?
MS. SHELLY: There's been a lot in the press about characterizing various statements and views from people. The key point for us is that President's Carter's visit provided an opportunity, a kind of opening, that the North Koreans clearly decided that this was the event, as it unfolded, during which they decided that they -- or they sent signals that they were ready to change their behavior.
So with respect to the impact that it has had in providing an opening for the North Koreans to take actions which are more in the direction of what we would like to see, we certainly welcome that.
Q Would the U.S. still support the holding of a North-South summit if you do not get the assurances you're seeking from the North?
MS. SHELLY: The timing of a third round and a North-South summit are not connected. I think that each of those two things are going to be occurring on their respective tracks.
Q Is Gallucci going anywhere else or will he return from Vienna on Friday?
MS. SHELLY: My understanding of his travel plans are that he will be returning on Friday.
Q From Vienna?
MS. SHELLY: Yes. It's my understanding.
Q Christine, on the three conditions, does the third condition give you total assurance that the first two conditions are being met?
MS. SHELLY: I'm not sure I understand your question.
Q If the continuity of the IAEA inspections are guaranteed, are they sufficient to tell you that the first two conditions -- reprocessing and non-refueling -- are being adhered to by North Korea?
MS. SHELLY: In terms of the facilities that they need to have access to, that includes their 5-megawatt reactor; it includes things like the spent fuel holding pond, reprocessing lines and the radio chemical laboratory -- those are the sites that they need access to in order to be able to continue to make those determinations.
If some of the other activities were initiated, they would certainly, presumably, have some idea of that, or at least some hint that that might be happening. I'm not sure that that satisfies it exclusively. We want an explicit -- we want the inspectors to be able to do those things which they need for their continuity of safeguards determinations, but we want specific assurances which confirm their understandings which the North Koreans themselves had given about the no-reprocessing and no-refueling.
Q Are the two inspectors adequate to carry out these inspections enough to give you assurances that -- confidence that the assurances are being carried out?
MS. SHELLY: That's certainly a very valid question. I'm not sure it's one that I'm in a position to answer. I think how many are necessary and in what kind of shift basis -- that kind of thing -- are really questions you would have to direct to the IAEA. I'm sure that they will approach the operation and will staff it in a way which permits them to do that, but I don't have any details on how exactly how many are necessary and how they can do that. Certainly, it's a valid question, but ask the IAEA.
Q I don't know if you're in a position to clarify what's going on in Brussels with the Secretary and Foreign Minister Kozyrev. But if you are, it's correct to deduce from their news conference that Russia and the United States have agreed on a sanctions approach towards North Korea that includes holding sanctions in abeyance for 30 days, rather than a week, if they're passed by the Security Council?
MS. SHELLY: Yes. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to get into that. I haven't had a chance to see the full transcripts of what's been said. So I'm just going to have to decline to answer that one.
Q To go back to my question on Point 3, is it clear in the letter that was sent by Secretary Gallucci to the North Koreans that we require that they allow the IAEA to have positive certification that the rods are not in any way being diverted? Is it clear to them that that is requisite?
MS. SHELLY: I have given you the three conditions that we are looking for. That's what we're prepared to say at this point. We're not prepared to get into a detailed account of exactly every single point that's in the letter. I'm not prepared to go beyond what I've said so far.
Q Will Mr. Gallucci or any member of the entourage going over to Brussels now be in contact or meet any members of the North Korean Government at any point on this trip?
MS. SHELLY: Not that I'm aware of.
Q Changing subjects, if I may. It was reported that both the governments of Colombia and Peru rejected a U.S. proposal of a promise from both governments not to shoot down aircraft that were suspected of drug trafficking if that information was provided through U.S. radar. Do you care to comment on that?
MS. SHELLY: I don't have a lot I can say on this at this point. As to the issue, generally, about the sharing of the radar intelligence, I'm sure you're aware of the fact that there were some decisions that were taken on this yesterday.
I understand that the President plans to ask Congress to enact legislation that would allow the U.S. to resume intelligence-sharing with Colombia and Peru. We certainly remain very committed to closely coordinating and cooperating on the counter-narcotics issue with those two countries.
There are two events on this which are occurring today which is why I can't really go into it in detail. The first is that Dr. Lee Brown, Director of the Office of International Control Policy, had a briefing on this this morning at the White House -- I think you probably know -- at 11:00. He addressed this. I haven't had a chance to see what he said yet.
