THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release November 21, 1994
BACKGROUND BRIEFING
BY
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS
ON UPCOMING VISIT OF PRESIDENT KUCHMA OF UKRAINE
The Briefing Room
2:42 P.M. EST
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Good afternoon. I just
want to mention we're joined today by a group of journalists from
Ukraine who are here under the auspices of the USIA. We've just seen
them, and they're standing in the back, and will be observing this
background briefing.
Let me give you a little bit of overview about this
state visit. This is the fourth state visit that President Clinton
has had since taking office. The two major issues that will be
discussed -- if you'd like, I can review the schedule. If you don't
want to do that, we don't have to do that. You want to do that --and
the agreements we expect to sign.
First, let me say this is obviously an important visit
for us. Our Ukraine policy over the last 23 months has taken many
twists and turns. I think it's fair to say that we began this
administration with a somewhat strained relationship with Ukraine, a
relationship that was focused primarily on nuclear issues, but a
relationship that President Clinton felt from the very beginning was
one of the key foreign policy relationships that he had to develop as
President.
And if you look at the two central policy issues of this
visit, the nuclear future between us and the economic future of
Ukraine and what the United States can do to support that future, I
think you'll see a lot of growth and a lot of expansion in our
relations over the last two years.
To begin with the nuclear issue, coming into this
administration the President had a clear goal. He inherited a
situation from the last administration, from events in the aftermath
of the collapse of communism where there were four countries that had
nuclear weapons on their soil. Our intention all along has been to
reduce that to one. And the President was able to use the very
generous appropriations from the Congress -- the Nunn-Lugar
appropriations -- and very intensive diplomacy over this time period
to try to move Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus to a point where they
would declare themselves, commit themselves to a nonnuclear status.
We're obviously very pleased by the vote last week in
the Ukrainian Rata. It allows the President to go to Budapest and to
participate in the ceremony there where he, President Yeltsin and
Prime Minister Major will extend security assurances to Ukraine, as
well as to Kazakhstan and Belarus. And it also allows them to
participate in a ceremony to put START I into force. This is a major
accomplishment, we think, for the West, and for the United States in
particular. My colleague can provide any background on this that
you'd like to have.
On economics, it is also fair to say that throughout
much of '93 and into this year, we felt in our government that
Ukraine was, in many ways, a nation at risk, whose future was at risk
because of the failure of the Kravchuk government to dedicate itself
to economic reform. And it lived in a region where all of Ukraine's
neighbors were reforming, and where the terms of trade and investment
with the neighbors in the region and with the West were exceedingly
disadvantageous.
We also had a policy at the beginning of this
administration that we would not open up the economic relationship
with Ukraine, pending the resolution of the nuclear issue. In the
Fall of 1993, President Clinton decided that policy was not working
well. He sent Secretary Christopher to Kiev in October 1993 to tell
President Kravchuk that we would open up a very intensive economic
relationship with Ukraine regardless of progress on the nuclear
issues.
I think that was the key factor that allowed us, then,
to go on in January, '93 to sign the trilateral statement in Moscow
on nuclear weapons. It also led President Clinton to commit to $350
million in 1994 of economic assistance to Ukraine, thereby making
Ukraine the fourth largest recipient of United States assistance
anywhere in the world.
You remember at Naples, President Clinton then led a G-7
initiative to promise that if Ukraine undertook economic reforms, the
West would commit up to $4 billion in assistance. Shortly -- the day
after the Naples Summit, President Kuchma was elected. And at that
time, Ukraine had not made the commitment to economic reform, but he
quickly began to put in place a very impressive team of young
reformers whom he elevated in the government to ministerial
positions.
They designed, with the help of some American economists
and some European economists, an impressive economic reform program
which has since received the blessing of the IMF; in fact, the very
enthusiastic, personal blessing of Michel Camdessus. That has led
President Clinton in the last six weeks to pull together an
international coalition to support the reform efforts. He personally
requested that President Yeltsin of Russia and President Niyazov of
Turkmenistan, the two biggest creditors of Ukraine, reschedule in
part Ukraine's very large energy debt to those two countries.
