June 1, 1998
PRESS BRIEFING BY MIKE MCCURRY
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 1, 1998
PRESS BRIEFING BY
MIKE MCCURRY
The Briefing Room
1:20 P.M. EDT
...................
MR. MCCURRY: The President plans on Wednesday morning to
meet with Secretary Albright prior to Secretary Albright's departure
for Geneva.
You may know, and it has now been announced at the State
Department that the Secretary did successfully convene a meeting of
her Permanent Five counterparts. They will be discussing the
situation in South Asia and upon conclusion of that meeting, the
Secretary will depart for Geneva. The President will depart as
scheduled for Cleveland and pick up the schedule that he was to
pursue in Cleveland.
Q So both will be day trips now?
MR. MCCURRY: Correct. Yes, Wednesday is out and back.
Q Why the urgency?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, the situation with respect to India
and Pakistan is a difficult one, is one that the President has
instructed his national security team to pay very close attention to,
which was the purpose of the meeting that the Secretary took part in
organizing over the weekend. I also suspect, as you heard us say
last week, that this meeting of the Permanent Five ministers will be
a prelude to further work our international community will do with
respect to India and Pakistan. And so I anticipate additional
higher-level meetings in the coming days and weeks.
Q Higher level?
MR. MCCURRY: Additional high-level meetings.
Q That's in Geneva, the Permanent Five meeting?
MR. MCCURRY: Correct.
Q Do you have a departure time on Wednesday.
MR. MCCURRY: Don't have it yet. They're working on the
logistics of how we make this change right now, so we'll advise --
the Travel Office will be able to advise you on what it means for
your own travel plans.
Q Do you think the President would ask the
leaders of India and Pakistan to come to Washington, as he has
often had people like Arafat and Netanyahu come to Washington?
MR. MCCURRY: I think the President of the United
States would spare no effort in working to reduce tensions on the
Indian subcontinent. I think that the President feels it's very
important for both India and Pakistan to refrain from further
provocative steps, to avoid steps that would exacerbate the
tensions that already exist. The President would call upon them
to ratify and join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty regime
without condition. And certainly the President would want to see
both governments join in efforts to stem the production of
fissile materials.
All of that the President has conveyed and would
convey. What additional kinds of meetings arise from the work
that we begin with the meeting in Geneva later this week remains
to be seen.
Q But Geneva might lead to such an effort, if you
thought it was going to be productive?
MR. MCCURRY: If you wanted to speculate that that
was a possible outcome you could only at this point say that
that's speculation, because there's nothing that would indicate
that the dialogue had moved in that direction. Clearly, it's the
position of our government that India and Pakistan ought to
resume the kind of dialogue that they have pursued in the past
and that is important. But the work that will be done in Geneva
and then presumably additional meetings to come will be designed
to coordinate an international community approach to both
governments as we attempt to get them to reduce tensions.
Q Why has the U.S. never acknowledged Israel's
acquisition of the nuclear bomb and big arsenals?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, we have a longstanding U.S.
government view with respect to the military capability of
governments in that region. We strongly favor a just,
comprehensive and lasting peace in that region that would allow
the Middle East to become a nuclear weapons-free zone. We've
made that clear. And our work and our diplomacy has been aimed
at that end.
Q Well, what is your longstanding view of the
military capabilities of -- I mean, who do you think has it and
who do you think doesn't?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, we don't talk about precise
capabilities, but we have a dialogue and a fruitful dialogue with
the government of Israel that includes matters related to
proliferation-related concerns.
..................
Q The advanced copy of Newsweek saying that the
Pakistani bomb will expand and -- or it will be given to the
Arabic and the Muslim world. Do you think the Israelis will be
worried about because Pakistan is calling it --
MR. MCCURRY: Well, both governments deny that they
intend to do anything that would allow any of their technologies
to be transferred. Obviously, that's not an expression that we
take solely at face value and we will continue to monitor
carefully the kind of work that they are doing with respect to
their programs. It's our view, among other things, that both
governments, by signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, by
adhering to nonproliferation treaty norms, by coming under
full-scope safeguards of the IAEA would take a long and good step
in the direction of controlling the proliferation of that
technology.
