Visit the The Cyprus Homepage Mirror on HR-Net Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923)
HR-Net - Hellenic Resources Network Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Thursday, 28 March 2024
 
News
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  Announcements
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Hosted
  Mirrored
  Interesting Nodes
Documents
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  Constitutions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Other
Services
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts
  Tools
  F.A.Q.
 

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #168, 97-11-24

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>


783

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Monday, November 24, 1997

Briefer: James B. Foley

IRAQ
1-3		Iraq refusal of access to Presidential sites
2-3		Update of UNSCOM Operations and access to sites
3		American build up of military in region
3-4		American participation in UNSCOM inspections
12		CIA presence in Northern Iraq

CYPRUS 4-5 Miller travel plans and agenda

MEXICO 5,7-8 Deportation of Jose Luis Del Toro

TURKEY 5-6 Refah Court Case

BOSNIA 6-7 Status of bridge at Brcko opened by Sec. Albright in July 7 SFOR involvement in keeping bridge open

CUBA 8 Mas Canosa

RUSSIA 8,9-10 Russian Submarine intercepts US carriers

ISRAEL 9 Redeployment of troops 9 Ceding of territory to Palestinian Authority

CLIMATE CHANGE 10 Leader of USDel to Kyoto Conference

NORTH KOREA 10-11 Four Party talks representation in Geneva and agenda 11,12-13 Bilateral talks this week in Washington and agenda 13 North and South Korean Bilateral

CAMBODIA 12 Return of opposition leaders to Cambodia for elections


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OFF-CAMERA DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #168

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1997, 12:50 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department. I don't have any announcements to make, and I see our dean or deans are not present. So, Sid, are you the acting dean?

QUESTION: Anything to say about Iraq's refusal to allow inspection of presidential sites?

MR. FOLEY: You're referring to the comments in television interviews over the weekend, I assume. Because we've not seen, I think, anything official. I don't believe that UNSCOM has been told anything beyond what Iraq announced last week, when it said it would comply with the UN Security Council resolutions and allow the return of the inspectors. But there were comments made by the Iraqi ambassador to the UN which, of course, we categorically reject.

The United Nations itself could not have been clearer than it was in the Security Council Resolution 1137. I quote from it, "Iraq must cooperate fully and immediately and without conditions or restrictions with the Special Commission." It went on to say that UNSCOM inspection teams must have "unrestricted access to any and all areas they wish." I think that speaks for itself.

QUESTION: Is it your understanding that there are no sites that are off limits?

MR. FOLEY: That's right. That's not only the United States' position. It's a position contained in all the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, and it's the intention of Chairman Butler and his team of commissioners.

QUESTION: So why have the UN and the US let it go the way it's been going for the last six years, with limited access?

MR. FOLEY: Well, it's been a constant struggle, Sid; there's no doubt about that. As I noted on Friday, UNSCOM has enjoyed notable success. It's been stated by many, including the President and the Secretary of State, that UNSCOM itself has uncovered and destroyed more Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs than the Coalition bombing managed to achieve in 1991.

It is doing its work in spite of the obstacles that Iraq has presented. We had this discussion last week. Iraq, obviously, is interested in having UNSCOM depart and cease its work quickly. Our position is fairly simply on that score -- that the timing of the completion of UNSCOM's work in Iraq is solely a function of the level of cooperation that they achieve. So we look towards maximum cooperation. Again, we did not note any Iraqi qualifications in their letter to the United Nations informing them of the return of UNSCOM.

QUESTION: Do you have the same tally that Secretary Cohen was showing yesterday on boards - on the Fox program?

MR. FOLEY: My understanding is that Secretary Cohen was drawing upon one of the recent UNSCOM reports to the United Nations which gave some kind of a historical look at the kinds and numbers of problems that UNSCOM has encountered in its mission. I believe the figure 63 was used, and I believe Secretary Cohen derived that from UNSCOM figures of sites. I don't think they are only presidential sites, but sites throughout the country where UNSCOM wanted to investigate and where it met, if not with denial, at least with evasion and confrontation.

QUESTION: I was wondering about the presidential sites, specifically. I was wondering, of the tally that is accepted here as factual, how many really are presidential sites, and how many are just declared presidential sites?