President Clinton has also been in touch personally with
his G-7 counterparts to ask that Europe and Japan commit to support
Ukraine's economic reforms, which we think are the key to the future
of this country.
President Clinton has committed and will reaffirm
tomorrow that we are going to be putting forward $100 million of
assistance for their balance of payments. We have never done this in
the past, either in the Bush or the Clinton administrations. We've
never used American assistance for direct balance of payment support.
We are making an exception in this case because of the unique
situation in which Ukraine finds itself, and also I think because of
the unique importance of Ukraine to the United States. I'm sure that
the President will also commit tomorrow to continue this type of
support, both multilateral and bilateral, in 1995.
Our view is that, then, to sum up, that after a rocky
start in 1993 and into 1994, we find ourselves with Ukraine probably
at the strongest point that we have ever been in our relations with
that country. President Kuchma, in our view, deserves a lot of
support because he has effectively answered the two biggest questions
that confronted him when he took office: Ukraine will be a
nonnuclear country, and he is committing himself to that. Ukraine
will have a reforming economy, and Ukraine will try to achieve
economic and political and security integration with the West while
retaining very strong ties to Russia. So he has made the tough
decisions that eluded his predecessor.
With that by way of background, let me just say a few
words about the schedule, and then we can get to questions.
President Kuchma arrived in the U.S. Saturday. He has spent much of
the last two days in New York, where he has met on a couple of
occasions members of the U.S. business community. The focus there
has been on trade and investment. That, we think, is the key
challenge for the future, because Ukraine lags behind Russia, Poland,
the Czech Republic, Hungary in attracting Western investment because
they haven't been reforming until the last couple of months.
He also saw the U.N. Secretary General this morning. He
is arriving now at Andrews Air Force Base. He's being met by Deputy
Secretary of State Strobe Talbott. He'll be staying in Blair House,
of course, as a guest of the President.
This afternoon, he will be laying a wreath at the Taras
Shevchenko monument a few blocks from here. He then will be
traveling over to OPIC on New York Avenue, where OPIC President Ruth
Harkin is hosting him for a session with American CEOs designed to
stimulate trade and investment. He will be visiting the Holocaust
Museum later on this afternoon where he will tour the museum and meet
with representatives of the Jewish community. And this evening, he
will be giving a reception at the Ukrainian Embassy for the American
government officials and others in town who are involved in this
visit.
Tomorrow, he will lay a wreath at Arlington National at
the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. He will also lay a wreath at the
grave of President Kennedy, tomorrow being the 31st anniversary of
the President's death. He will be meeting with Michel Camdessus,
Managing Director of the IMF, at Blair House in the morning. And
then he will begin his visit with President Clinton. There is an
arrival ceremony at 11:00 a.m. on the South Lawn. That will be
followed by a one-on-one meeting in the Oval Office with President
Clinton.
They have never met. President Clinton called him a
couple of days after his election. They have spoken I think three
times by phone. They've exchanged letters probably seven or eight
times. PResident Clinton sent Vice President Gore to Kiev in early
August to make this connection with him. So they have exchanged
views, but they have never met; and the one-on-one is obviously
designed just to give them a chance to get to know each other. They
will go from there to a session in the Cabinet Room with advisors --
eight or nine advisors on each side.
There they will focus on economics and specifically,
what the United States and the West can do to support these reforms.
They will obviously talk about the decision last week by the Rata to
ratify the NPT, and they'll discuss European security.
Ukraine was the first country to join the PFP -- the
first country in the former Soviet Union. Ukraine has been an
enthusiastic participant in early activities of the PFP. The
President would like to talk to President Kuchma about both NATO
expansion, the upcoming CSCE Summit, and the PFP. That expanded
meeting in the Cabinet Room will be followed by a lunch, given by the
Vice President over at the State Department, in the Ben Franklin Room
on the eighth floor -- a lunch to which many members of Congress have
been invited, as well as many members of the Ukrainian-American
community and the business community. Following that, there will be
a second substantive meeting back here at the White House; this time
hosted by the Vice President.
