U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #142, 97-10-02
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
784
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Thursday, October 2, 1997
Briefer: James B. Foley
STATEMENTS/DEPARTMENT
1 Secretary Albright to Present the Fulbright Award to Czech
Pres. Havel Friday, Oct. 3
RUSSIA
1-3 Weapons and Nuclear Technology Transfers to Iran and
Amb. Wisner's Report
2 Command and Control of Nuclear Devices in Russia and the
Newly Independent States
DRoCONGO
3-4 UN Investigation Team Leaders Recalled to NYC
3-4 Possibility of a US Diplomatic Effort to Break the Impasse
PEACE PROCESS
5 Legality of Settlements in Occupied Territories
11 Hamas Leader Freed by Israel in Jordan
12-13 Role of the US as a Mediator in the Peace Process
COLOMBIA
5-6 USG Dialogue with Pres. Samper
PANAMA
6 Negotiations on the Multilateral Narcotics Center
BOSNIA
6-7 Public Announcement on the SFOR Seizure of TV Transmitters
in the Republika Srpska
7 Amb. Gelbard's Travel Plans in Balkan Region
7-8 Russian Opposition to Transmitter Seizure/Russia-NATO
Relationship
9-10 Current Programming on Seized TV Stations
GREECE
10-11 Support of Terrorism/Turkish Terrorist Group Offices in
Athens
12 Amb. Grossman's Trip to the Region
SOUTH KOREA
11 US-ROK Trade Relations and Super 301
MEXICO
12 Violence in Mexico City
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #142
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1997, 1:00 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Welcome again to today's 1:00 - 12:30 daily briefing. I have
one brief announcement. The Secretary of State, Secretary Albright will be
presenting the 1997 J. William Fulbright Prize for International Understanding
to Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel tomorrow, Friday, October 3, at
11:00 a.m. in the Dean Acheson Auditorium here in the Department of State.
The ceremony will be open to press coverage, and we are going to post a
notice with the details in the Press Office. I would be happy to take
questions.
QUESTION: Did you see the statement by the Russian Federal Security
Service to the effect that the Iranians have, indeed, been trying to
acquire missile technology from Russia but that all such attempts have been
thwarted?
MR. FOLEY: I haven't seen that statement.
QUESTION: Okay. So I guess you can't respond?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we take these reports of alleged Russian involvement in
transfers of such weapons to Iran very seriously. We have raised our
concerns about these issues to the highest levels of the Russian Government,
both recently and over the last few months. Russia has made clear to us
that its policy is to abide by its MTCR commitments and not to assist
Iran's missile program. As you know, we have established a mechanism under
the direction of Ambassador Frank Wisner to pursue this issue with
the Russians. We are working hard to resolve this problem.
QUESTION: Can I phrase Jim's question--
MR. FOLEY: Yes, Carol.
QUESTION: -- a little differently. Putting aside any press reports,
because you have been engaged so intensively on this issue with the
Russians, are you aware of instances when the Russians have, in fact,
thwarted transfers to Iran?
MR. FOLEY: I can't get into with any specificity the nature of our
exchanges with the Russians on this. This is highly sensitive, these
discussions. The topic is sensitive and one of great concern to us. As I
have said, previously we believe it's one of great concern to the Russian
authorities, as well. They have not failed to point out to us on numerous
occasions that the acquisition by Iran of weapons of mass destruction or
the means of delivering them is, perhaps, even of more immediate concern to
their security than it would be to ours, although, I think our concern and
our interest in the matter is second to none.
So we are convinced that they take this seriously. Obviously, I don't want
to get into the nature of the discussions. They are ongoing and the
mechanism that we have established is ongoing and will continue. I would
only say that press reports have indicated that some Russian entities have
been involved that are not necessarily under the direction of the Russian
government but, nevertheless, the information that is being developed
addresses all of the concerns and all of the reports that you have
seen.
QUESTION: Are there any plans for Wisner and his group to go back --
MR. FOLEY: I believe that they will be meeting again. I don't have a date
or a venue. But I believe Ambassador Wisner was in Moscow just a couple of
weeks ago. As part of their discussions, it was agreed that he and his
Russian counterparts would be meeting again, I believe within about a month
or so. Yes, Betsy.
QUESTION: Jim, I don't think you will have a response to this, but let me
just sort of add something for the record. The man who testified on the
Hill said that these weapons were made by - I believe he said the weapons
were made by the KGB or made for the KGB and not for the army. So for the
army to deny that they have either had these weapons or that some have gone
missing may be sort of going to the wrong department, and maybe the
wrong people are being asked.