MR. FOLEY: I --

QUESTION: Because there might be a legitimate ground that they have that there is such a thing as a presidential palace. Nineteen seems a bit high, or whatever the number is. I'm just wondering what is the --

MR. FOLEY: I don't know the exact number of so-called presidential sites, but it's not 63; it's below that. UNSCOM, and yesterday Secretary Cohen, was describing the number of sites altogether where problems have been encountered. I don't know how many presidential sites, as such, they are, and whether even the Iraqi figure is itself plausible concerning presidential sites. But our position is clear, as is Chairman Butler's, that no site is to be off-limits to UNSCOM in the performance of its mission.

QUESTION: Does that include - I mean, let us say he has one palace where he basically stays most of the time, that even that must be subject to search by UNSCOM?

MR. FOLEY: That's an UNSCOM decision. If they have reasonable grounds for believing that their work must take them to a particular site -- whatever it may be or whatever it may be called -- because of information it has or documentation UNSCOM possesses, the Security Council resolutions, including most recently, 1137, are clear. I can quote it again, it's "unimpeded access to any sites which UNSCOM deems necessary to investigate."

QUESTION: Another subject?

MR. FOLEY: I don't know. I'll come to you if we're, surprisingly, finished with Iraq.

QUESTION: Is there any, that you're aware of, any sort of timetable for Butler - for UNSCOM to move on to the presidential sites?

MR. FOLEY: Well, you'd have to ask UNSCOM about its timetable. Obviously, they've just returned. I can give you just a little bit of information that we have, in terms of how they've fared so far, since going back on Friday. Both the Special Commission and the IAEA resumed their inspection operations in Iraq November 21 and they are visiting weapons of mass destruction related-facilities.

I would note for your information that there are now six Americans currently in Iraq working with the Special Commission and the IAEA. As UNSCOM operations return to normal, we expect the number of inspectors in Iraq will increase. UNSCOM teams, to include the US participants, have not been blocked from entering any sites since resuming operations on November 21. We understand inspectors have visited sites where cameras were turned off or equipment has been moved in order to reestablish the monitoring baselines. Other sites which are part of normal monitoring operations have also been visited.

UNSCOM's commissioners, as you know, met in an emergency session in New York on Friday and they confirmed UNSCOM and IAEA's previous assessments that inspection operations must continue in all weapons of mass destruction- related areas. They also noted, as did the commissioners that the speed in which UNSCOM and the IAEA may accomplish their responsibilities is above all determined by the degree of Iraqi cooperation in disclosing the full extent and disposition of its proscribed programs and in granting UNSCOM and the IAEA unimpeded access to sites, documents and records.

Finally, I would note also that there was a U-2 flight today that took photographs of weapons of mass destruction-related facilities requested by UNSCOM and IAEA. Any further details, though, as I said at the outset, you'd have to refer to UNSCOM, in terms of their time table of future inspection activities.

QUESTION: If the inspections so far have gone unfettered and unrestricted, can you please give a sense of how long the American build-up in the region is expected to continue?

MR. FOLEY: Well, obviously, I'd have to refer you to the Pentagon for specific operational details. That's a matter, ultimately, for decision by the President, in terms of how long those deployments continue.

He made very clear over the weekend that we're still on our guard, that this story is not over, and that continued vigilance is necessary. Beyond that, I really wouldn't want to comment.

QUESTION: Do you expect the number of inspectors to increase, and would those include Americans or --

MR. FOLEY: That's our understanding, certainly.

QUESTION: More Americans would be going in?

MR. FOLEY: Well, more inspectors. I don't have the figures in terms of what percentage Americans are in the current numbers of UNSCOM inspectors, but we wouldn't expect any change in that now.

QUESTION: Is there a connection between the degree to which they're given access and the presence of the American fleets?

MR. FOLEY: Well, now you're asking more of a philosophical question that relates back to the activities - especially the diplomatic activities of the last week - that led to the Iraqi reversal in allowing the UNSCOM teams to return.

I think we've noted several times that the diplomatic efforts which to this stage, anyway, have borne fruition were, in our view, significantly aided by the robust presence of American forces in the region.

QUESTION: Right, but I'm just wondering if whether the converse holds true. Since now you've made a diplomatic breakthrough and they seem to be proceeding unhindered, what is the logic of staying there?

