U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #132, 97-09-11

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Thursday, September 11, 1997

Briefer: James B. Foley

ANNOUNCEMENT
1-2,4        DPRK, South Korea, US, China; second of four-party talks in
               New York, Sept 18, 19; details; prior US bilaterals with the
               three participants
4            Prior agreements; schedule/length/date of meetings; plenary
               agenda
KOREA:
1-2          Chang defection issue; Pyongyang's agreement to attend
               four-party talks; linkage
2-3          Food aid; World Food Program appeal; US humanitarian aid
               contributions; Li Gun's Request for additional aid due to
               tidal wave; DPRK-Kartman conference in Beijing; Kartman's
               rescue mission 
BOSNIA
4-7          Jammed radio transmissions; Pentagon forces; NATO plans;
               SFOR's mandate/action; elections; OSCE support; HDZ
               boycotts; repercussions to Krajisnik; failure to meet Dayton
               obligations/commitments; contact with Tudjman; sent letter
               elections; OSCE support; HDZ boycotts; repercussions to
               Krajisnik; failure to meet Dayton obligations/commitments;
               contact with Tudjman; sent letter
7            Gelbard's trip/schedule; details
CHINA
7-8          China Policy Act; Amcit's arrest; US embassy reaction; new
               export control policy; effect on the 1985 Peaceful Nuclear
               Cooperation Agreement policy; effect on the 1985 Peaceful
               Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
JAPAN
7            New Cabinet
CUBA
8-9          Bombing; Arrest of Salvadoran, Allegedly financed by
               Cuban-American group; training in the US; US foreign policy
12           Cubans rejection of Castro regime
ARMS CONTROL
9-10         Update on Oslo land mine talks; growing Congressional support
               for ban; State Dept. position
CYPRUS
10           Miller's trip in Athens; Holbrooke meeting with Archbishop of
               Cyprus in New York
AZERBAIJAN
11           Journalists evicted to Baku; refused visit to capital
TURKEY
12           US view on religious persecution

DPB #132

THURSDAY, SEPEMBER 11, 1997 1:00 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: I apologize for the lengthier than usual delay today. I was busy compiling verbatim transcripts of meetings for George's benefit. I have one announcement to make.

A second four-party preparatory meeting with the participation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the United States, and the People's Republic of China will be held in New York City on September 18 and 19. The preparatory meeting is to decide arrangements for the four-party plenary session. The meetings will be held at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. We wish to express our appreciation to Columbia University for its generosity in making these facilities available. We will also be posting, after the briefing, the press arrangements in connection with the four-party meetings. George.

QUESTION: Jim, can you tell us about the meeting which I understand is going to be held on Tuesday on a somewhat different subject between the United States and North Korea?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we are going to be holding bilateral meetings next week in New York with each of the three other participants in the four-party talks, and this will be in advance of the four-party talks which are on the 18th and 19th. The exact timing of these meetings next week has not yet been arranged. I have nothing to say about the particulars of those meetings, however.

QUESTION: You can't talk about the defection issue at all?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I have not been commenting on that issue from this podium, and I'm not going to change that practice. No.

QUESTION: Pyongyang in its official announcement that it was accepting - that it would attend these talks next week, talked about some sort agreement with the United States. What can you tell - was there some - did Pyongyang's attendance next week hinge on some kind of agreement with the United States? And did that have anything to do with the defector? Are the defectors still getting political asylum here in the United States? Are they still here? Is Pyongyang going to have access to them in some way?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I have nothing and will have nothing to say about the Chang case. In our view there is no linkage between the Chang case and the four-party peace process, or, indeed, any other issue. We have said repeatedly that we believe that all sides are participating in the process because it is in their interest to do so, and because it's important for advancing and ensuring peace across the Korean peninsula. Whatever bilateral concerns may exist, nothing in this regard has changed.