MR. FOLEY: Well, the issue of reliable command control and the physical
security of nuclear weapons and materials, as I said, is very important to
us. It's an issue that the United States Government takes very seriously.
The government of Russia continues to assure us that it retains adequate
command and control of its nuclear arsenal and materials, meaning its
entire nuclear arsenal and materials, and that appropriate security
arrangements exist for these weapons and facilities.
As you know through our Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction and other
programs, we are indeed working cooperatively with the Russian and other
newly independent states' governments to enhance security of their nuclear
storage facilities. So I think that we believe, as I have said, that the
assurances that the Russian government has given us on this score are
credible. We don't have information that we have developed independently on
our own that runs counter to those assurances but, again, it's a matter
that bears constant attention and we take it extremely seriously.
QUESTION: On the matter of nuclear technology, are you satisfied with the
Russian role in restricting nuclear technology for the various Iranian
power plants? Are you satisfied that the Russians are restricting such
information to things that could not be used for nuclear weaponry?
MR. FOLEY: You're referring to the Bushehr nuclear reactor that they're
working on? Well, the Russians have assured us that this nuclear power
plant is one that involves the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and that
they believe that they have adequate safeguards in place to insure that
their cooperation meets only those ends. As you know, Iran also is subject
to IAEA safeguards as well and inspections, and I believe that's a matter
that this agency also keeps a close watch over.
Carol.
QUESTION: There seems to be quite a lot of confusion as to where the UN
and international community is going on this. What is your understanding of
the situation as it stands now? Has the US ambassador had a chance to talk
to Kabila and do you have any sort of reassurances?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that Ambassador Simpson has actually spoken to
President Kabila. Clearly, what is in the forefront of the news today and
yesterday is the decision by the United Nations, by Secretary General Annan,
to withdraw four members of the UN team in Kinshasa and bring them back to
New York for consultations in order to determine the next steps.
We regret that it was necessary for the team leaders to be recalled, but we
do understand that the United Nations considers this important and, again,
necessary. However, we believe that the investigation should resume quickly
and we continue to urge both sides to work out the logistical arrangements
for the team to enable it to conduct its investigation.
We hope the consultations by the team leaders in New York will clarify and
overcome the difficulties that are dividing the DROC and the UN. But our
bottom line though remains the same, which is that the government in
Kinshasa must allow the team to carry out its mandate anywhere in the
country. That's really the essence of the dispute, as I understand it right
now; the question as to whether their activities and the locale of their
investigation can be limited.
I don't have it before me, but there was a protocol that was signed between
the government and the United Nations that authorized the UN investigators
to cover the entire range of the country, wherever they felt they needed to
go. The United States Government continues to back that right and that
authority of the United Nations to pursue its mandate across the country,
and so we also expect that the UN will send the team back to Kinshasa as
quickly as possible.
QUESTION: Is the United States going to send some special envoy down
there, Richardson or somebody else?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have that information. It's possible that we may want
to conduct a parallel effort on our own to see if we can break the logjam
and move it forward on the basis that I described, but I have nothing to
announce right now.
QUESTION: How quickly would you mount that?
MR. FOLEY: Well, because I don't have anything to announce, I can't
announce to you when we would make such a decision. But I think we're going
to be considering it though.
QUESTION: Do you see any merit in Kabila's arguments that this problem of
war crimes or atrocities is larger than just his country and doesn't apply
necessarily to him per se and that it should be looked at in a broader
context?
MR. FOLEY: Well, on your first comment we would see some merit in that it
doesn't apply only to his country, and I believe the United Nations mandate
covers wider areas, clearly in Rwanda and a period of time that pre-dates
Mr. Kabila's arrival in power. Indeed, in the course of these protracted
negotiations between the United Nations and the Kinshasa government,
accommodation has been made on the UN side to widen the scope of the
inquiry in the former Zaire to accommodate those concerns. Of course,
the United Nations made other concessions, if you will, in this respect
concerning the nature of the makeup of the team, of the team leaders.
So we believe that the UN has bent over backwards. The international
community has shown a good deal of patience and, as I said yesterday, that
patience is truly wearing thin.
QUESTION: Well, as far as I know, let's move to - allow me to move to the
Middle East.
MR. FOLEY: If we're finished, excuse me, on Africa. Any other questions
on Africa?
QUESTION: Just one. In terms of leverage, the US weapons appear to be
limited to cutting off any further aid. Is that right?