We also have our Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics Matters, Robert Gelbard. He's testifying today before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
I would note that this is a hearing which was, in fact, scheduled several months ago. He's discussing a range of U.S. counter- narcotics issues in the Andes, including the policy of radar intelligence-sharing with Colombia and Peru, which will obviously reflect the decisions that were taken by the President yesterday.
I would also note Robert Gelbard's testify is open, so it's available to the press.
Because of those two events, which are recurring -- and those are senior officials in both cases who spoke in an open fashion -- I'm not going to get into detailed questions and answers on that today.
We'll need to see where we are at the end of the testimony and then see if there's anything else we might want to add to that later, but I'm not going to be getting into the issue from here.
Q Okay. Another question; the same subject. This morning, in the Colombian press, there was published a -- apparently, there is a recording in which funds for political campaigns were solicited from the Cali cartel. Are you aware of that? And, if so, what is the U.S. opinion on this?
MS. SHELLY: We're aware of the reports. Certainly, the reports that President-elect Samper's campaign has or had ties to the Colombian drug traffickers, we view these reports as very disturbing.
Generally speaking, it's essential that Colombia continue its long history of counter- narcotics cooperation with the U.S. We would like them, of course, to remain a full partner in the international effort against the illegal drug trade. This effort requires collaboration among all countries which are affected by the problem.
Q (inaudible) they were true, or these reports were true, and actually he took money from the Cali cartel --
MS. SHELLY: At this particular point, I cannot comment specifically on that. In a way, it's a form of a hypothetical question. We certainly view the reports of this with great concern. We certainly will be looking into them.
Since we have not yet had the opportunity to do that, I am simply not in a position to take that comment any further. I can't particularly tell you how we're going do that, but I can tell you that the reports are of great concern to us, and we'll certainly be examining them.
MS. SHELLY: So far what we have seen has been related to us by press reports. That's correct.
Q Will these accusations affect the sharing for other programs that the U.S. and Colombia have had so far against narco- trafficking?
MS. SHELLY: In response to the last question, I was just asked, that I think lays out what our position is about the cooperation with Colombia. But, again, I'm not in a position right now to speculate on what the longer-term impact of that might be, since we don't have a comment yet on the accuracy of those reports.
MS. SHELLY: I'm not doing a lot of Brussels from here today.
Q How about a little bit of Brussels?
MS. SHELLY: Probably not much more than a little -- but you can try me.
Q Okay. Let me try -- on Partnership for Peace, I understand that's a done deal?
MS. SHELLY: It's a done deal. That, I can confirm.
Q Anything more you can add to that? And especially about the meetings between Kozyrev and our Secretary?
MS. SHELLY: Again, we have a real clear understanding about divisions of labor on that. I don't work issues from here at the moment when they are being worked out at Brussels. Even though they're ahead as far as the time is concerned, I don't have all of the transcripts and I also, obviously, need a readout from the Secretary about what transpired in the meetings. So I'm just not in a position to get into that today.
Q Do you care to comment on the dispatches of the meeting between the Kozyrev and the Secretary and working anything out about sanctions for Korea or any of that right now?
MS. SHELLY: No.
Q How about Partnerships for Peace?
MS. SHELLY: No. It's a done deal.
Q Christine, do you have an update on the Haitian refugees? For example, the three people who were under arrest yesterday -- the returnees -- have they been released?
MS. SHELLY: Let me see what I've got. I know we indicated, I think, as of yesterday that there were three that were detained after that. I thought I had something specific on that, and I don't think I do. So I'll have to check.
I do have a little bit of an update on the interdictions. I can tell you that a total of 99 Haitian boat people were interdicted yesterday, June 21.
There was one boat with 22 Haitians aboard that was interdicted in the morning and then there was a second boat with 77 which was interdicted last evening. That brings the total interdictions, since the processing facility began on June 15, to 226.
Ninety-two interdicted over the weekend and transferred to the USNS Comfort yesterday morning are currently being processed to determine if they qualify for refugee status and are able to demonstrate their well-founded fear of persecution.
Of the 92 being processed, we understand that 24 have been found to be refugees while 62 have been determined not. The numbers don't add up here. There are also six on which the processing apparently has not been completed.
We'll have final information on that group and all of the refugee status determinations have been completed.
Of the 99 interdicted yesterday, 22 were transferred to the Comfort today while the remaining 77 will be transferred to the Comfort tomorrow. Those found to be refugees will be moved, as you know, to Guantanamo Naval Base for final processing for admission to the U.S. or for resettlement or refuge in other countries. Those found not to be refugees will continue to be repatriated to Haiti.
