[EXCERPTS] DEPARTMENT OF STATE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
Wednesday, April 9, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
I want to let you know that our Historians are releasing another volume in the History of the Foreign Relations of the United States series. This volume covers the period 1964 to 1968, "Arms Control and Disarmament," and it focuses on the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 and some other significant arms negotiations in which the Lyndon Johnson Administration participated, and that statement is available to you in the Press Room. ........ QUESTION: Do you have any update on the U.S. food - consideration of food request? MR. BURNS: Carol, I think based on consultations that we've had, meetings with the World Food Program and the FAO as well as reports from a variety of U.S. Government sources, we had some U.S. Government people on the Congressional delegations that were in North Korea. There seems little doubt to the United States that there is a serious and worsening food shortage in North Korea. The evidence is too great to argue otherwise. As we said yesterday, although we've not made any final decisions, we are looking very seriously at the expanded request for food assistance from the World Food Program. We're consulting both within our own government but also consulting with other countries on a response to that food program. I just want to note that we've always responded positively to requests, since 1995, from the World Food Program and that we have been the largest contributor to the United Nations food appeals for North Korea. We understand the severity of the problem. We understand that World Food Program appeal is going to be focused on children age six and under. Surely, we all have a humanitarian imperative in any kind of situation like this to try to be as helpful as we can to young kids like that. QUESTION: A couple of follow-ups to that. When do you expect to make that decision? Have you pinned down a date on the missile talks? And have you gotten a formal response from the North Koreans on the Four-Party Proposal? MR. BURNS: I would expect given the severity of the food situation and the urgency of the appeal, the United States Government decision will be made very soon, but I can't predict when that day will be. On the second question, we continue to talk to the North Koreans about a date and a place for the missile talks. There is a reason for these missile talks. We do have concerns, as you know - ongoing concerns - about North Korean disposition of some of its conventional - some of its missiles and missile technology. We want to address those concerns with the North Koreans. Bob Einhorn will lead our delegation. We hope to work out an agreement very soon for when those talks can occur and where they can occur. On the last question, we've not yet heard back from the North Koreans or anything further, but we do believe that there will be - that they will hear shortly from the North Koreans about another meeting. We hope very much the North Koreans will want to move down the road towards Four-Party talks. That's our objective. QUESTION: (Inaudible). MR. BURNS: Judd's got a follow-up on North Korea. QUESTION: Nick, there are reports in New York that there's a meeting scheduled for next week. Is that what you're referring to? That shortly you'll hear about their - MR. BURNS: We have not scheduled a meeting for next week on the Four-Party talks. We always have week to week consultations with the North Korean Mission up at the United Nations. But I think we're talking about something different here. What has really been in the works for the last couple of days is the possibility of another meeting that would address the Four-Party Proposal. I have no update to give you on that today. We still are waiting. The ball is in their court. We're still waiting for an answer. QUESTION: But "soon" applies to that meeting? We expect something - MR. BURNS: We hope the meeting can be held as soon as possible. Any more on North Korea before we go - you want to finish up Zaire? ................ QUESTION: Bob Pelletreau, who is now a private citizen, made a speech here yesterday and called for an increase of the existing informal ties with Iran; said that U.S. should open up a wider dialogue with Iran, and also indicated a lack of consensus in the containment policy towards that country. Would you agree that there is a lack of consensus within the Administration? MR. BURNS: I respect Bob very much. I have not seen his speech, so I don't want to be unfair to him and comment on his speech. Our policy towards Iran has not changed and won't until the Iranians change. QUESTION: What kind of specific changes are you - MR. BURNS: If they would end their direct support for terrorism and their opposition to the Middle East peace process and stop trying to build nuclear and chemical and biological weapons, that would be a good starter for an improvement in U.S.-Iranian relations. But as long as they're doing all three of those things, there's not going to be a normal relationship between the United States and Iran. We have a national interest in standing up for all of those three things that I talked about. QUESTION: But he has been the head of the Near Eastern Bureau until very recently, so obviously I think Mr. Pelletreau knows what he's talking about when he says that there are different ideas within the Administration. Are you saying as the spokesperson here that you do not expect any changes - or any discussion at all on the Iranian policy? MR. BURNS: I hope we have lots of discussion on Iran, but the policy - Secretary Albright has reaffirmed the policy. The policy stays where it is. The great thing about our government is you get to debate inside the government, even if you don't agree with the views, but then everyone's united once the decision is made by the President and Secretary of State about what the policy would be. The President and Secretary of State have given us a very clear policy, and we all defend it. It's the right policy.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