MR. FOLEY: On the part of the United States? Well, it's not the United
States alone. Together with our other friends and allies and those who are
in a position to provide assistance either bilaterally or through
multilateral institutions, we all have an interest in two things: in
helping to aid the rehabilitation of the Congo following years of civil war
and economic and social dislocation; (and in) allowing Kinshasa to resume
its rightful place among leading African nations. We would like to be
able to help in that respect because we think that the Congo has a
very positive role to play in the region and that it's in the interest of
consolidating democracy and of consolidating stability on the continent
that we will be able to develop such a healthy relationship.
So the will is there on our side. We want to be a willing partner and be
able to lend a helping hand. I can tell you that our interest in working
with them has not waned. There were a lot of hopes that were generated at
the time Mr. Kabila arrived in Kinshasa and at the time the Mobutu regime
was swept away, hopes that were, of course, first and foremost, shared by
the people of the former Zaire.
So we want to be able to help. But on the other hand, the international
community has a legitimate interest in getting to the bottom of what
appeared to have been horrible massacres on the level of genocide that
occurred in that region. The question that we are all facing is how do we
achieve both objectives. Right now, there is a standoff. We're not moving
forward on either one and we would like to be able to move forward on both
fronts.
QUESTION: Well, as far as I know, the issue of settlements has been
always brought up as a political issue, but the legal aspects of it have
not been touched by the US, especially under international law and the
Geneva Convention, which prohibits the occupied forces from moving its own
population into occupied areas. Are you prepared to look at it from this
viewpoint?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think I spoke to this issue yesterday. I don't know if
you've seen a copy of my transcript, but I was, I think, fairly clear about
it that our position on the international legal aspects of the settlement
question has not changed in any way.
Yes?
QUESTION: Can I try this, because I remember reading something I think
Jamie said yesterday that Oslo did not prohibit settlements. If Oslo does
not prohibit something, does it make it legal? Is this the basis for the
legality of this?
MR. FOLEY: Our position has always been that we believe that settlement
activity is a complicating factor in our efforts to promote a negotiated
settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and dispute, and that view
has not changed. We think settlements are counter-productive, they are
unhelpful, and that has not changed.
QUESTION: Please give us an idea -- why did the Secretary say that
yesterday, because the timing makes it very difficult for people in the
area to understand, and I'm talking about the Arab side to understand --
why something like this would be said now one week before, the negotiations
start and would --
MR. FOLEY: Well, I would refer you to the transcript of my remarks
yesterday on the subject.
Yes?
QUESTION: Different subject.
MR. FOLEY: No more on the Middle East? What a surprise.
Yes?
QUESTION: General McCaffrey mentioned yesterday that during his trip to
Colombia he is willing to meet President Samper. Does that mean the policy
of the United States with Samper has changed a little?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not aware of his comments. I would be glad to take
the question and look into it. I'm not sure that we have had no communication
with President Samper and whether our embassy also has not had communication.
It may be the case, in fact, that there is such communication. As you know,
the impediment that faces President Samper in terms of his relations with
the United States principally revolves around the denial of visa privileges
to visit the United States. But I could look into the question.
Yes, Laura.
QUESTION: I have a follow-up on that. And also on the region, is there
any new development with the negotiations on Panama in terms of the
multilateral anti-narcotics center?
MR. FOLEY: I believe there were discussions within the last few weeks
that made some progress. There are still issues that remain to be settled,
and I believe there is going to be another round of talks. I don't have the
date on that, but I would be happy to get it for you.
Laura.
QUESTION: On Bosnia, the Department issued a public announcement
yesterday following the seizure by SFOR of broadcast facilities. And I just
wondered if you could give us a sense of why you felt you needed to do that
and if there was a specific incident or threat that precipitated it.
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that there was any specific incident or threat,
but it was certainly a precautionary measure which we take from time to
time when we believe that it's necessary for American citizens to take due
cautions in traveling to areas which might be experiencing tension.
QUESTION: It doesn't expire until December 30th, though. It seems to go
on for quite a lengthy period of time.
MR. FOLEY: That is an interesting question. When we issue these kind of
travel warnings or public announcements, there is a general procedure in
which a date is picked several months hence. I'm not sure it's always the
same. But I do believe that that doesn't necessarily reflect a concern on
our part that the caution needs to be something that is in effect for
exactly that period of time.
In other words, what we might do at some point if we feel that this period
has ended, we might issue a revised notice or withdraw the notice.