Q Christine, is the Administration considering even stiffer sanctions on Haiti at this time?
MS. SHELLY: I think there's going to be an announcement coming from the White House on this shortly. It may even be that they've actually put out a statement in the last few minutes. I understand there is going to be -- that the President signed an Executive Order which extends the freezing of the Haitian assets beyond the group of people that it was originally applied to.
They're also doing a Backgrounder later this afternoon on this issue, and I think addressing the Haiti situation generally.
Q What do you mean by "extending the number." This includes now the wealthy families?
MS. SHELLY: I'm going to leave that to the White House, as I said. I think when you exit from here, there will be a White House statement which has been put out. But, essentially, it's a new Executive Order that was signed. That's the general subject matter. Details are coming out of the White house.
Q What can you tell us about any meetings coming up on the Foreign Ministry level, or just under, on Bosnia?
MS. SHELLY: No news yet.
Q No news at all?
MS. SHELLY: No.
Q You can't confirm the reports that there might be a meeting on July 1, or even before that?
MS. SHELLY: We've seen the date, and I checked on that when we first saw the date. I was told that there wasn't anything official to that. As you know, the Secretary has other travel the following week. I think that that date emerged on the basis more of speculation than of hard news.
Certainly, the possibility of having a Bosnia ministerial is still out there but not one unless something has happened in the last six or eight hours on this out in Brussels that I'm aware of. I'm not aware that they have fixed a date yet.
Q Are there any plans that you know of for the Contact Group to make public or otherwise talk about what possible plan may be put before the parties?
MS. SHELLY: I don't know. I'll have to check on that.
Q Christine, Amnesty International released a report this morning on 19 countries which receives significant amounts of U.S. security assistance. It analyzed the human rights situations in those countries and found a lot of them to be wanting. They charged in a couple of cases -- Colombia and Turkey -- that U.S. security assistance contributed directly to human rights abuses and said that this was a violation of U.S. law. Any reaction to this report?
MS. SHELLY: We have not yet had the opportunity to study the report in specificity, so therefore I can't get into individual country comments with you. We have great respect for the work of Amnesty International and the other NGOs which are active in the human rights field. And you know, of course, we have regular exchanges of information with them on the countries which both they and we are preparing reports on.
We will examine the report, certainly very carefully and with great interest, to see what they have to say.
The Administration remains firmly committed to the promotion of democracy and human rights in tandem with its other foreign policy goals. I think we may have more to say after we've had a chance to look at the report, but I don't have country-specific comments at this point.
Q You don't know a good time we could come back to the State Department on that? Will you be dealing with the countries alphabetically? We might come to Colombia first and save Turkey for a few days later?
Usually, these things, when we have a chance to study the report, it's sort of a euphemism for "we hope you'll forget the question." We're certainly going to forget answering it. You do your own human rights studies, of course.
MS. SHELLY: Barry, you're not being very charitable with us today.
Q Well, when a report comes out, it's sort of unfair to ask for an instant analysis and yet --
MS. SHELLY: But your colleague --
Q He's asking a legitimate question. But if we come back to you in three days -- we can keep coming back, can't we? We'll ask and you have an answer, we'll get it; right? And if there's news, we'll report it?
MS. SHELLY: And also if we're going to approach it alphabetically, I'll let you know.
Q I just wanted a kind of a guideline, how we could go about these things.
MS. SHELLY: It's a fair question, Barry, and I'm going to check.
Q Here's an easy one. Does the State Department have a position on whether it would favor Jordan and Israel moving ahead of the pack if it could in coming to some sort of an agreement even while other tracks are still kind of unsettled? Is that something the State Department would like to see? Or, conversely, would you like to see everybody come to accord all at once?
MS. SHELLY: Barry, I think that we have long since recognized that all of the tracks were not necessarily going to proceed in either the same way or at the same speed. As to characterizing how far along they are or aren't, that is an aspect of it we'd probably refer you to them.
On the Jordan situation, when the parties were here in Washington earlier this month for the trilateral economic committee meeting, we considered that very significant progress was made on both the trilateral and bilateral fronts.
The parties are now engaged in following up on the steps announced. We, as you know, had a briefing on this and we did a press release on this on June 7 that went into rather considerable detail.
King Hussein has been here this week. He met with the President today. They also had a photo opportunity and took a couple of questions on that. We've also seen other remarks that King Hussein has made about Jordan being ready to take major steps toward normal relations with Israel.