They will discuss the Chernobyl issue, which we are
working on intensively with the Ukrainians, space issues and other
issues having to do with our technological and business cooperation
with Ukraine.
There will then, hopefully by 4:30 p.m., be a joint
signing ceremony and press conference in Room 450 -- the East Room,
unfortunately, being unavailable for this event. And at that press
conference and signing ceremony, I expect that the two Presidents
will sign two agreements. The first is a U.S.-Ukraine charter. This
is a general agreement which will set the parameters for our future
relationship -- security, politics and economics.
They will also sign a bilateral space agreement, which
Rose can tell you about. And then they will witness a signing of two
other agreements. One is a agreement on trade and investment, which
Secretary Ron Brown will sign with his Ukrainian counterpart, Mr.
Osyka. And the second is an OPIC agreement to encourage an American
company to invest in the defense conversion sector, the defense
industrial sector in Ukraine. And Ruth Harkin will sign that
agreement with an American firm, witnessed by the Ukrainian Minister
of Defense.
Tomorrow evening there's a state dinner, hosted by the
President and Mrs. Clinton for President and Mrs. Kuchma. On
Wednesday Secretary Perry, Secretary Brown and Secretary Bentsen will
all have individual meetings at Blair House with President Kuchma.
Later in the afternoon, President Kuchma will go to the NASA Goddard
Space Center nearby, and he'll be the guest of Dan Goldin, the
Director of NASA. There are a few private events on the schedule,
including, I think, a lunch at the National Press Club on Wednesday.
And then President Kuchma will be leaving Washington for Kiev on
Wednesday evening.
So that's the schedule, and the three of us will be glad
to take any questions you may have.
Q On the $100 million balance of payments, how does
that square with the $70 million that we pledged before, going up to
$100 million if the G-7 agrees to a at-large? And does that include
any debt forgiveness, since they're behind on some payments on --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, let me just try
to give -- for those who haven't been following as closely as you
obviously have -- just a summary of the economic side.
President Clinton has committed to $350 million in
bilateral economic support for 1994, and a lot of that money will not
be spent in 1994, and so it will be spent in '95. That's $350
million.
In addition to that, the President will tell President
Kuchma tomorrow that we are going to commit $100 million in balance
of payment support to meet their current needs this month, November,
December, January, as they begin their reform program.
The Ukrainians have made the argument to us, and the IMF
has, that the Ukrainians can't wait for technical assistance to kick
in over the next couple of years; they need an immediate transfusion
of capital to stabilize their financial situation. And again, we
have not done this type of thing in the past, we are making an
exception for Ukraine.
In addition to that $100 million, we are asking the
European Union to contribute an equal amount. The European Union has
not yet made that decision, and we are encouraging them quite
vigorously to commit the same amount that we have committed, and we
are asking Japan to make a commitment of financial support to this
balance of payments effort.
Q an equal amount?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, we have not
gotten into the totals with the Japanese. I think it's fair to say
an equal amount from the EU would be in order.
Now, in addition to the -- so the $350 million, $100
million -- we are also pledging an additional $100 million in
technical assistance support for Ukraine for 1995. So that brings
American economic support for Ukraine to over half a billion dollars
in 1994 and '95 which, in this day and age, given the budget
restrictions under which we operate, we and the Congress, is a
significant amount of money, and it shows you the order of importance
of Ukraine in our eyes.
Q Along those lines, a defense minister last week
asked for $50 million to house troops, soldiers that are leaving
there.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me talk a little
bit about the housing issue. And, by the way, it's not only a
housing issue, but a retraining issue as well. As the nuclear forces
in Ukraine are eliminated, the missiles are eliminated, they are
closing down a lot of these bases, and so it's an issue not only of
eliminating missiles, but also of getting those strategic rocket
forces officers out of the military and into the civilian sector. So
it's a matter of retraining them for civilian jobs, and then also
we've had a special request from the Ukrainians now for some time to
help in the construction of housing for those officers.