QUESTION: Can you say beyond just advising Americans traveling to
exercise caution, have any other security measures been taken at the
embassy or for official Americans in any capacity traveling in Bosnia?
MR. FOLEY: Well, of course, especially in an area of some volatility,
such as the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia in particular -- but it's also the
case with all of our diplomatic installations around the world -- security
is a priority and precautions must always be taken. Again, in that specific
area of the world, I'm sure security is one of the prime considerations of
our ambassador and our country team and certainly of American forces within
SFOR.
I'm not aware, though, that there is a particular concern at this time in
terms of travel. We are not in any way falling back on our commitment to
high level dialogue with leaders in the region and the effort to advance
implementation of Dayton. In that context, I can tell you that Ambassador
Gelbard is traveling to Europe today. He is going to be in Zagreb tomorrow
for meetings with President Tudjman and other high level Croatian
officials. While in the former Yugoslavia, he'll be visiting President
Plavsic. I think that's also tomorrow. It may be Saturday. I would
have to get that for you. He will be meeting President Izetbegovic
in Sarajevo on Sunday. He'll be meeting Mr. Krajisnik.
And then on Monday, perhaps most importantly, he'll be traveling to
Belgrade for a meeting with President Milosevic. I can tell you that
probably at the top of his agenda in Belgrade will be the aim to bring
directly and personally to President Milosevic our dismay over the events
that were described in the public announcement that I issued yesterday that
was put together by the United States and the European Union, our dismay
over the repression that took place in Kosovo the other day and in Belgrade,
as well.
But I think the situation in Kosovo certainly will be at the top of his
agenda while he is meeting with President Milosevic. Yes, George.
QUESTION: What's at the top of his agenda for Zagreb?
MR. FOLEY: Well, he's going to be discussing really the range of issues.
I'm not sure that he has a singular purpose as such in visiting Zagreb. But
among those issues are federation issues, cooperation, Croatian cooperation
on making the federation work, the implementation of Croatian commitments
on Eastern Slovonia and overall Dayton implementation issues. War crimes is
also an issue of concern, the issue of indicted war criminals -- I
think he may be discussing that. I don't have his agenda with me to
share with you, but the usual suspects, I would say.
QUESTION: Have you seen the Russian government's statement that the SFOR
takeover of the four radio transmitters was "an inappropriate use of
force"?
MR. FOLEY: I did see that coming in. I don't think we've had time to
analyze it. I think it was just a wire dispatch within the last hour or so.
But I would note though, in this context, that the SFOR action was one that
was requested by the High Representative, Mr. Westendorp, and that it was
in full conformity with agreements reached, for example, at Cintra and in
subsequent meetings to which the Russians were a party, and also that the
action in which SFOR took control of those transmitters was essentially one
in which there were no incidents. They were not resisted and it transpired
peacefully.
QUESTION: Well, is this a tip to you that Russia may be breaking ranks
again with the NATO forces?
MR. FOLEY: Well, Jim, we get this question every now and then. It is true
that we don't always see eye to eye on a daily basis concerning tactics,
day-to-day decisions in Bosnia. I don't see any breaking of ranks though
concerning overall objectives in Bosnia.
I would further note that the SFOR action really was not a spur-of-the-
moment decision. It really reflected a culmination of months of discussion
and of a process that the Pale Serbs had accepted. I think this is a very
pertinent point. First of all, I would note that the constitution of Bosnia-
Herzegovina, which was agreed to at Dayton, that within the constitution
the Bosnian Serbs agreed to uphold international norms, including those
pertaining to freedom of expression of the media. Equally important is the
fact that the Bosnian Serbs, the Pale Serbs, reiterated this commitment in
recent months. On September 2nd, the agreement that they signed at Urdogovo,
the Pale Serbs accepted the authority of the Office of the High Representative
to enforce the agreement. So we don't find the slightest reason to
challenge the authority of the High Representative to request SFOR action
or of SFOR in accepting to undertake this mission.
Carol.
QUESTION: This specific issue was raised last week at the contact group
and the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council meeting in New York about the
use of force in the media. And the Russians there said they had concerns
about it. I mean, and now they're coming out this week and talking about it
again.
Just to get back to Jim's question, is there not a concern here the
Russians do not share your point of view on how this is unfolding?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I have acknowledged the fact that we have tactical
differences from time to time with the Russians, but we are confident that
they share the objectives that are enshrined in Dayton. They do understand
the fact that the kind of hateful propaganda and vitriol and manipulation
of the media that was coming out of Pale-controlled media organs is one
that renders the task of implementing Dayton, of stitching the country
back together, and especially of bringing the Republika Srpska itself
into a situation where they too can participate in the benefits of peace
and in national reconstruction, that the Russians do understand and support
this goal.