MR. FOLEY: The logic of staying there, I think, has been stated eloquently by both the President and Secretary Albright and Secretary Cohen, as well; that we're still in a watching mode. We don't consider that the issue is closed.

The teams have returned; they've started their work. Let's see whether they're able now to work more effectively. Remember, as I mentioned on Friday, we're interested in more than a return to the status quo ante. We had this discussion here in this room then. The fact is that Iraq was not fully cooperating even before the latest crisis. To the extent that everyone in the world community is interested in an effective UNSCOM that's able to do its work rapidly, that's what we're looking for; and we think it depends entirely on Iraqi acquiescence and cooperation.

QUESTION: I thought the purpose of the build-up was to make the point that they have to allow the inspectors back in and to operate unhindered, which seems to be happening. So I don't quite understand, then, what is the purpose of that enormous build-up today.

MR. FOLEY: I think the story is not over. They've been back in Iraq, the inspectors, since Friday. It's only Monday. We're not about to draw any kinds of significant conclusions at this earliest stage in the process following their return.

QUESTION: The State Department coordinator for Cyprus, Mr. Tom Miller, is visiting Athens today. Can you tell us about his agenda?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not familiar with his agenda, as we speak. I'd be happy to look into the issue of his trip.

In terms of what's going on in the Cyprus process, we are aware that the UN Secretary General's Cyprus representative, Mr. Cordovez, visited Cyprus last week and met with leaders of both communities. He said afterwards that he plans to return to Cyprus in March of next year, following the Cypriot presidential elections, to resume UN-sponsored settlement talks between Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash. We continue to support the UN process and coordinate closely with the UN and our European partners. And certainly, Mr. Miller is doing that today in Athens.

But in terms of his itinerary and his agenda, I don't have that for you, but if I can get something, I'll get back to you.

QUESTION: Mexico is holding Jose Luis Del Toro, who is wanted in the murder of the mother of the quads in Florida. Is the United States urging Mexico to release this individual to stand trial in the US?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, we are. Mr. Del Toro was arrested last Thursday in Monterrey, Mexico, by the Mexican immigration authorities, for being in Mexico without proper immigration documentation. And it's our understanding that the government of Mexico expects to deport him to the United States as soon as the paperwork has been completed. He's wanted, as you said, to stand trial for murder of Shiela Bellush, in the Circuit Court of Sarasota County, Florida.

QUESTION: If I may follow up, do you - is there any fear that we will get involved in extradition proceedings in which Mexico then might hold him because he would be subject to the death penalty?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think it's really apples and oranges, because what's involved here is not an extradition matter. Mr. Del Toro is an American citizen, so the Mexicans are in the process of moving towards his deportation.

QUESTION: The court dates for closing the Islamist Refah Party in Turkey is coming to a close, an end. And there are talks a new Islamist party might be in the offing. Does the department have any views on that?

MR. FOLEY: On which, on the court case, or on -

QUESTION: The court case.

MR. FOLEY: Well, we're following the case with interest and have been throughout these months. We believe that the outcome of this case will have an influence or an impact on Turkish democracy and secularism, both of which we strongly support.

I would hesitate to comment directly about an ongoing court case, but I can note that the Turkish constitution itself -- which is the criterion at stake here, I believe, in the court case -- protects not only the secular foundation of the state, but also its democratic foundation. We would expect that the court will issue a decision consistent with these principles. We would be concerned with any decision which ended up damaging confidence in Turkey's democratic multiparty system.

QUESTION: May I follow up? If the court proved that the reason for closing the party is because it violates the Turkish constitution itself, would that make a difference in the Department's evaluation?

MR. FOLEY: This is a matter for the Turkish court to decide. It's certainly not a matter for the Deputy Spokesman of the State Department to decide. I would hesitate, really, to comment too specifically. What I would say, though, and merely to repeat what I mentioned a moment ago, is that at the end of the day we would hope that the image of Turkey as a strong secular and democratic state with a democratic multiparty system would remain intact. I wouldn't want to go further than that, though.

QUESTION: I didn't ask you to decide - pass a judgment on whether Refah violated the Turkish constitution or not. I said, if the Turkish courts decided that the party violated the Turkish constitution, would that still be considered by the Department as a violation of Turkish democratic tradition?