There are actually two programs already extant in that
regard. One is to actually convert a defense plant for the
construction of prefabricated housing, so that there is a conversion
aspect to that; and, thus, provide housing units for troops of the
43rd Missile Army in that way. And then there is a second project to
build infrastructure and housing units straight out, without the kind
of conversion aspect to it.
Now, the Ukrainian -- the Defense Minister and Deputy
Prime Minister, Mr. Shmarov was here last week. They are very
interested in some additional housing assistance. And we are looking
at that very hard and do expect to provide them some additional
housing assistance. I think it will build on what we have so far,
which is $20 million for the one project -- that is the project to
convert and build housing at Pervomaysk.
Q $20 million?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: -- $20 million. And
then there is another $10 million that is being spent on housing at a
town called Khmelnitsky. These are both strategic rocket forces
bases that are being converted. And we are now --
Q A total of $30 million?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: -- $30 million so far
and --
Q For conversions?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, and they've asked
for $50 million overall. We're looking at additional funds. We'd
like to get them up as high as we can, so we are looking at that.
Q They're asking for $50 million above that $30
million?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: They are actually
asking for funds to move from one part of what we've been doing so
far, which is to eliminate some of their missile programs and move
that into housing. So we're looking very carefully at how we can
manage that. But I would want to underscore for you all that we've
already put $30 million into housing for them. And we'll see how
high we can go, essentially.
Q Are they asking for $50 million of new money, or
just to transfer --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Transfer.
Q from the $550 million package that's already out
there?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, it's $350 million
in Nunn-Lugar funds overall. And all of that has been laid out,
committed to various projects, and they would like for us to move it
from one to another area.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: You may want to talk
about the Nunn-Lugar funding --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: My colleague talked
about, of course, the funds that we have laid on for the Ukrainians
on the bilateral assistance side of things. We also have a very
extensive program that we have had for some years now of Nunn-Lugar
assistance for Ukraine. We started out with $175 million in
assistance to them for the elimination of missiles on their territory
-- missiles and silos on their territory -- in addition to some other
kinds of projects. For example, the Science Center in Ukraine is
funded out of Nunn-Lugar funds. And so those were some of the
original projects, and that was really a project to help with the
brain drain problem, to take scientists and to help fund some of
their research projects so that they would be able to stay in place
and work in Ukraine.
So there was an original $175 million, and last March
when President Kravchuk came here and, in response to everything they
had done in the completion of the trilateral statement last January,
we essentially doubled that amount. So there is now a $350 million
Nunn-Lugar account for Ukraine.
Q The $550 million should be increased by $350
million.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The $550 million plus
$350 million for the total of American assistance.
Q So we're talking about $900 million.
Q That's over two years, not just one year?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's right.
Q Has Yeltsin indeed agreed to forgive that debt that
you mentioned?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. Both -- well, let
me start with Turkmenistan first. Turkmenistan and Ukraine have
agreed on a rescheduling of Ukraine's debt to Turkmenistan for the
importation of natural gas. Turkmenistan is a large exporter of that
to Ukraine. The Russians and the Ukrainians have an agreement all of
the -- there are some loose ends that need to be attended to, so I
don't believe it's been signed yet, but there is a gentleman's
agreement between the two countries.
Q It's on rescheduling?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It's on rescheduling in
part Ukraine's debt to Russia for the importation of both oil and
gas. And so we're pleased that Russia, in particular, has decided to
join the G-7 effort to help Ukraine over these initial hurdles on the
economic reform side. And we think it's quite significant that
President Yeltsin has chosen to do that and we congratulate him for
it.
Q Can you give us a quick number on where we're going
to be with strategic warheads in the possession of U.S., Ukraine and
Russia when we get to Budapest and START I kicks in; and also, a
preview of where you think START II will kick in and how quickly?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: In terms of warhead
numbers, the Ukrainians have done a fantastic job in implementation
of the trilateral statement. As you recall, that was signed last
January in Moscow among Russia, Ukraine and the United States.