We may differ from time to time about what is the best tactic at the moment
to utilize to achieve this objective, but I think we are in fundamental
agreement on what we are trying to achieve.
QUESTION: Jim, not to debate you on this, but if you can't get the
Russians to agree on shutting down what you consider propaganda from this
media, what do you think will happen if you decide to go after Karadzic or
any other war criminals?
MR. FOLEY: Well, you know very well that I am not going to touch a
question like that, much as I would be tempted to. But Mr. Karadzic's place
is in The Hague. I don't think the Russians dispute that. Yes. Another
question on Bosnia?
Yes.
QUESTION: What is the status of programming that was going out over these
towers? Has NATO now gone into the radio programming business? Is there
programming being provided by Madame Plavsic's people?
MR. FOLEY: Well --
QUESTION: Or has it just been shut down?
MR. FOLEY: There was an agreement that was brokered in Belgrade by Mr.
Milosevic. I would add that Ambassador Gelbard is going to be discussing
that agreement and some problems we have with that agreement when he is in
Belgrade. But under those terms, Madam Plavsic and Mr. Krajisnik agreed
that the Pale and the Banja Luka Serbs would broadcast over those
transmitters on alternating days. It so happened, I believe, that yesterday
was her day, and she transmitted broadcasting, or Banja Luka did.
I also understand that that is continuing again today.
But in terms of where things go with those transmitters, that has not been
decided. It's something that the international community and, first and
foremost the High Representative is currently examining ways to restructure
media operations in the Republika Srpska. My understanding is no decision
has been taken yet on that. I believe that the goal they are seeking is to
come up with a media system, not only in the Republika Srpska but
throughout Bosnia, that would be free of the monopolizing influence of
political parties; in other words, that would provide access to a wide
variety of views and be in accord with the precepts of the Dayton
peace agreement.
Clearly, there are other problems throughout Bosnia, not only in terms of
the Pale Serbs but the media that needs to be more reflective of competing
views and more in line with practices of democratic countries. In terms of
your question about any American role in this, we are soliciting products
from U.S. commercial networks that might make the broadcasting content more
attractive to viewers. But I would refer your question about the role
of those transmitting airplanes that were deployed to the theater,
I would refer you to the Pentagon. I am not aware that there has been
anything happening in that area.
QUESTION: Who are you all soliciting this programming from? From U.S.
commercial stations?
MR. FOLEY: That's my understanding, yes. I don't have the information.
QUESTION: TV, radio, the spectrum?
QUESTION: "Seinfeld"?
MR. FOLEY: That's a very good idea. I think there is a need for some
humor within the region. It might help in promoting national reconciliation.
I would be happy to look into that for you, though. I don't have those
details. Yes.
QUESTION: Yes, I want to get back to the issue of Greece and support of
terrorism. Does the U.S. subscribe to the allegation made by The Observer
that Greece is a country that supports terrorism and promotes terrorism?
MR. FOLEY: No, not at all. We have not made any determination that Greece
is a state sponsor of terrorism. I was asked a question yesterday about a
couple of offices that exist --
QUESTION: That's different. I'm speaking of the issue of The Observer
allegation.
MR. FOLEY: Right. But the statement I made yesterday referred to the
presence of a couple of offices of two Turkish terrorist groups on Greece.
We cooperate very closely with the government of Greece in combating
terrorism. In fact, the Greek Minister of Public Order is in Washington
this week for meetings with the State Department, CIA, and FBI officials on
enhancing counter-terrorism cooperation. We consider Greece to be a close
ally, a country with which we have extraordinarily positive relations. I am
quoting Mr. McCurry's statement that was mentioned yesterday. As he said,
"there is no suggestion in the annual report of the State Department
"Patterns of Global Terrorism" that corroborate any suggestion that Greece
is a state sponsor of terrorism".
QUESTION: Can I follow?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Are you still agreed that Greece tolerates terrorism which your
April 1997 report mentioned?
MR. FOLEY: No, we don't.
QUESTION: The opening of those two Turkish terrorist organizations in
Athens?
MR. FOLEY: I would refer you to my comments --
QUESTION: Yesterday.
MR. FOLEY: -- yesterday in which I said --
QUESTION: Today's comments are different than yesterday a little
bit.
