INDEX
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 1999
Briefer: JAMES B. FOLEY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB # 77
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 1999 1:25 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

................

QUESTION: Can we go to Korea?

MR. FOLEY: Let's go to Korea.

QUESTION: I have two questions. I would like to ask you if the New York channel is still open; and if it is, what has been talked about since? Another question is, it seems to me that in Korea the tension is very high. Are you still on the same state of alert? Yesterday, Mr. Rubin said that US forces in Korea is in a normal state of readiness.

MR. FOLEY: That remains the case. US forces do remain in a normal state of readiness today. Our information is that the situation, though probably not fully resolved, has quieted, has calmed somewhat since yesterday. There certainly have been no further incidents since the June 15 confrontation between ROK and DPRK naval vessels. There have been no crossings of the Northern Limit Line by DPRK warships that have been noted in the last 24 hours.

I'd have to refer you to the Pentagon, though, about any additional details about the state of our readiness; but it does remain at a normal state. We obviously remain in close touch with the ROK Government. Throughout this process we're continuing to monitor the situation carefully, and we are working closely with the authorities in Seoul to try to diffuse the situation and to reduce tensions.

At the same time, to answer your first question, we contacted the DPRK through the New York channel to urge strongly that they remain north of the Northern Limit Line. We note again that DPRK naval forces are currently staying north of that line. We believe that reducing tensions by avoiding another confrontation is in everyone's best interest. We welcome the DPRK decision to attend the UN command general officers' talks on June 15 in Panmujom.

As we stated at the time, it was unfortunate that the talks recessed without a result. But the fact that they were able to talk, as opposed to confront each other, is a positive development. We understand that there's a second invitation by the UN command for the DPRK to have talks and it's pending, currently, a reply from the North.

We urge the DPRK to continue to participate in these discussions so that a way to resolve the situation peacefully can be found and recurrences prevented.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - your response to that first question. You contacted the DPRK through the New York channel. Was there any outcome of this from this contact?

MR. FOLEY: Well, certainly, the channel in New York is not a decision-making authority; it's a diplomatic channel by which we can pass messages to the authorities in North Korea. So they passed along the message.

As indicated, the actual talks that took place under UN auspices yesterday, I believe, did not produce a result at the time. So we can't say that this problem has been solved politically. What we can say, though, is that there have been no further incidents in the last 24 hours and that there's not been a further naval confrontation. The DPRK forces have remained north of the Northern Limit Line since that last incident. We are strongly urging all sides to continue to avoid the line to avoid confrontation because we believe it's in everyone's interest - not one party's interest, but in everyone's interest - to avoid confrontation and to move to reduce the tensions.

QUESTION: If I may also follow up, I understand you said the forces that are there are remaining at a normal state of alert. But is the United States moving to augment those forces in any way?

MR. FOLEY: I'd have to refer you to the Pentagon on the actual disposition of forces.

QUESTION: So you're not aware --

MR. FOLEY: I don't have any information on that. Certainly, if it's a question of military operational matters, the Pentagon would have to answer that. I've been informed that our state of readiness is at normal levels. But in terms of the actual disposition of military assets, that's a Pentagon question.

QUESTION: A couple of points - your normal state of readiness here is a high-alert state; is that correct?

MR. FOLEY: I would have to refer you to the Pentagon to describe the normal state of readiness. I mean, whatever the normal state is, you would be in your rights to read something significant if we had ratcheted it up, if it were different from the normal state. I'm informed that it is the normal state. Certainly we remain vigilant. That is a normal pattern of our forces in -

QUESTION: I may be wrong, but they're under a state of alert - there is a highest state of alert, but that's - you said that there had been a second invitation issued by the UN?

MR. FOLEY: By the UN, yes.

QUESTION: For the North Koreans to come back to Panmujom for more talks?

MR. FOLEY: Exactly. We understand that's pending decision in Pyongyang.

QUESTION: And what would constitute a political settlement here? You mentioned there's no political settlement. What are you looking for?

MR. FOLEY: Maybe I used the wrong words there. Certainly, I don't think we can expect any kind of a formal written agreement on this matter. After all, this has been a de facto practice - an informal understanding, dating back more than 40 years - that both North and South Korea will try to respect this line as simply a practical matter. It's never been memorialized, I think, or formalized. So that's not what I'm referring to.