I can certainly tell you that we welcome those statements. As the Secretary said, when he met with the King on Monday before going off on his travel, Jordan has stood for progress in the Middle East Peace process. There are great opportunities for Jordan and Israel to work together.
So we certainly are very happy with the indications of progress that we've seen on that score and on the trilateral talks and in the bilateral efforts. I think it's something we're looking at in its own right and on his own merits and certainly hope that they will be able to continue to make the kind of progress that they've made.
Q You could even hope, couldn't you, by staging some sort of September event?
MS. SHELLY: We have been, as you know, actively engaged with both parties. And I think the degree to which we have been able to work on complex issues in the trilateral context is an indication of our engagement as well as the confidence of the parties and our ability to work constructively with them.
But as to a future down-the-road event, I know it will not come as a big surprise to you that I don't have any specific comment on that.
Q Do you have anything to say about Jordan's barring of Israeli journalists at the King's news conference yesterday, that was attended by about forty American and Arab reporters?
MS. SHELLY: King Hussein himself, in the photo op at the White House, I think addressed this and gave an indication of the general picture for his own thinking as well as for Jordan. He wasn't specifically aware that there had been a problem there, but he said that -- noted that Israeli journalists are received in Jordan and he expects that in the ahead more will come.
As to the -- we heard about this incident taking place yesterday. We talked with the Jordanians about it to try to determine exactly what had transpired, and I would just generally say that we like to see as much transparency in these types of activities as possible. We like press events to be as inclusive, as far as participation goes, as is possible. But I don't think that I would draw a specific conclusion from the incident in question.
Q: What conclusion would you draw?
Q You wouldn't.
MS. SHELLY: I just said that I wouldn't draw a specific conclusion.
Q Why not? Why not?
MS. SHELLY: Because it is, I think, an incident. It is that. And various interested parties have talked with the Jordanians about it, and I think it is up to the Jordanians to lay out what the press arrangements are that they make for specific events.
Certainly from the reports that we have seen about remarks that were made, they were of great interest, and certainly had a wide audience out there. But I think that it is up to the Jordanians to make those determinations, but to also presumably do them in a way that does provide for, as I mentioned, the inclusive participation.
But I think King Hussein himself set the signal on this at the White House, which is Israeli journalists come to Jordan and he expects that he will see more.
Q If I can change the subject for a minute, the Russian Parliament yesterday voted to send several thousand troops to Abkhazia. Are you concerned that Moscow is trying to bring some of the independent republics back under its umbrella?
MS. SHELLY: As to the latter point, I think it's not -- I don't think I would make a generalization on the basis of this specific decision. This is something that has been under discussion for quite some time and had been with the Russian Parliament.
As to a reaction in this particular case about the possibility of sending Russian peacekeepers to Georgia, the United States continues to support the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Georgia. We have stated that on many previous occasions. The Russians have expressed support for those same principles.
Early in May, as you know, the U.N. Secretary General reported that due to the failure of the Georgians and of the Abkahn separatists to agree on a mandate and on an area of development for a U.N. peacekeeping operation, that he could not recommend that the U.N. deploy a peacekeeping operation at that particular time.
Later in May, in the middle of the month, the Georgians and the Abkha separatists signed a cease-fire agreement and a protocol that actually requested a Russian-led peacekeeping operation from the CIS. Thus, we view that the Russian military deployment in Georgia is with the express permission of that state.
We believe generally speaking that Russian peacekeeping forces should operate in strict accordance with international norms and standards, such as those that might be set by the United Nations or the CSCE.
We understand also that a possible U.N. Security Council resolution addressing the CIS effort is under consideration in New York.
Q A money question.
MS. SHELLY: Money.
Q Several analysts have been attributing the dollar's decline in part to an eroding -- a perception that there is an eroding U.S. strength in the world, and that there have been foreign policy failings and that investors are betting less on the dollar because of that.
Anything to that? Any reaction to that around here? Is anybody concerned about those sorts of analyses?
MS. SHELLY: Well, we certainly watch what is happening, and we certainly obviously try to make -- draw any conclusions that we feel we can, if there is a link, a tie-in on the foreign policy front. But we are -- I don't have any particular guidance with me on that, and I would decline to speculate.
I think on questions relating to the dollar movement and what that might mean, that is really much more the Treasury Department's, I think, prerogative to make statements on that. So I don't think I'll get into that one.