MR. FOLEY: No, not in the least. Not in the least. I was asked whether we
believe Greece is a state sponsor of terrorism, and my emphatic and
categorical answer is no. I was asked yesterday about the presence of a
couple of offices. I would refer you to my comments of two Turkish
terrorist organizations in Athens. We regret their presence there. Those
are two separate issues, and I stand by both of my statements. Yes.
QUESTION: Back to the Middle East?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: About the Hamas leader, Mr. Yassin, who was released yesterday.
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: There was a meeting between him and Arafat and King Hussein.
The Crown Prince of Jordan said yesterday he should be able to travel
wherever he wants, if he wants to go back to Gaza or wherever he wants. Do
you support him going back to Gaza? What's
your comment?
MR. FOLEY: I don't think the United States Government is taking a view on
that. That's really a matter for, in the first instance, for Jordanian
authorities currently.
Yes.
QUESTION: Let me ask about the trade issue with South Korea. The decision
made by the USTR yesterday to identify South Korean as PFPC raised serious
concern among the Korean people. Their understanding is that South Korea is
the only country among Eastern Asia countries to record a trade deficit
with the U.S., but the U.S. is the most aggressive against the South Korean
government.
Do you have any comment on that?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we have obviously had difficulties - our Trade
Representative - in negotiating a liberalization of the Republic of Korea's
automobile import regime. There is no use disguising the fact that we have
had problems in the negotiating process. That is a fact. But the identification
of Korea's automobile import regime under Section 301 is one step in a
process during which we hope to resolve this problem together with the
Korean government. There is a period of one year to 18 months to achieve
the necessary progress before punitive steps would need to be imposed.
So negotiations about this issue will continue in the near future. We do
not anticipate any impact on our current excellent strategic relationship
with this important ally. In terms of any further details, though, on the
nature of the finding, I would refer you to the Trade Representative's
Office.
Any questions on this side? Yes.
QUESTION: Assistant Secretary Marc Grossman is in Athens right now, I
believe. He is going to Turkey. What's the purpose of this visit, because
last week he just met with the Turkish and Greek foreign ministers in New
York and with Secretary of State Albright? And what's the purpose
immediately after this meeting to go the area?
MR. FOLEY: The purpose of?
QUESTION: His visit.
MR. FOLEY: His going back to --
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. FOLEY: -- to the area? Well, he's just been newly named Assistant
Secretary of State. It's perfectly normal that he undertake sort of an
orientation visit in his new capacity. I am not aware that he has any
special mission or agenda. I don't believe that's the case.
QUESTION: Is he carrying any special proposal for both sides for a calm-
down to sit and negotiate this?
MR. FOLEY: Well, it would be natural that on his visit to the region that
he would be pursuing our overall objectives of a stabilization of relations
and improvement of relations between our two important allies in the region,
Greece and Turkey, and a general toning down of the somewhat heated
rhetoric we have been seeing in recent weeks.
Yes.
QUESTION: Mexico City is starting to be one of the most violent cities in
Latin America. Is the U.S. doing something? A travel advisory or something?
There has been executions, assassinations, the last few days in Mexico
City?
MR. FOLEY: I am not aware that we are considering any such advisory. Any
other questions? Yes.
QUESTION: Middle East?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, I think that one of the main reasons why Secretary
Albright -- during her visit to the Middle East, she called for a time-out
or a freeze regarding the settlements. I think one of these reasons that to
rebuild confidence between both parties, the Israelis and Arabs. And, now,
don't you think that the Arab and Palestinian confidence in the U.S. role
is the one that needs some repairs? Are you prepared to - to anything
like that? Do you think this would happen?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure I can accept the premise of your question.
Secretary Albright was, I think, extremely well received throughout the
region, wherever she went. I think all of her hosts and interlocutors
recognize the critical role that America has to play in helping bring the
parties together. She went there at a very difficult time, where the crisis
of confidence had deepened. We believe that her visit helped -- in not a
large way, certainly, because the situation is extraordinarily difficult,
but in an important way -- to help bring the parties back from the
abyss and move towards resuming negotiations.
Her meetings in New York also helped to bring the parties in this
direction. As you know, Ambassador Ross will be heading to the region for
meetings next week and then the Palestinians and Israelis will be coming
here the following week. While it's going to be a long road and an
unpredictable one, we think that she has reasserted America's role in the
region and that was welcome by everyone she saw there.
Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:38 P.M.)
|