We are always willing to talk about any issue that the DPRK would like to raise, and that continues to be the case. We have open channels of communication, and we will be meeting bilaterally with them next week, as well as with the other two participants. But I will not say anything more specifically, though, about those talks.

QUESTION: What about the essential question, though? Was there some - did Pyongyang's attendant - agreement to be at those talks next week hinge on some kind of an agreement between the United States and North Korea?

MR. FOLEY: I have nothing to add to what I have said, apart from repeating that we see no linkage between that case and four-party talks.

QUESTION: I didn't say anything about the defector. I mean, an agreement could affect other issues.

MR. FOLEY: Yes, but I have nothing to say further.

QUESTION: So you're not saying whether there is an agreement or not. I mean, what Pyongyang says about this stands out there.

MR. FOLEY: I'm aware that our policy has consistently been to acknowledge no linkage. I have nothing further to add.

QUESTION: Wait a minute, don't - I have another question.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: And that is, what about the food issue? Has there been any agreement by the United States to -- let me ask it a different way, because I know what your answer will be.

MR. FOLEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are you expecting another appeal from the World Food Program soon?

MR. FOLEY: You're becoming accustomed to me.

QUESTION: I'm trying to find out the truth.

MR. FOLEY: We have been and continue to be in regular communication with the World Food Program. We do understand the seriousness of the situation in North Korea - the humanitarian crisis that is continuing. Our food aid is given to the DPRK on a humanitarian basis, as it is elsewhere.

I can restate our firm commitment to responding to humanitarian appeals from international relief organizations as they are made. I'd refer you to the World Food Program to ask if there's another appeal that is imminent. But if there is such an appeal, we will treat it with seriousness. Our track record on responding to such appeals is, indeed, excellent.

I would note that we've been the leader thus far in the humanitarian response to the food problem in the DPRK, at least in terms of the World Food Program. We're the largest donor of food aid to North Korea under the auspices of the World Food Program. In addition to the hundred thousand tons of food aid that we announced in July, the US Government has donated $52 million in humanitarian assistance for North Korea through the World Food Program this year. The US Government also gave $8.4 million in humanitarian aid to UNICEF and the World Food Program for North Korea in 1995 and '96.

The hundred thousand tons of food aid that we announced in July, the last tranche of that aid should be arriving in North Korea shortly.

QUESTION: Jim, Mr. Li Gun yesterday, when asked about the effect of the tidal wave on the corn crop, he did say that he thought that North Korea would need additional food aid because of that particular tragedy three weeks ago. Have you any response to that report?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we read the same press accounts that you do about the critical food and humanitarian situation in North Korea. I think that our goodwill and our commitment have been established over the course of the last months, in terms of our ability and willingness to respond to appeals through the World Food Program.

So I think if there is another such appeal, and if such appeal is imminent, we will treat it the way we've treated other such appeals.

Yes, in the back.

QUESTION: Back to Carol - can I go back to Carol, just to follow up and her question about was that raised in Beijing? That was nine, 10 - I don't have any hours of conference between the DPRK and Mr. Kartman - in the last two days.

MR. FOLEY: Nice try, Bill. I've answered the question.

QUESTION: Wait a minute - in the last two days. Can you tell us anything more about what was said there in Beijing? Or specifically why it took so long? Was this a rescue mission that Mr. Kartman made to Beijing?

MR. FOLEY: I can't say anything more. Yes.

QUESTION: This talk is just through this meeting? Or any possibility to extend the meetings?

MR. FOLEY: Well, the schedule is for the meetings to take place next Thursday and Friday. So I don't anticipate at this point that those meetings will extend beyond those two days.

QUESTION: And also --

MR. FOLEY: As you know, we have already had a first round of the talks in New York. Quite a bit was agreed upon in those meetings: the date, the venue, the level of participation, and procedures for the talks were agreed then. As you know, it was also agreed that the date for the plenary meeting was agreed to be approximately six weeks after agreement on all details for the preparatory meetings.