Ukraine was committed to send back to Russia for elimination by this
time, by November of this year, 200 warheads of all three types of
weapons on their territory -- the SS-19 ICBMs, the SS-24 ICBMs, and
the air-launched Cruise Missiles. As of today, they have sent back
at least 360 warheads to Russia for dismantlement. So they have
really been intensively implementing the trilateral statement, in
return for which they have received now multiple shipments of fuel
rods for their power plants.
Q How many have they got left after the 360?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: After the 360 have gone
back -- well, there are some 1,900 warheads -- there were some 1,900
warheads in Ukraine, so if you subtract the numbers --
Q So it's 1,900 minus 360?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Right. Right.
Q How many are there going to be in Russia when START
I kicks in?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, when START I
kicks into force -- they have already been taking some -- as we have
been doing, they have been taking some unilateral reductions. As far
as the United States is concerned, we have taken -- by the end of
1994, we will have taken all our reductions under START I; so we will
be down to approximately 6,000 warheads.
In the case of Russia, the last time I looked at this at
the time of the Yeltsin summit, there were around 7,500 warheads.
I'd have to check; in fact, I've got some numbers coming in today,
and if you want to give me a ring, I will probably have a more
accurate assessment. But that was -- at the time Yeltsin was here in
September, that was the number.
Q And can you take us down the road with START II?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Right. When START I is
fully in force and implemented, both parties will be down to 6,000
warheads on each side. And, thanks to the arrangements under the
Lisbon Protocol, all warheads will be out of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and
Belarus. That is the arrangement under the Lisbon Protocol.
Once START II enters into force, and the plan is to
proceed toward ratification of START II and bring it into force when
our Presidents next meet, which -- there will be approximately six
months' time. That date has not been set. But that was, once again,
the agenda agreed at the Yeltsin-Clinton summit in September. When
START II is implemented, the numbers will be down to approximately
3,500 on each side.
Q By the middle of next year, then?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, that won't happen
by the middle of next year. But once -- that is the goal.
Q I know START II, but what I'm trying to figure out
is when you then reach the 3,000 to 3,500, because both sides have
said, we're not going to wait seven years.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's correct.
Q What's the present scenario for START II?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The agreement is to
accelerate that. And we will have to decide with the Russian side
how fast we want to accelerate beyond -- to bring it down below the
seven-year reduction period.
Q Do you have a particular view -- whether it ought
to be done in one year, three years, five years, instead of seven?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think we'll have to
look at what -- in practical terms, what is realistic. And I'm not
sure anybody's come to that final decision yet.
Q In the meantime, how sure are you about the command
and control of those weapons, both in Ukraine and Russia?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: They are essentially
under control of the central -- of the general staff in Moscow still.
The operational command and control arrangements have remained
precisely the same as they were when the Soviet Union was still
intact. So in terms of the command and control system, it remains
intact.
Q And stable as far as you can tell?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes.
Q Can I go back on the economics? Will we be writing
off any agricultural debt, that GSM 102? And is Ukraine still in
default, and what sort of credit rating do they have?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'd be glad to answer
this. Then I'd like to have my colleague say a word about the
discussions that will occur on European security issues -- NATO,
CSCE, PFP.
On economics -- Ukraine had been in default to both the
Ex-Im Bank and to USDA for past credits delivered under the Bush
administration and the initial couple of months of the Clinton
administration.
I am now pleased to report that Ukraine is current with
Both Ex-Im and USDA. I do believe we will be extending some credit
to Ukraine -- roughly $25 million in credits to purchase U.S.
agricultural commodities. And while Ukraine and Ex-Im have not yet
begun a new relationship, we hope that will be able to occur in 1995.
Q But will we write off any -- I mean, because
they're current there will be no debt write-offs or --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There's no debt write-
off necessary, because they are current in their payments to the
United States, to the two credit agencies of the U.S. government.
Q Just one point. Wasn't there strong communist
opposition to Kravchuk? I mean, didn't that hurt him in trying to
bring about reforms?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There is a very strong
anti-reform bloc in the Ukrainian RATA, yes.
Q And didn't they sort of stymie him?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Kravchuk in the past,
you mean?
