• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

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

QUESTION: On another subject. Have you been able to clear up what Russian Foreign Minister Primakov said or did not say last week about de-coupling nuclear warheads from the missiles?

MR. BURNS: I still haven't seen Foreign Minister Primakov's statement. But I can say I don't believe that there is any formal proposal by the Russian Federation to de-couple missiles and warheads. What we have is an agreement on de-targeting that was put into place by President Clinton and President Yeltsin back in 1994. That's a very important, symbolic agreement because it means for the first time since the beginning of the nuclear age that Russian nuclear missiles are no longer targeted at Boston, Washington, and San Francisco, and that ours aren't targeted at Vladivostok and Moscow.

De-coupling would be a farther step forward. It's not something that we are seriously, I believe, discussing with the Russians at the present time.

QUESTION: You say there is no formal proposal. Is there an informal? Have they broached the subject at all?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe so. You remember there is some linguistic questions about what President Yeltsin said in Paris back on the 27th of May. But I think most people who listened to that believe that he was talking about de-targeting, and that is what Yastrzhembsky said, the Russian presidential spokesman. He said that President Yeltsin was referring to the de-targeting initiative, which we believe is important, and which we are, of course, continuing with the Russian Government.

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

QUESTION: Korea, Nick. A report this morning from Reuters, picked up by NPR that the South Korean Government has stated that there would not be any large-scale food provision to North Korea, unless the North Koreans joined four-party talks. Further, the report said that the U.S. was completely on board with that policy. Is that accurate?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe that's accurate. The United States' policy, which is what I can speak about - not South Korea's policy - is to extend food assistance to North Korea. Our ships are arriving. In fact, I think all of the $25 million - the food for which that is paying for - should have arrived in North Korean ports by now. That food is intended to help little kids in North Korea. We are not tying food aid to the political questions of the four-party talks. We will not do that.

Now, we want North Korea to come to the table on the four-party talks. Your guess is as good as mine whether or not they North Koreans actually accept our proposal. But on food aid, we'll keep going.

Now, on another related issue, Bill, our long-awaited proliferation talks are scheduled to take place on June 11th and 12th and 13th of this week in New York. Our delegation will be headed by Deputy Assistant Secretary Bob Einhorn. I say scheduled, because the last time we thought the North Koreans would show up, and they didn't. I'm not going to be in a position of predicting the movements of North Korean diplomats. But we hope they show up, and we hope we have these talks because we do have a number of concerns about proliferation issues dealing with the North Koreans.

We haven't had talks, I believe, since Berlin in I think about a year ago - the Spring of 1996. These talks ought to go forward, and we welcome the North Koreans to New York City.

QUESTION: Could you outline what concerns you have about North Korea's missile program?

MR. BURNS: We've had a number of concerns - reports of North Korean transfers of equipment and technology to other countries. As you know, we look into those very carefully. We have not determined that there's been any violation of American law or of international sanctions law. But that's always on our minds. All of these missile issues involving North Korea, separately involving North Korea and China and Iran and other countries are of great concern to us. Bob Einhorn is our leading expert, and we felt it was important to meet with them to talk about these.

Now, we are absolutely confident, George, that the agreed framework, put in place two and a half years ago is in place, it's working. We are absolutely clear that North Korea's nuclear program has been frozen and will remain frozen. I want to make that clear. These are different issues that I'm talking about here.

QUESTION: Is there something that leads you to believe that they won't come to the talks? Have they applied for their visas in Beijing?

MR. BURNS: Well, having been burned a couple of times from this podium in predicting that North Koreans will show up for talks, I've just decided to take a pledge. I'm never going to predict again that they actually will show up in the capital. I'll just say I hope they show up. In all seriousness, they've said they're going to be there. We hope they'll be there. But we've gone through this a couple of times, where they've been asked to come to meetings, they've said they will and they haven't come. We just hope they will show up this week.

QUESTION: -- visas in Beijing? Have they --

MR. BURNS: That's always a way to tell - whether they've picked up visas in Beijing. I haven't asked our Beijing watchers to tell us if the visas have been picked up or not. But that will be an indication. The talks are just a couple of days away, so we hope very much that they're there.

QUESTION: Can we go back to my original - go ahead, Sid.

QUESTION: I just wanted to go back and say, you haven't determined that there's been a violation of U.S. laws on proliferation --

MR. BURNS: Right, or international laws that are applicable here.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. BURNS: Yeah.

QUESTION: I thought it was - I thought you all - there was no question they had been selling ballistic missiles to several countries in the Middle East. There was a recent shipment of ballistic missile equipment to Egypt, which you all are investigating. It's been going on for years - not the Egypt part, but the others. What is it you all don't see, don't understand?

MR. BURNS: Well, Sid, before the United States takes any action, for instance on sanctions, we have to determine pursuant to the law and the letter of the law, that actually there's been a violation. We need to be able to prove that. Now, there have been a number of reports, but we have not determined that there have been any violations of the law - the law that concerns this -- U.S. law and also international law. If we do discover that there have been any violations of the law, we'll act upon it and we'll let you know about that.

QUESTION: Practically speaking, even if you did discover it and put some sort of embargo, sanctions on North Korea, which --

MR. BURNS: There would also be sanctions on the receiving country, which is very important.

QUESTION: Okay, well the --

MR. BURNS: But we've not determined that.

QUESTION: -- the countries that they sell missiles to --

MR. BURNS: Right.

QUESTION: -- we don't trade with them in any case.

MR. BURNS: Well, there are so many reports that involve so many countries, that I don't want to agree with that as a blanket statement.

QUESTION: Well, I don't see - these allegations go back - some must go back a decade, of North Korean ballistic missile sales. What's the problem?

MR. BURNS: There's no problem. Your government is doing its job. When allegations surface, we look into the allegations as best we can. We talk to the North Koreans and others about them. If we conclude there's been a violation of a law, then we uphold the law, as we are bound to do by our Constitution. If we cannot conclude there's been a violation of the law, well, then, we can't go to sanctions. You've got to be able to make a clear determination of what is sanctionable and what is not.

QUESTION: Is it fair to say, then, that the U.S. is continuing investigating North Korean missile sales, with an eye towards possible sanctions, which --

MR. BURNS: I would not write the story that way. I think that would be inaccurate. An eye towards possible sanctions would really be leading the reader to believe that the imposition of sanctions is imminent. I didn't say that. I just said the reason we have these talks is to address, directly with the North Koreans, concerns we have about proliferation in general, and about some of their activities. We are bound by the law to live by the law, and we will do so. But I can't announce a violation of the law if we haven't determined it. That's just the emphasation I wanted to make.

QUESTION: My issue, Nick, on food, are you saying, then, that the United States would not embrace the South Korean policy of insisting upon talks before delivering food?

MR. BURNS: South Korea has to make its own decisions, as do other countries. Japan has made its own decisions. The United States has its policy; and that is, we provide food aid for humanitarian reasons. We do not link that food aid to political issues.

QUESTION: And does the U.S. give any credibility to Mr. Hwang's, the defector, Hwang's statement that North Korea would fight unless fed by the South? I think that's basically what he said.

MR. BURNS: I'm not aware that he's made that statement. The press may have said that he's made that statement, but I can't confirm that that statement was made by Mr. Hwang to South Korean government officials to whom he is probably speaking. George?

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