The venue will be Geneva. We are grateful again to the Swiss Government for the support it has offered for these talks. There were other agreements on procedures that were reached. There is one final issue - it's an important issue - that was not agreed last time, and that we hope will be agreed next week in New York, and that concerns that agenda for the plenary talks. There were significant differences at the time, but delegations have had a chance to consult with capitals. I can't predict what the results of the preparatory talks will be next week, but we are hopeful that they will conclude successfully and that we will be able to move on to plenary meetings. But I am not going to predict the outcome.

QUESTION: I am just wondering. Do you have dates of these bilateral talks? Some reported 16th is bilateral U.S. and North Korea?

MR. FOLEY: We haven't set the dates yet. We're going to have bilateral talks with all three delegations in advance of the Thursday-Friday talks. Yes, Crystal.

QUESTION: I want to go to a new subject, Bosnia.

QUESTION: No --

MR. FOLEY: We'll come to you in a second.

QUESTION: Missile talks.

MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Anything new on missile talks?

MR. FOLEY: Nothing new on that, no. Crystal.

QUESTION: I wonder if you could speak a little bit about plans to jam the radio - the transmissions over in Bosnia. And I think there was something that ran across the wires about that, the Pentagon sending over some forces. And then I wanted to ask you about what NATO is planning and how they are readying themselves for the election.

MR. FOLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: How far they are willing to go to deter conflicts that might - or confrontations, if you will, that could arise, obviously, in light of the last couple days and months.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Then I had a follow-up after that.

MR. FOLEY: Okay, that's a lot.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MR. FOLEY: All right, first, on your first question. I can't answer it specifically. I defer you to the Pentagon for details. But what I can say, though, is that High Representative Westendorp and Commander SFOR Shinseki yesterday sent a letter to Mr. Krajisnik detailing the SRT's - Serb Radio Television's - lack of compliance with the September 2nd agreement. I can quote that they require an immediate response detailing how and when the program that the Serb side has committed itself to is to be achieved.

The letter states that failure to send an immediate and detailed plan showing how compliance will be achieved will be, "followed by SFOR action." So that's the answer also to your first question. It will be followed by SFOR action, but I can't tell you what that's going to be, obviously, in advance. As for the, sort of, technical details surrounding the deployment to theater of those three aircraft that was announced today, again, that's a Pentagon matter.

Now, in terms of the elections, themselves, we and SFOR are obviously concerned about the safety of all members of the international community in Bosnia. SFOR's mandate, indeed, is to ensure a safe environment. The OSCE is in the lead in conducting the elections. So SFOR's mission is to support the OSCE. It's overall aim is, again, to achieve the secure environment during the election. SFOR experts on the ground will be actively involved in carrying out this mission. We're confident that they have the means necessary to succeed.

In terms of the particulars of SFOR support, achieving a secure environment includes allowing freedom of movement for all eligible voters. SFOR will also be monitoring cantonment sites, polling stations and polling sites.

Now, we took note of the fact that the Bosnian Serbs indicated yesterday that they are going to participate in the elections - the municipal elections this weekend. However, it is still our information that the HDZ - the Bosnian Croat party - is still intending to boycott. We reject all threats for boycotts. Such action, as I said yesterday, is anti-democratic, disenfranchises voters and interferes with implementation of Dayton.

The OSCE has done an excellent job of organizing the elections. It has assured fair and equal conditions for all. So we call on the HDZ to withdraw its threat to boycott. We would point out to voters considering joining the boycott that they should know that boycotts will not affect the validity of the elections, which are going ahead.

We also call on the government of Croatia to use its influence with the HDZ as part of its obligations under Dayton. In this regard, I would have to say that we are deeply concerned and seriously disappointed in the action -- or inaction - of the Croatian Government thus far in this regard. We hold the government of Croatia responsible, as a signatory of the Washington and Dayton agreements. I think a rather vivid and tangible demonstration of the Croatian Government's attitude in this regard came yesterday, when on Zagreb television there were images and soundtrack in support of this HDZ boycott - programming which apparently had been prepared for some time in advance -- which indicates something of the political responsibility we believe the government in Zagreb has for this decision.