Q But Mike, if they haven't signed --
Q -- it was tested near the Iranian border and
Iran has offered that maybe a billion dollars or like Qadhafi did
several years ago.
MR. MCCURRY: Well, the United States government is
well aware of the interests of the government of Iran in
acquiring technologies related to weapons of mass destruction.
That's why we worked so hard to prevent the distribution, the
proliferation of exactly that technology.
Q Well, since they haven't signed those
conventions, what is the U.S. view of their proliferation record
-- both countries, India and Pakistan?
MR. MCCURRY: It's actually mixed. There have not
been indications that I'm aware of -- I'd have to check this --
that they have engaged in transfer of technologies related to
their nuclear programs. But, obviously, it remains a source of
concern.
Q Does the U.S. have any indications from India
and or Pakistan that they are open to third-party-led
negotiations?
MR. MCCURRY: We, as you know, have instructed our
Ambassador to return to New Delhi and our Ambassador in Islamabad
to remain there so that we could continue close consultations
with those governments and we will determine their disposition on
that question. I think that there's agreement in our government
that working with others in the international community to form
kind of a matrix of appeals and approaches to both governments
makes sense. and that's the purpose of the meeting in Geneva
later this week. We wouldn't be doing it if we didn't think that
there was at least some chance that both governments would be
receptive to that type of approach.
Q Well, do you think that the United States would
be a good candidate to try to convene such a meeting between
India and Pakistan?
MR. MCCURRY: I think it's better said that the
United States has been working with a number of other interested
and concerned governments to coordinate a strong international
appeal. That's what we're doing and that appears to be working.
Q And just one last thing. Has the President
previously ever met in person the Indian Prime Minister or the
Pakistani Prime Minister?
MR. MCCURRY: He's not met Vajpayee, to my memory,
nor Sharif, although, he's now had several conversations with
Prime Minister Sharif. I don't know an opportunity he would have
had to meet Prime Minister Sharif.
Q And has he had conversations with --
Q He met Sharif at the U.N. --
MR. MCCURRY: At the U.N.? We can check. P.J. can
check on that for you.
Q We know he's had a lot of conversations with
Sharif. Has he talked on the phone directly to Vajpayee?
MR. MCCURRY: P.J. can check on that and get the
record.
Q When is the U.S. Ambassador going back --
MR. MCCURRY: I don't know Ambassador Celeste's
schedule. I know that he's been instructed to return.
Q Is the President's trip to India and Pakistan
still be considered?
MR. MCCURRY: It's under review.
Q What's the likelihood that he'll go?
MR. MCCURRY: I'm not going to predict.
................
Q Mike, do we know yet what set off the Indian
bomb? Do we know about what crisis in the relationship between
India and Pakistan that made them think they had a --
MR. MCCURRY: Do we know --
Q We don't know anything.
MR. MCCURRY: It's a complicated question. We know
that those are two governments that have experienced tension for
five decades and have fought three wars between them. And we
know that domestic political pressures, regional insecurities and
the desires --
Q But precipitated by what -- nothing. Why now?
Kashmir has always been the --
MR. MCCURRY: Why now? Well, there was a change of
government in India and a new Prime Minister whose political
program included acknowledgement of what had long been believed
to be India's nuclear capability. I mean, that's, simply put,
the single most different indicator was the new government.
Q Do we know if there is any resistance, or any
significant resistance to this fallout with the experimentation
in that part of the world? Do we -- we don't know anything about
what's going on there, do we, if we didn't even know they were
going to set off --
MR. MCCURRY: We knew a great deal and, of course, a
lot of it is transparent. There's been a very healthy and
vibrant debate in the Indian Parliament over the last two days in
which those questions were raised and addressed by the opposition
to the current government.
Q Mike, India plans -- war by Pakistan in
Kashmir, and also, what do you think from these nuclear tests,
what is the future of Kashmir?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, the status of Jammu and Kashmir
is as it has been. They are disputed territories and have been
for some time, and they have to be resolved taking in the
concerns of the affected peoples. That's been our longstanding
view.
