PRESS CONFERENCE BY UNITED KINGDOM

24 September 1996

Press Briefing

PRESS CONFERENCE BY UNITED KINGDOM

19960924 FOR INFORMATION OF UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT ONLY

Malcolm Rifkind, United Kingdom Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, held a press conference at Headquarters this afternoon. Before responding to questions, Mr. Rifkind reminded correspondents that the main theme of his address to the General Assembly at its morning session had been the subject of development. It was the particular responsibility of the developed nations, he said, to facilitate access by the developing nations to the markets of the more prosperous countries, opening tremendous opportunities for the expansion of global trade. That more than anything else would contribute to the economic development of the poorer countries. It should be part of the growing momentum towards global free trade. The United Kingdom, both within the European Union and more widely in the World Trade Organization, championed that opening of access for the developing world, which he believed could be a major theme of coming international deliberations.

A correspondent asked why the United Kingdom did not follow the recommendations of the General Assembly on the question of the Falkland Islands, and why it did not pursue the same line in the case of Hong Kong as in that of the Falklands/Malvinas.

The answer was simple, said the Foreign Secretary. The legal position on Hong Kong was that most of its territory had been leased from China by treaty a century ago for 99 years, a lease due to expire in June 1997. The United Kingdom would then have no legal basis for continuing to administer the territory. The Falkland Islands question, on the other hand, involved the fundamental principle of self-determination. It was a dependent territory whose people were United Kingdom citizens overwhelmingly in favour of retaining that citizenship. The United Nations was built on the right of people to live according to their own free wishes; there was no legal argument to the contrary, and the position of the United Kingdom remained unchanged.

Asked if there was any possibility of a "deal" in the discussions on Salman Rushdie, scheduled for the afternoon, Mr. Rifkind said he did not believe there was any question of a deal. The United Kingdom was not currently one of the countries holding the discussions. He knew that there had been efforts to carry forward what was called the "critical dialogue" on the subject of Salman Rushdie. He was doubtful about the value of that "critical dialogue". The crunch question was whether Iran would agree to commit to key issues in the Salman Rushdie affair -- in other words whether Iran would or would not assist directly or indirectly those who wished to murder British citizens. Without progress in that area there was not much to hope for from the "critical dialogue".

A correspondent welcomed the United Kingdom's signing this morning of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), but asked why -- given the fact that India had not conducted a nuclear weapon test since 1974 and that that country presented no security risks for Britain -- the United Kingdom was so adamant that the threshold States be given the power of vetoing the treaty in Article 14. She further asked what the United Kingdom would do if the treaty did not come into force within, say, five years, which seemed likely in view of India's declared intention not to sign.

Mr. Rifkind said his country's position was the same as that of other nuclear powers and of the international community as a whole. What it wanted was a treaty that enjoyed universal endorsement, a goal regarded as desirable not just by Britain. When the vote was taken in the General Assembly all countries but three had voted in its favour. The United Kingdom respected the sovereign right of all countries -- and that must include India -- to make their own decisions. He hoped that India, which had an unrivalled record for its promotion of disarmament over many years, would take the clear view of the international community into account and would in due course sign the treaty. He added that his own country had conducted no nuclear tests since 1991.

A number of correspondents asked the Foreign Secretary about the repeated United States promise of a veto on a second term of office for Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. One correspondent asked whether -- given the "categorical statement" on the matter issued by the United States -- discussion of the question and of a possible successor to the Secretary- General should not be moved into the public arena.

Mr. Rifkind replied that the question of the office of Secretary-General was a sensitive one better pursued in private discussions among all the countries concerned. Although the United States had adopted a public position, he felt that the question was not one subject to public utterances. He himself had great admiration for the Secretary-General and for what he had achieved, as well as for his continuing commitment to the United Nations. The Secretary-General's own position in the debate must be taken into consideration. A decision would have to be taken at some time, and possibly at some time public discussion might be appropriate. But he believed that at this point the interests of the United Nations would be best preserved by pursuing the matter through traditional diplomatic means rather than in a more public forum.