This latest problem is part and parcel with other indications of the lack - let me say, negligence - on the part of the government in Zagreb, concerning its Dayton obligations; whether this be concerning detention of war criminals and their transfer to The Hague, the return of refugees and other important matters.

QUESTION: Jim, so I guess from all this, we can surmise that SFOR is willing to use any means necessary to suppress any kind of folly on the part of Karadzic or any other hard-liners during the elections.

MR. FOLEY: SFOR has the mandate, it has the robust rules of engagement, it has the arms and equipment necessary both to defend itself and to perform its number one mission, which is to assure a secure environment. That is its mission every day. But in so far as the elections are concerned, they are going to be on special guard and vigilance. They will be acting in support of the OSCE. It would not be in anyone's interest to challenge SFOR's capability and determination in this regard.

QUESTION: Does anyone know - will Krajisnik pay a price if the Bosnian Croats continue to boycott this election?

MR. FOLEY: I think my remarks were crystal clear on that. They will continue to pay a price for failure to fully meet their obligations which they undertook at Dayton. Yes, Carol.

QUESTION: Has anyone been in touch with Tudjman to deliver this message?

MR. FOLEY: I don't know if anyone has been in touch with him directly, recently. But he made some personal commitments, particularly concerning the war criminal issue that we have not seen met. Anything else on Bosnia.

QUESTION: The letter you mentioned?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: When was that sent?

MR. FOLEY: Yesterday.

QUESTION: It was sent yesterday. And is it your understanding that immediate means by close of business today? Or what is your sense of an immediate response?

MR. FOLEY: I believe there was - it's tomorrow, sometime tomorrow.

QUESTION: Sometime tomorrow.

MR. FOLEY: Yeah, but a time firm.

QUESTION: Do you know if Gelbard has left? And if so, do you know his schedule?

MR. FOLEY: He is leaving shortly today. He is going to have a full schedule in Bosnia and elsewhere. He is going to be in Bosnia for four days, as I said, George, yesterday, with an interagency team. The purpose of the trip is mostly to observe the municipal elections, to consult with the principals and meet with other leaders of the international community who will also be on hand to observe the elections. They are going to travel to a variety of polling sites in the federation and in the Republika Srpska.

On Friday, Ambassador Gelbard and his group will be in Sarajevo for a meeting of the joint presidency and consultations with the principals. The group will also travel tomorrow to Banja Luka for a meeting with President Plavsic. On Saturday, they go to Tuzla and Brcko. Sunday, they travel to a variety of polling sites around the country. Then after the elections, they will be going to attend a contact group meeting in London on Tuesday to discuss the next steps following the municipal elections. Anything else on Bosnia? Bosnia.

QUESTION: China. Do you have anything to say about the China Policy Act that was introduced in the Senate today?

MR. FOLEY: I think we may have just been in receipt of it. I'm not sure. But we are going to have to study it before we have anything to say from the podium. Yes.

QUESTION: Any comments on Japan's new Cabinet?

MR. FOLEY: I haven't seen any press reports this morning on it. We might have a comment tomorrow, but I think you shouldn't expect anything dramatic. We will welcome the new Cabinet and wish it well. Yes.

QUESTION: China. There have been reports in local Chinese newspapers that an American citizens who's name is Cao Chung Jing or his American name is Billy Lee has been arrested in China, September 7th. As far as I understand, if an American citizen is arrested in any other country, the U.S. embassy needs to be notified within 48 hours. Has there been - do you have any information on this? Do you know anything?

MR. FOLEY: Well, you are right about the responsibility of the American embassy. I would be glad to look into the question -- I have not heard it before - and get you an answer.