MR. FOLEY: Well, let's cross that bridge when we come to it. I think I've stated clearly - as clearly as I think I can - our view on this court case. Let's now await the outcome.

QUESTION: Speaking of bridges, Secretary Albright, last June I think it was, with great ceremony and fanfare and a lot of cameras rolling, opened up a bridge in Bosnia that I guess crosses the Sava River - links Bosnia with Croatia.

I think she had all sorts of rhetoric about how this was going to open the way to Europe. It turns out Vice President Ganic is in town this morning and made a speech at the US Institute of Peace. He said that, on the contrary, the Bosnian traffic is not allowed to use this bridge. The Republika Srpska officials stop traffic; they search; they ask questions; they make it totally impossible. This is kind of a bottling up of the entire Federation's commercial traffic as a result.

I was just wondering, it raises two questions. One is, how did this happen? How could she open a bridge that never opened? And secondly, the whole question of follow-through on major announcements that she makes didn't seem to occur in this case.

MR. FOLEY: You're referring to the bridge at Brcko?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. FOLEY: Which she did open on her visit there to Bosnia. It was an important occasion. It is something that Secretary Albright highlighted and believes in strongly: the re-opening of links between, first, the components of the Federation with each other; and then ultimately, with the rest of Europe and the outside world.

Roy, I would hesitate to give you an answer, absent sufficient information. So I'd be glad to look into it. My perhaps faulty recollection is that the bridge was open to traffic for many months and that it operated smoothly in fulfillment of the goals that the Secretary indicated and described.

I think a matter of some weeks or months ago SFOR came down off the bridge. They had been present there for those initial months. Following their departure from the bridge, the traffic was continuing to flow in both directions. Now, if that has changed, it's news to me.

I'd have to refer you, first of all to SFOR. If we're able to develop any information on that ourselves today, I could get back to you. But I think you ought to talk to SFOR in the first instance.

QUESTION: Granted SFOR has charge of it, but that raises a question: who's supervising SFOR? How can SFOR just sit by and watch people being turned away from what is the only actual artery from a land-locked state to the rest of Europe? I think Mr. Ganic represents that state in question, and it is the Federation. In fact, he says that as a result of this, the Croats in - Herceg-Bosnia, or whatever they call themselves, are able to stop traffic and slow traffic and raise the price of goods going in at that end. So the country's bottled up.

This is not just a matter of traffic. It's a matter, really, of the vital flow of a country's goods and services and people.

MR. FOLEY: Well, without minimizing in any way the importance of what you're saying and if it's true, it would be a matter of great concern. As I said, I'll have to look into it for you, and I urge you to speak to SFOR as well. But it's not the only avenue of transit, commerce and communication that exists in the Federation; there are others. In fact, you saw last week the re-opening of the Banja Luka airport, which is significant in our view. Sarajevo was opened quite some time previous to that, and there are other routes of communication.

But your point is a good one, and as I said, I'd be happy to look into it for you.

QUESTION: I'm a little bit confused about the Del Toro case. You say it's an apples and oranges on deportation versus extradition. Did not he come to the attention of Mexican authorities as a murder suspect? So how does he become a deportation case when he was arrested as a murder suspect to begin with?

MR. FOLEY: I don't know under what circumstances he was arrested. As I stated, he was arrested as a foreigner, an alien lacking appropriate immigration papers to be present in Mexico. I suspect he was arrested on that basis. Whether prior to or immediately subsequent to his arrest, US and Mexican authorities have been in touch with each other. This man is an American citizen wanted in Florida in a murder case. We are discussing [the case] with the Mexicans and expect him to be deported on that basis.

QUESTION: If I may follow up, the Mexicans have told the US that he's considered a deportation case?

MR. FOLEY: That is my understanding, yes.

QUESTION: If I may follow up one more time, in other cases -- in some other murder cases in which the suspect would face the death penalty, Mexico has refused to extradite. I realize that's different from this.

MR. FOLEY: Right.

QUESTION: What is the position of the American Government on that practice of not extraditing murder suspects because they may face the death penalty in the US?