Q Yes.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. I mean, Ukraine
has been a divided society. Ever since independence three years ago
this coming December 25th, there has been a small bloc that has
supported consistently reforms, and a very large bloc that did not --
especially in the Rata. President Kravchuk made some initial
attempts to reform economically. He tried to move the ball and he
did, a little, certainly on the nuclear side with the trilateral
statement -- more than a little. But in hindsight, he did not make
the decision that President Kuchma has done to close the chapter on
the nuclear question, and to commit to a fundamental and, I would
call it, a radical economic reform program very much like Gaydar and
Yeltsin did in 1992 in Russia; like the Poles and Hungarians did a
year or two before that.
So, in our view, President Kuchma really deserves a lot
of credit for having come into office with these two big issues
hanging out there and having made very decisive moves on both when he
had opposition in the Rata. And frankly, the prevailing view in this
government and my own prevailing view was that he wasn't going to be
able -- this is back last summer, when he was elected -- move forward
on both questions. It would be too hard in terms of his relationship
with the Rata.
Well, he's done it. He got the Rata to accede to the
NPT; he convinced them last week. And we have to give some credit to
the Rata leadership, to Mr. Moroz, for that. And he has a positive
vote from the Rata on his economic reform program. Now, this does
not mean the society -- there still aren't many views in the society.
There are still sizeable anti-reform groups, especially on the
economic question.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Just a couple of
comments on European security. This summit takes place about two to
three weeks before several major events which may shape the future of
Europe. First, you have the foreign ministers meeting at NATO, which
will talk, among other things, about NATO's future; followed four
days later by the CSCE summit, where we're going to try to put forth
some ideas on strengthening CSCE. And then later, you have the
European Union summit. And of course, the European Union is now very
focused on the question of its expansion.
This will come up, I think, in the meeting between the
President and President Kuchma tomorrow. And President Clinton will
want to assure the Ukrainian side that as these processes go forward,
it's our objective to ensure that they foster an increasingly
integrated Europe. Having torn down the Iron Curtain, we don't want
to begin to draw new lines. And one of the things that we will be
trying very hard to get to the Ukrainian side is our desire to ensure
that as these processes proceed, we're talking about processes which
are going to be very gradual, take a number of years to play out --
that the process will be open, it will be transparent.
We'll be prepared to talk to Ukraine about how European
security architecture is evolving. And our main objective is to
ensure that this does not undercut the security of any country, but
in fact, enhances the stability and security of all. And when we say
that as a general point, Ukraine is also very specific in our minds,
because it certainly is not in our interest for there to be an
isolated an uneasy Ukraine in the middle of Central Europe.
Certainly not in Ukraine's interest; it's not in that region's
interest, and we also believe it's not in Russia's interest as well.
Q What will be the President's role in Budapest?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: In Budapest, he will be
presenting some ideas. We've already begun to discuss these in CSCE
regarding how we think that the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe should be strengthened and play a more active
role in Europe.
Q You just got through saying you don't want to draw
a new line with NATO. At the same time -- and this has been the
consistent American position, but the consistent American position
has also been that NATO expansion is no longer a question of if, but
when. So when you expand NATO, you, by definition, are going to be
drawing a new line. Aren't you arguing against yourself? Which is
it? Are you going to expand NATO, and if so, won't you draw a new
line?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think there are a
couple of things to bear in mind about this process. First of all,
the NATO that you're talking about today is not the NATO of the first
40 years of its existence, whether it was primarily directed against
external threat.
Second, what we have in mind, really, in terms of the
dialogue with our NATO allies now is initially talking about the
process of expansion, because I think there is a recognition that at
this point, we don't have a timetable, we don't have a list of
favored countries; that's for discussion a little bit down the road,
but we think that this process of NATO expansion can, in fact, be
managed in a way that will not only cut the security of those
countries which may not be prospects for early membership, but in
fact, can enhance their security.
I can't at this point -- it's one of these issues that
we've begun to think very hard about in the last couple of months. I
don't think we're prepared to draw an exact road map that says this
is now you do this. This is how you ensure that European integration
proceeds, how NATO expands, and the security of all countries is
maintained or enhanced. I think it can be done. We're in the
process now of sort of deciding exactly how it is that you do that.