QUESTION: Do you - have you had any phone calls on this issue? We have some reports the State Department has --

MR. FOLEY: Well, as I just said, it's the first I have heard of it. I would be glad to look into it for you. More on Asia?

QUESTION: Yes. China, today, apparently issued a detailed - details of its new export control policy. And I wonder - its new export control regime that the United States has been pushing them to implement. And I wondered if you are satisfied with what you see? And is it enough, too, for the United States to go forward with the 1985 Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreement?

MR. FOLEY: Well, as a general matter, we will go forward with that agreement when all the terms of our law and laws are met, and not before. But you are right, we have been in discussions with the Chinese on their efforts to develop such a nuclear export control regime. I have not been in touch with our experts on that. It's news if, indeed, they have completed it. If we have gotten a hold of it, I will be glad to look into it. I don't know, Carol, whether I can promise you a response today or tomorrow. Obviously, something that's as complex as this, of this nature, we are going to have to take a good, hard look at. We may be in further discussions with the Chinese also, before I could be in a position to comment publicly. But I would be glad to look into it. Yes.

QUESTION: Cuba.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment or reaction to the arrest made today of this Salvadoran national, and the accusations made by Cuban authorities that he was financed by a Cuban-American group?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we have seen the Ministry of Interior statement on these allegations, and some of the subsequent press reporting. So that's really all we have, unfortunately, thus far.

The State Department is therefore unable to confirm any of these allegations. We are still waiting a response from the Cuban Government to our repeated request for any information or physical evidence to support the Cuban Government's contention that US-based persons, groups and financing are behind the bombings of Cuban tourism facilities. These are allegations that they have made publicly.

This information about an apparent arrest was made publicly. We've read the press reports, but that's really not good enough. That's not how governments communicate with each other - especially on matters involving law enforcement and inquiries into alleged terrorism incidents. So we reiterate our commitment to investigate any such information formally provided by the Cuban Government.

We want to see serious evidence, transmitted formally that can be investigated seriously.

QUESTION: Well, can't you look up and see whether this fellow was trained in the United States, as the Cubans claim?

MR. FOLEY: George, they arrested - the Cuban authorities arrested, I think it was a German tourist some time ago, in the wake of some earlier incidents or bombings, and loudly proclaimed that they had a suspect in the case; and red-faced, then, was forced to release him because I think he'd sent off a firecracker somewhere, as tourists sometimes do.

So we're not going to jump and react to press reports. This is a serious matter. Terrorist incidents have taken place in Cuba. We condemn those incidents. We obviously, and for many years, have favored a democratic transition in Cuba. But we want to see a peaceful democratic transition in the future in Cuba. We do not condone, indeed we condemn any such actions. We're prepared to take a serious look and follow-up any leads that the Cuban Government acts seriously and transmits such information they may have officially and formally. But they have not done so.

So I'd be happy to answer these questions in a positive way when the Cuban Governments have acted in a serious way.

Yes, Howard.

QUESTION: Jim, do you have any kind of update on the Oslo land mine talks?

MR. FOLEY: Not much in the way of an update. It's been a tough negotiation, and we predicted it would be. We are disappointed at the lack of support thus far for the fundamental US positions we brought to Oslo. But we are continuing to negotiate with the other participants to satisfy our fundamental concerns.

So it's still a work in progress. They're still over there in Oslo. They're still negotiating. We haven't given up. We appreciate the support some of our allies have shown in the direction of meeting some of our requirements. This is a negotiation, and we're patient negotiators. So they jury's still out.

QUESTION: In the meantime, there seems to be a growing amount of support on Capitol Hill --of up to a quarter of the Congress, I guess - beginning to rally behind a bill to press for the US going along with the complete ban. Members of Congress saying the US should stop being an obstacle and lead the way towards a complete ban. Do you have any reaction to that?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we understand the considerable support and behind efforts that we're part of to help achieve a global ban on anti-personnel land mines. That's our aim.