A correspondent said there had been talk of augmented joint action by the United Kingdom, Germany and France on Cyprus. She asked about the thrust and possible future evolution of that action.

The Foreign Secretary replied that the United Kingdom had a strong commitment to progress on Cyprus. It was one of the historic guarantors of the Treaty, it had a presence on the island in the form of sovereign bases, and there was a large Cypriot community in the United Kingdom. He had

UK Press Conference - 3 - 24 September 1996

recently appointed Sir David Hannay as the British Government's Special Representative on Cyprus issues. He did not envisage a unilateral British initiative there, but wished to cooperate with the European Union, the United States and the United Nations. It was a matter of sadness that, at a time when so many other problem areas were heading towards conflict resolution, the Cyprus situation had failed to improve for 25 years -- and indeed had latterly entered a worse phase. He believed that the prospect of negotiations on possible Cyprus membership in the European Union could represent a very important moment, and one at which fresh efforts could well be made.

Asked how the United Kingdom could ensure that China would live up to its agreements when it assumed responsibility for Hong Kong next year, Mr. Rifkind said that Hong Kong was not just a problem for the United Kingdom, China and the people of Hong Kong. Hong Kong's contribution, particularly in the field of economic and trading issues, had been both original and of global significance. The whole world would be watching closely and carefully not just what happened in June of next year, but also in the weeks and months and years that followed. That was right and proper, for it was important that the spirit and letter of the commitments entered into by Britain and China be taken fully into account. He believed that the Chinese Government wanted the transition to be a success. It was important that the rest of the world help the process, help foster respect for the bilateral process, and help ensure that the quality of life of the people of Hong Kong was respected and safeguarded.

Asked how he intended to convert the recent opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the "legality" of nuclear weapons into international law, the Foreign Secretary said that in most people's opinion the ICJ advisory opinion on the question was by no means cut and dried. There had been a number of opinions and views, some recognizing that in extreme circumstances the use of nuclear weapons might be advisable, and other opinions going the other way. There were, in fact, no clear conclusions to be drawn from that advisory opinion. Many points of view could draw comfort from its various suggestions. And, of course, it was no more than just that -- an "advisory" opinion.

A correspondent referred to a Washington Post report of "striking disagreement" between the United Kingdom and the United States over the question of lifting sanctions against the Bosnian Serbs. Mr. Rifkind said the report was inaccurate. The correspondent then asked whether the United Kingdom had an agreement with the United States that there had to be some remaining leverage over the Bosnian Serbs.

Mr. Rifkind said that, of course, there was wide agreement that some sort of leverage be retained. In fact, the Serbian Government was interested in access to international financial institutions and had been told that such access required progress on Kosovo. As for the lifting of sanctions, everyone was bound by the terms of the Dayton accord, which stipulated that sanctions

UK Press Conference - 4 - 24 September 1996

would be lifted within ten days of determining that elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina had been free and fair. The timing of the lifting of sanctions obviously had to be determined, and the matter was still under discussion. Everyone seemed to accept that the elections had in fact succeeded beyond many expectations. In any case, he reiterated that no one had any desire to violate the provisions of the Dayton accord.

Asked to clarify his country's position on the possible enlargement of the Security Council, Mr. Rifkind said that there was a powerful case for permanent membership on the Council of Japan and Germany. There was also a possible case for further enlargement. The debate was ongoing. However, that enlargement must not be at the expense of the Council's original purpose. He added that the Council was not a status club. A crucial qualification for permanent membership was a State's willingness and ability to contribute significantly to international security. He regretted that the debate was dragging on, but it was up to the United Nations to decide how long the matter should be debated. At some point debate must stop and a decision be arrived at.

Recalling that Mr. Rifkind had in his morning statement urged nations to pay their United Nations dues, a correspondent asked how much the United Kingdom was owed on its peace-keeping contributions. Mr. Rifkind said that the United Kingdom had paid all its dues, and was itself due some $140 million for peace-keeping. There had been progress over the past few months in the payment of dues, and he was conscious that the whole question of dues payment was linked to the viability of the United Nations itself. The Organization was in a better position today than it was one year ago.

* *** *