MR. FOLEY: We have an extradition treaty with the government of Mexico. I'd have to refer you to that, to its particulars. But we believe that it provides sufficient legal grounds for us to request and for the Mexicans to grant extradition in such cases. And obviously, the converse applies, involving Americans wanted for crimes committed in Mexico.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the death of Jorge Mas Canosa?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I do. I think the President issued a statement yesterday on behalf of himself and the First Lady. I expect we'll hear from the Secretary of State on the subject later, so I wouldn't want to pre-empt her views on it. But obviously, the entire Administration is saddened with his passing. The President and First Lady have passed their condolences on to his family.

QUESTION: It was reported in Sunday's Washington Times that a Russian sub recently stopped three US aircraft carriers. Have we discussed this with the Russians, and what are we doing about this? Are we launching any type of diplomatic protest? Will this affect Mr. Gore's upcoming meeting with the Russian Prime Minister? What is your response?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of the report. I'd be happy to take the question and see if we know anything about it.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. FOLEY: Patrick. I'm staying - looking on the right hand --

QUESTION: Jumped in there to get my chance.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I depend on you to express yourselves stronger than the left side.

QUESTION: Israel is reported to be considering withdrawing from between 6 and 8 percent of the territories, and there's also a New York Times report this morning that the United States is seeking, I think "credible" is the word used, credible withdrawal as a next step. Do you have any comment on either of those?

MR. FOLEY: Not a terribly elaborate comment on either of those. Obviously, the question of further redeployments is part of the four-part agenda that the Secretary has discussed with the parties -- most recently with the Prime Minister and Chairman Arafat in Europe in the last weeks. It's an issue that we're discussing with the parties and one that we'd like to see progress on.

But I have no comment, though, on the specific report because the fact of the matter is that we have not discussed figures and percentages of this nature with the Israeli Government. So I can't react to proposals that we haven't seen.

QUESTION: That same report in a New York newspaper says that the United States, President Clinton, in fact, has threatened the Israelis to go public with what they think is a "credible" amount of territory to cede to the Palestinians. Can you address that in any way?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think, in a general way, that article that you're referring to suggested that we were pressuring or threatening the Prime Minister, and I can reject that.

But in terms of what our negotiating strategy is, I really wouldn't want to get into it, because obviously, if we're going to succeed in our negotiations, we're going to have to deal with the parties directly. I'm not prepared to negotiate from the podium. We have ideas; it's not that we've been bereft of ideas and we haven't communicated them. We have them; we have had them; and we've been raising with them privately. But I'm not prepared to discuss them from the podium.

QUESTION: Are you saying that you haven't read the article, or that you're not aware of --

MR. FOLEY: I've read the article.

QUESTION: Okay, so you're --

MR. FOLEY: Oh, I'm sorry, on your question or on Sid's question?

QUESTION: Yes, on my question.

MR. FOLEY: No, I'm not aware of the report at all.

QUESTION: You're not aware of the article or the report?

MR. FOLEY: Just to be careful, you better define again what issue you're talking about.

QUESTION: The Russian submarine stalking the US aircraft carrier.

MR. FOLEY: I've not seen it; I'm not aware of it. I will look into it.

QUESTION: So I can get back to you later on it.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Who will be heading the US delegation to Kyoto, Japan, in December?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have an announcement on that. I think it will come out of the White House when we have it.

QUESTION: On North Korea, last week you reached agreement to have substantial talks - so-called four-party talks in Geneva.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: There is speculation that some countries might send a cabinet- level as a chief negotiator to Geneva. I want to know, who is going to be the chief negotiator from this country?

MR. FOLEY: We haven't decided that yet. Certainly the United States and the other three parties will be represented by senior officials, under the direction of ministers; and in our case, under the direction of Secretary Albright. Certainly Secretary Albright is prepared to meet with her counterparts as and when appropriate, and when they are all available.

The United States is going to chair, as it was agreed, the first session in Geneva on December 9. But we're not yet in a position to announce the composition of our delegation.

QUESTION: North Korea seems to bring issues which were not resolved in the past two preliminary talks, regarding withdrawal of US troops from the Korean Peninsula - long-term food assistance - lifting the sanctions. So they might raise this issue in substantial talks. Is it okay for United States to accept the discussion, or you don't like to discuss that?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think you're familiar with the difficulties that we had to overcome in order to achieve the important success that was achieved in New York on Friday. Many of the issues you cite divided the parties. The United States had long maintained that the four-party talks were important in their own right, and that we weren't going to link those talks to any other issues.