But we have serious national security interests at play here, and we are not prepared to sign a treaty that does not protect those interests. We've said many times that our goal is a treaty that is sound from the standpoint of both humanitarian and national security objectives.

But we've got eight days of negotiations remaining. We're still hopeful that we can conclude a treaty in Oslo that we can all sign in Ottawa in December. We're also going to continue to work on the conference on disarmament, toward a goal with them.

Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: On Cyprus, anything on --

MR. FOLEY: On what subject, Mr. Lambros?

QUESTION: Anything on Tom Miller's grand tour in the region for the salvation of Cyprus from the Turkish aggression? How was his trip in Athens?

MR. FOLEY: I haven't spoken to him. As you recall, I mentioned that I'd had a conversation with him a day or two ago, following his meetings in Ankara. If I'm able to speak with him - he's a busy man, visiting many capitals, as you know. If I'm in a position to report something, then I will do so - perhaps tomorrow or Monday. That's if I'm able to.

QUESTION: I was told that while in Ankara, Mr. Tom Miller discussed also the sensitive issue of the ecumenical patriarch heretofore of - (inaudible). I'm wondering who brought the issue in the talks? The American or Turkish side? And to which direction, if you know anything?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I was unable to get everything you said, but I did report to you the other day on everything that Mr. Miller informed me that he discussed with his Turkish hosts. So I couldn't possibly, just by definition, respond further.

Yes.

QUESTION: Richard Holbrooke met yesterday in New York City with Archbishop of Cyprus, Chrysostomos. Do you have anything on that?

MR. FOLEY: No.

Yes.

QUESTION: Three deputies from opposition, as well as several journalists, were evicted today from airport in Nakhichevan, back to Baku, capital of Azerbaijan. The deputies and journalists set out to Nakhichevan to visit leader of democratic opposition, ex-President Albufaz Elchibey. They have been stopped by a group of policemen who ordered them to return to the plane and fly back to Baku. This is the second time in two days that deputies are not allowed to visit Nakhichevan. Have you seen this report? And do you have anything about that?

MR. FOLEY: No, I haven't. I'm also not sure that I will be in a position every day from the podium to comment on what may or may not be happening there on a day-to-day basis. So I would suggest that you might keep in touch with the Public Affairs Office in the Bureau of European Affairs - especially the Office of the New Independent States. Perhaps from time to time, they'll be able to update you on what's going on. If something significant happens that reaches a certain level of attention, I'd be much better prepared to respond on daily basis.

Anything else?

QUESTION: One more.

MR. FOLEY: One more.

QUESTION: In Turkey, the religious freedom by the Muslim believers is under political persecution on an every-day basis without account of the secular government of Mr. Yilmaz. How do you comment, since your government is very sensitive on this? An unusual phenomenon by the secular Turkish Government against the most basic elements of human rights of Muslim believers.

MR. FOLEY: Well, the support for religious freedom around the world is something that is important to the United States Government. We've made re- invigorated efforts, especially with - since the time Secretary Albright has come to the State Department. Ambassador Shattuck gave a very interesting briefing here a few weeks ago - a report on religious persecution of Christians.

It's a matter that we do take seriously and that we raise. We've tasked our embassies to raise and to make a priority in their relations with governments around the world.

QUESTION: On this particular issue, how does the position of the US Government?

MR. FOLEY: I think I've stated all that I wish to on the subject.

Yes.

QUESTION: I spoke to a person from the Cuban - American legion in Miami, saying that this kind of violence in Cuba is an expression from the Cubans to reject the regime. Does the State Department agree with this kind of justification on the Cuban-American --

MR. FOLEY: Absolutely not. The Secretary of State, in her visit to the Middle East, has made crystal clear that there is no place for terrorism in the political process. We believe that in the Middle East, and we believe it in Cuba and all around the world.

Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:30 P.M.)

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article