But I am referring to something a little more than the mere fact that there hasn't been an incident in the last 24 hours. Some further understanding that there won't be further incidents. So I think I over-sold the -

QUESTION: These are actually international waters, is that right?

MR. FOLEY: That's my understanding.

QUESTION: And why would North Korea not have a right to fish international waters, except for this agreement that's not really an agreement for the Northern Limit Line?

MR. FOELY: I think the question is really one of what's in the national interests of both North and South Korea here; namely, the avoidance of confrontation -- the ability to manage their relationship so that tensions are reduced and they're able to move forward towards a better relationship overall. Obviously that's difficult to achieve if forces are in close proximity and running into each other. It's simply a practical matter that we believe serves both sides' interests.

QUESTION: Would you like to see some arrangement where the North Koreans would be able to fish these waters -

MR. FOLEY: I wouldn't want to comment on the specifics. This is a very serious, even potentially volatile matter. For me to prescribe different solutions wouldn't be appropriate from this public forum. I certainly don't have any information that's been given to me in that regard.

QUESTION: On the second invitation, can you tell us when it went out; and does it specify a time and place?

MR. FOLEY: I'd have to refer you to the UN command on those precise details. The talks were held on the 15th, which is yesterday - although it's a different time zone. And today is the following day, so whether the invitation was issued immediately following that meeting yesterday or issued today, I don't know; it's probably not a big difference

QUESTION: Were you informed from DOD that the state of alert is the same level?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: How did you pass the message to the North Koreans through the New York channel? Did you have a -- (inaudible) - meeting or did you send a message through the fax or something?

MR. FOLEY: Really, that's a level of detail that doesn't necessarily rise to the level of that which I'm provided with every day. We use the New York channel; whether it was by telephone, fax or in person, I don't know. It's not, I think, arguably, all that important.

QUESTION: What was their reaction?

MR. FOLEY: As I indicated before, they undertook to pass the message to Pyongyang.

QUESTION: Different subject?

QUESTION: As far as the Perry consultations and the deal that is on the table, does this get wrapped up into this at all? Something may have happened while I was out of town with the Secretary - have you all released his --

MR. FOLEY: No, no.

QUESTION: Where does all that stand?

MR. FOLEY: I think, to give a serious answer to your question, it's not directly connected to the Perry review. But I think if you look at what I said a few minutes ago, in terms of the interest that all sides have in diffusing this issue, it could conceivably complicate efforts that all of us are undertaking to reduce tensions, to promote reconciliation and better relations on the Korean Peninsula and with other countries, including the United States. It's not a part of the Perry review as such, as you know, but certainly we do hope that this situation can be put behind us, can be resolved, tensions reduced, and that we don't see a recurrence of such incidents.

In terms of Dr. Perry's review, though, you were away last week. Last week he was here in Washington and spent a couple days up on the Hill briefing various members. There had been some reporting to the effect that he'd already finished his review; that was untrue. He has met with and consulted with members of Congress at different points of his review, and regarded his meetings last week as important meetings to provide additional input into his review as he's nearing his completion. It's not finished; we expect it to be finished in the near future. I don't know exactly when he's going to cross every t, dot every i. But that was an important round of consultations on the Hill last week.

QUESTION: Could you expand a little bit? You say this situation could conceivably complicate efforts by all of you to promote reconciliation.

MR. FOLEY: I'm speaking generally; I'm not referring to Dr. Perry as such. But I made the earlier point, though, about the fact that each side - I'm just talking now strictly about the North and South Koreans. They've made efforts in recent months to make progress bilaterally. I'm sure each side recognizes this is not a helpful type of incident or confrontation; that it would be in both their interests to put this behind them.

QUESTION: Would the United States consider rethinking whatever offer it might be in Mr. Perry's review that was presented in Pyongyang if this escalated up?

MR. FOLEY: Well, that's a hypothetical question. Right now, we have, fortunately, 24 hours of relative calm where they haven't had a further confrontation. We would like to see another meeting under UN auspices. We would like to see each side back down in a more thorough-going way from this confrontation. We believe it's in the interest of all sides for that to happen.

Dr. Perry's review proceeds apace, and it has to do with, obviously - and I don't want to get into the specifics or the details because we haven't done that. But as you know, we have very large concerns about North Korean efforts in the nuclear field, in the missile field, missile testing, missile production, missile export. Those are the areas of utmost security concern to the United States.

................

(The briefing concluded at 2:10 P.M.)

[end of document]