Indeed, the whole question of the agenda was the final issue that it took an extra several months to reach agreement upon; and agreement was reached in New York on Friday. We have always said that once the plenary talks begin in Geneva, that any side could raise any issue it wished, any issue of concern. All of us - all four parties - have issues to raise in that context, and we were very happy that all four parties agreed on Geneva to an agenda that would permit the talks to go forward.

QUESTION: When will you have bilateral talks with North Korea? Last Friday, a high-rank official of the State Department in New York said the United States was going to have another bilateral talk with the North Koreans this week.

MR. FOLEY: There will be bilateral meetings this week, yes.

QUESTION: Not today?

MR. FOLEY: Not today, no.

QUESTION: In New York?

MR. FOLEY: In Washington.

QUESTION: Tomorrow?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have that.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. FOLEY: If I can. I think I indicated that we expect there will be bilateral talks this week in Washington. I have no more on that.

QUESTION: The Koreans will be coming here, then?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Have North Korean officials come here before for talks?

MR. FOLEY: I believe so. I'd have to check that for you, Roy. I'm still sort of new in the job.

QUESTION: What about senior level?

MR. FOLEY: I think at the vice foreign minister level. I don't have the name.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - facts and figures?

MR. FOLEY: Maybe not today; tomorrow, perhaps.

QUESTION: But we need it today, now that you've announced it. Seriously. I mean, since you announced it --

MR. FOLEY: I answered a question.

QUESTION: Jane's Foreign Relations magazine, published in London, claimed that the CIA -- almost 20 CIA agents entered Northern Iraq again. They settled down at the Irbil area. Can we say that it means the USA is hopeful to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein again, or can we say you support Iraqi opposition groups becoming more powerful than before?

MR. FOLEY: You'll be very surprised, having been a veteran of this briefing room, that I'm not in a position to comment on that sort of topic.

QUESTION: It was a published story.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about Sam Rainsy's imminent return to Cambodia?

MR. FOLEY: I'd have to get myself up to speed on the issue. But in general, our policy has been clear ever since the events of last July. We believe that all the opposition politicians ought to be able to go back to Cambodia freely, without any fear of prosecution, intimidation, harassment, and resume their political activities if there is to be hope for free, fair democratic elections next year, which meet the terms of the Paris peace accords.

QUESTION: Iran next month is hosting the Islamic conference meeting. I'm wondering if the United States has a position on that - on whether you've discouraged governments to go or --

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that we've had discussions with other governments in the region about that conference specifically.

QUESTION: The bilateral talks with North Korea that you mentioned a moment ago - what is the topic of discussion?

MR. FOLEY: There's a general agenda item that was the main focus of the agreement that was reached on Friday, and I can quote to you. It's "the establishment of a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula, and issues concerning tension reduction there." But the purpose of the plenary talks is clearly to replace the informal armistice agreement that's been in place now for some 40 years, and to reach some kind of a permanent agreement that will lead to a reduction in the dangerous situation that has prevailed there for over four decades.

QUESTION: I understand that, but I'm talking about the bilateral discussions. I assume that the peace treaty is not going to be negotiated bilaterally.

MR. FOLEY: You're talking about the discussions that the United States will have with North Korea --

QUESTION: Right. Is that what you said, this week in Washington, bilateral?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, yes, yes.

QUESTION: What's the topic?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I was not intending to make a formal announcement, as Sid indicated, so I'd have to wait until later in the week, when we are actually having the meetings or about to have them. We have a range of issues that we discuss with the North Koreans, that won't be of any surprise to you.

QUESTION: Jim, was there any bilateral exchanges between the North and the South Koreans in New York on Friday?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that. There was a background briefing in New York following the negotiations, and that may have been covered. I never saw the transcript of it.

Anything else?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. FOLEY: Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:25 P.M.)


U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
Back to Top
Copyright © 1995-2023 HR-Net (Hellenic Resources Network). An HRI Project.
All Rights Reserved.

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.01a run on Tuesday, 25 November 1997 - 1:23:27 UTC