I am -- as an economist, David Johnson as well, we like to bring a little bit of economics to bear occasionally, but I have been told I have to resist any tendency I might have to get into the economics or other of that one.
Q But it's not the case then that the State Department is contributing to the impoverishment of American consumers in the world through its policies?
Q This announcer is the exception. (Laughter)
MS. SHELLY: That's good advice, Barry.
Q You could go to Mexico, too.
MS. SHELLY: I could go to Mexico, too. Other questions? Yes. One more, Barry.
Q Yeah, Barry, just a sec. On the, I believe it's northeast Asia and it's back to Korea, referring to the article in the Times today, the interview of General Bill Odom, is this fair game?
MS. SHELLY: I haven't read the interview.
Q Oh, okay. Well, General Odom asked - - it's a good article -- asked that, suggests the United States should heed the calls of President Boris Yeltsin and Foreign Minister Kosyrev to convene a four-power meeting with -- that is, Korea, Japan, China -- wait a minute -- Korea, Russia and Japan, a four-power meeting, to look into this Korean situation. And he had some other comments about Korea that I'd like to ask you about. But, if you haven't read that, General Odom says that we would be -- to bomb nuclear-processing facilities in North Korea would be inviting war. It wouldn't put them out of the nuclear business or bomb-building business, or the reprocessing business, and he says that this really is a regional problem that we need to approach.
MS. SHELLY: We have laid out -- the President has laid out, the Secretary has laid out, Bob Gallucci from this podium has laid out, other senior officials have laid out where we are headed, what our policy is, and what our next steps are, and I'm not going to recover that ground, and I'm not going to comment specifically on the article either.
Last question. Chris. I'm sorry. Barry told me that that was the last one.
Q Shall I go ahead?
MS. SHELLY: No. He has been trying -- Barry tells me that he is next in line. I'm sorry. Please.
Q I would like to ask you a question about Rwanda. What is the position of the United States now that the Organization of African Unity has said that the French will not go to Rwanda to intervene unilaterally? What is the position of the United States, because you have been supporting the French operation in Rwanda?
MS. SHELLY: Well, I'm not aware that the OAU has taken a categorical position against this, so that part of your question I am going to have to check and see what happened. I know there was a meeting. I maybe may have missed that part.
The Security Council, as you know, has taken up this issue today, and they are expected to in fact vote this afternoon on a resolution which would authorize a French initiative to contribute to the security and protection of the displaced people, refugees and civilians in Rwanda.
The Security Council and we view this as an initiative, which is an interim measure to step in and protect vulnerable persons in Rwanda until such time as the U.N. mission in Rwanda can be brought up to the full strength.
So that's the expectation. We support that. We believe that it is a step that can reduce, to the extent possible, the loss of life which is occurring. But as I said, we also support the multilateral approach in this, and hope that the U.N. force, the U.N. mission in Rwanda will be able to be deployed as soon as the remaining technical and logistic issues can be worked out.
Q So you will disregard the OAU position, in case you are waiting for information on that?
MS. SHELLY: Yes, again. I need to check for myself and see what the OAU has -- what position and in what way they have conveyed that to us. So, on that part of the question, again, I'm not going to be able to go any further.
Q And how does the United States -- just to follow up on that -- how does the United States address the concern which I have been reading about and hearing, that the French going in at this late stage, after much of the damage and killing has been done, might go in and support those very forces that have perpetrated much of the violence, that is, the forces of the government of Rwanda? Has the United States taken a position on that, and how do you get around that -- how do you address that fear, which apparently is a real one?
MS. SHELLY: Well, I think it's really more up to the French to try to work through the issues which have been raised and the concerns which certainly have been expressed. I know that the French themselves have been engaged in direct contacts with the RPF with a view to trying to satisfy their concerns.
And I think that the way that this is structured will take into account those sensitivities and concerns, and they are certainly not going to be looking to deploy in a way that would provoke any unnecessary incident.
So we are well aware of the reservations and concerns, as are the French. We have been in consultations with the parties about those concerns, as have the French. And I think the hope is that this can go forward in a way that takes all of those into account.
Q Yes. Last week, Prime Minister Hata of Japan said that Japan essentially has a nuclear capability. I wonder what the U.S. assessment of Japan's capability and also South Korea's capability to build a bomb?
MS. SHELLY: I don't have an answer to that. I'll check.
Q Thank you.
MS. SHELLY: Thanks.
(The press briefing concluded at l:53 p.m.)
(###)To the top of this page