................
Q Mike, has the President had any communications
with the Pakistani leader, or has the U.S. sent any new messages
since Saturday to India and Pakistan?
MR. MCCURRY: There's been diplomatic contact
through our embassies, but I'm not aware of any exchanges at
highest levels. I'll double-check that.
Q Any plans for a new presidential conversation
with the Pakistani or Indian leaders?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, we clearly -- as we coordinate
our approach with other governments, the President's thinking
will be reflected in the diplomatic work we're doing. But our
focus now will be on the meeting coming up in Geneva.
................
Q Mike, to come back to the trip to India and
Pakistan, last week it was, we're not talking about change, we
have no changes; today you say it's under review. Is that --
MR. MCCURRY: I think I said under review last week.
No change from the fact that it's under review. But obviously,
being under review is different from what we said before.
Q Does the President have some specific
instructions in mind to give Secretary Albright, or is this just
a general conversation that he's going to have with her?
MR. MCCURRY: He's got some specific ideas that he
will be sharing with her, yes.
Q I'm sorry, you just said being under review is
different from what we've said before?
MR. MCCURRY: Right. Before we were sort of saying
we haven't made any -- announced any change in the trip, and now
we're saying we're under review, and obviously those are two
different things that you could say. But we said, under review,
last week.
Q -- time to make a judgment --
MR. MCCURRY: Right, plenty of time to make a
judgment and plenty of ways in which we can continue our
diplomatic efforts.
Q So what are the things that are under review?
MR. MCCURRY: What is the utility of a presidential
visit to that part of the world, what could the President do to
profitably advance the interests of the American people in such a
trip, and whether or not such a trip could contribute to our
efforts at this critical moment to deal with our
proliferation-related concerns. A lot to think about and
probably no decision would have to be made on that for quite some
time.
Q Did you get an answer on whether he's met with
the Indian Prime Minister before?
MR. MCCURRY: He met in September last year at the
U.N. General Assembly meeting with Prime Minister Sharif, and
he's spoken by phone March 20th with Prime Minister Vajpayee.
But no meeting in person.
Q Mike, is one of the options cancelling the
trip?
MR. MCCURRY: If a trip is under review that means
there's no decision to go, so you either you go or you don't go.
So that would be --
Q Not necessarily. Maybe the decision to go is
under review. It still stands unless a review decides to reverse
it.
MR. MCCURRY: It's under review.
Q Mike, do you think the President's trip depends
on --
MR. MCCURRY: I think a lot of factors will go into
making the decision about whether or not to go.
Q -- on high-level meetings in Washington --
MR. MCCURRY: Lots of factors will be considered.
............
Q Mike, on the India-Pakistan trips review, is
the President's safety a factor that would be included in that
area of high --
MR. MCCURRY: His security is an issue whenever he
goes anywhere, but he's always well protected.
Q Mike, did you go through what are the ideas
that he wants to give to Secretary Albright?
MR. MCCURRY: I'm not going to spell those out, but
it will be designed to -- how can the international community
best promote and encourage the developments we want to see at
this point. We think chief among them are demonstrations by both
governments that they understand the dangerous situation that
their respective decisions have provoked, and that they
understand those things they could do to build confidence in the
world community's understanding of their future intent -- that it
is a non-military, non-threatening, non-escalatory approach and
instead that it's one that understands the value the
international community attaches to nonproliferation.
There's a number of things that they can do and
certainly a number of things that we have in mind that we would
like to see if other governments in the Security Council share
and that's the work we'll do.
................
Q Is it conceivable that the President could go
to the subcontinent now that we've slapped sanctions on both?
MR. MCCURRY: Is it conceivable? There are a number
of things --
Q He's still welcome?
MR. MCCURRY: -- that will go into making judgments
on that. There are a number of reasons why you want to do that
given what we're trying to achieve with both governments. But we
had not planned to go, as most of you know, until very late this
year. And it would be an awful lot that we'll have to consider
and ponder before we make any final decisions.
...............
END 1:55 P.M. EDT
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