Q So you're still trying to square the circle?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We're trying to square
the circle -- we think it can be squared.
Q What is the space agreement?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There are actually two
parts of what we're doing on space at this summit. The agreement
that the two presidents will sign is almost exactly the same as the
agreement that was signed in June of 1992 between President Bush and
President Yeltsin. It is a civil space cooperation agreement for
work on science and related issues between the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration and the Ukrainian National Space Agency. We
really look on this as a fantastic opportunity to begin to work in
one of the most advanced aerospace sectors in the world, really, so I
think it is a great opportunity for NASA to learn from what the
Ukrainians have been able to accomplish.
I'll give you a specific example of that, and that is
NASA in the last week has concluded an agreement with the Ukrainian
Space Agency to use welding technology that was developed by the
Paton Institute in Kiev. And this is an extremely advanced way to do
welding outside if you're up in the shuttle, for example, to do it
outside the shuttle, which is something we've never been able to do
before. And so that's an example of the kind of technologically
advanced capabilities the Ukrainians have, and that we are now
beginning to tap into with this civil space cooperation agreement.
That's on the one hand.
On the other hand, the Ukrainians are very interested in
expanding into commercial launch markets. And we have taken the view
with them that as they get up and over the nonproliferation barrier
that we are very willing to talk to them about where they go with
commercial launch capabilities. They have two very good launchers
that are built in Ukraine as -- launchers that also take advantage of
a lot of Russian components as well. So there's a kind of joint
development and construction programs for those systems.
To take into account their interests, bearing in mind
that we were very eager to see them first establish themselves as
responsible nonproliferation partners with their accession to the
NPT, we have begun to talk to them about a commercial launch
relationship with them, and so that we will essentially be announcing
at the summit a series of talks to develop prospects for Ukrainian
participation on commercial launch.
Q What part of that is predicated on their reaching
at some point a nonproliferation agreement?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think it's important
to know two things. First of all, they've already come a tremendous
distance. Last May, the Ukrainians agreed with us bilaterally to
adhere to the guidelines of the missile technology control regime.
This is a bilateral memorandum that was signed back in May by the
Vice President and Deputy Prime Minister Shmarov. At that time, he
had not yet acquired the portfolio of Minister of Defense. This
essentially means that for purposes of U.S. law, Ukraine is adhering
to MTCR guidelines, and we have a process of working with them
already established to move them toward full partnership in the MTCR.
Clearly, this is an area where the MTCR is a
multilateral regime, so the other partners have to agree to that as
well. But I think it's fair to say that Ukraine has already taken
some important steps -- that bilateral MOU is one, but also extremely
important was their agreement to adhere to the Nonproliferation
Treaty. Until they got up and over that barrier, we really could not
move very far. And when the vote to adhere happened last Wednesday,
I think it's fair to say that it opened an important door for the
Ukrainians, and now we're ready to move rapidly ahead on this whole
issue.
Q Was there supposed to be a pledging session in
December by the G-7? I mean, do you have a date on that, and would
we go any further than what we've done now?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The G-7 had a pledging
session in October, and the United States pledged $100 million in
that session. There was a conference in Winnipeg hosted by Canada on
this. We reaffirmed that pledge. There will be an additional
session in December. So we're not going to go beyond the $100
million that we've pledged to that, but we will be doing more in
1995.
Q Do you have a date on the December pledge, though?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't have a specific
date on that; I'm sorry. The IMF would have that.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END3:20 P.M. EST
*****************************************************************
A tovabbterjesztest a New York-i szekhelyu Magyar Emberi Jogok
Alapitvany tamogatja.
[*] [*] [*] [*] [*][*] [*][*][*]
[*] [*] [*] [*] [*] [*] [*]
[*][*][*] [*][*][*] [*][*] [*][*]
[*] [*] [*] [*] [*] [*] [*]
[*] [*] [*] [*] [*] [*] [*]
Reposting is supported by Hungarian Human Rights Foundation News
and Information Service.
*****************************************************************
|
