U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #165, 97-11-17
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
524
U.S. Department of State
Off-camera Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, November 17, 1997
Briefer: Lee McClenny
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 North Korea: USG Assessment Team background briefing today
STATEMENTS
1-2 Helms-Burton: Title IV Implementation
IRAQ
2-3,9-10 Composition of inspection teams; US position; potential new
UNSCOM arrangements
3,5,8 Oil-for-food deal; US support of Butler pulling inspectors
from Iraq
4-6,12 Diplomatic initiatives, potential deadlines; Iraqi
compliance; US response
5-6,8 Secretary's efforts; possible military action; US use of
Gulf countries' facilities
6 Primakov's diplomatic activities; US expectations; US view
of latest Iraqi statements
7-8 Supposed US change in approach, concessions, progress
8-9 Potential anthrax use; meetings in Washington, DC
9-12,20 Timeline for inspectors jobs; expertise of team; US view of
Iraqi complaints; suffering of Iraqi people; future
removal of sanctions; Update on recent Kurdish dialogue
CHINA
12-13 Wei case; US contact with Beijing; US representation; Wei's
future movements
13-14 State's prior knowledge of Wei release; other dissident
cases discussed during US-China summit; Wang Dan case
14-15 China's view of Wei/Dan cases; conditions of Wei release;
US view of expulsion; Likelihood of Wei's return to
China; Wei's state of health
15-16 Supposed US and Chinese meddling in each other's internal
affairs
HUNGARY
16 Referendum on NATO expansion; voting results
EYGPT
16-17 Attack in Luxor; details of casualties, Amcits; US response
in Cairo
17-18 Public announcement issued; US expectations; Egyptian
concern re tourism, industries
TURKEY
18 Potential use of Incerlik airport re attack on Iraq
CUBA
18-19 Report on bombing attacks; possible US investigation;
evidence from Cuban govt.; US contact with Salvadoran
govt.
NORTH KOREA
20 Four-party preparatory talks
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OFF-CAMERA PRESS BRIEFING
Briefer: Lee McClenny
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1997 1:15 P.M.
MR. MCCLENNY: It's 12:30 p.m. somewhere in the world, right? I
apologize. That's a good place to start.
QUESTION: Just not here, right?
MR. MCCLENNY: Just not here. My apologies. I hope you'll bear with
me. This is more difficult than it probably seems. There was a lot of stuff
to go over. And goodness knows, I didn't want to come out unprepared. I
have anyway; but I didn't want to.
I have a couple of announcements. One is a reminder; I think we put out an
announcement on Friday that there will be a background briefing this
afternoon. There will be a background briefing on the US Government food
and needs assessment team, which returned recently from the
DPRK. Representatives - senior officials of USAID and the Department of
State will speak here on background. The event will be today, as I said,
2:45 p.m. in this room, for those of you who are so inclined.
Second -- and perhaps the subject of some questioning right after this - a
statement to read. Implementation of Title IV of the Cuban Liberty and
Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996. On November 13, the Department of State,
after a careful review of all information available sent out determination
letters to corporate officers of BM Group, also known as Grupo B. M., an
Israeli-owned citrus company, to inform them that their activities
involving confiscated US claimed properties in Cuba are within the purview
of Title IV of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, also known
as Helms-Burton.
Title IV of that act provides for the denial of visas to and exclusion from
the United States of any foreign national who the Secretary of State
determines is a person who, after March 12, 1996, confiscates or traffics
in confiscated property in Cuba. This provision also applies to corporate
officers, principals and controlling shareholders of an entity which has
been involved in a confiscation or trafficking. We've got a fuller read-out
of this, that you can read, in the press office afterwards.
In any event, the determination letters notify the corporate officers,
together with their spouses and minor children, as well as their agents,
that they will be denied visas and excluded from entering the United
States, effective 45 days from the date of the letters. The letters were
sent as part of the Administration's continuing efforts to implement the
provisions of Title IV of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act.
QUESTION: The letters went out today?
MR. MCCLENNY: The letters went out last week. They went out by fax and
commercial courier. I believe all of the individuals have received them
now, but I'm not absolutely certain of that.
QUESTION: What was the date?
MR. MCCLENNY: Late last week. I don't have an exact date for you.
QUESTION: And how many officers?
MR. MCCLENNY: We didn't give a number publicly. As these are law
enforcement matters, and as the individuals in question have 45 days to
come in compliance with the law or give some reason, demonstrate in some
way that they are not in violation of the law, we tend to keep these things
quiet.
It's our hope not to punish, but of course to encourage compliance with the
law. It's US property that has been confiscated, and we think people should
respect that.
Questions on that or other topics?
QUESTION: The reports out of Iraq this morning are that the Iraqis are
prepared to consider a composition of the inspection teams, based on
Security Council membership. The US position, I believe, is that the team
should go back as they are. Given that everybody wants a diplomatic
solution, or says they do, is there any flexibility in the US position?
MR. MCCLENNY: It's the US position, and it's the position of all the
members of the Security Council, to my understanding, that the first step
is for Saddam Hussein to comply with the provisions of the various Security
Council resolutions. That's step one.
It might be possible to talk about some new arrangements after that. But
the first step is compliance with UNSCOM's requirements. Let's start with
that, and we'll go from there.
QUESTION: New arrangements on the composition of UNSCOM?
MR. MCCLENNY: Conceivably. We've not ruled anything in or ruled anything
out, quite frankly. It is not, however, for Iraq to dictate to the Security
Council the membership of its team. The team was picked by the Security
Council, and Iraq, the last time I looked, was not a member of the Security
Council.
QUESTION: You're saying now that the US is open to compromise --
MR. MCCLENNY: No, what I said is that Iraq has to comply first, and we
can talk about things later if they like. But compliance has to come
first.
QUESTION: Well, word from the Secretary's aircraft is there's been some
discussion of liberalizing the oil-for-food deal.
MR. MCCLENNY: I've seen a wire service story reporting that.
QUESTION: So now there's two incentives for Iraq to comply? You're
willing to discuss changing the composition of the inspectors and to let
them get more money to the oil-for-food deal. Sounds like a negotiation to
me.
MR. MCCLENNY: Well, we've indicated for a long time - days and days -
that we have actively been pursuing a peaceful and diplomatic solution to
this. Without in any way accepting the premise of your question, which was
attempting, I think, to put some words in my mouth that I didn't say in any
case, we have pursued and wish to pursue a peaceful diplomatic resolution
of this problem.
However, the first step has to be compliance with the UNSCOM
regulations. The inspectors have to go back in, and we have to get going on
that again. I don't want to - we're not drawing a line in the sand; we're
not trying to create unreasonable expectations. But Iraq agreed to these
conditions sometime ago. It's been their activity, their behavior over a
long period of time which created this crisis. We're trying to resolve it
without resorting to something other than diplomacy.
QUESTION: Lee, would you happen to know if UNSCOM were reshaped to be in
line with the five permanent members of the Security Council, how will that
change the current composition?
MR. MCCLENNY: I don't have a read-out. You'd have to ask UNSCOM to give
you some sort of a read-out.
QUESTION: There are only six Americans now. I mean, how --
MR. MCCLENNY: I don't know what the numbers are, Carol, I'm sorry. I
think it's not a subject that I have anything to deal with.
QUESTION: Does the United States Government either recommend or, more
importantly, approve the pulling of all of the UNSCOM inspectors out of
Iraq, question one. Second question, is that because of security reasons -
they're being held as hostages or being around weapon sites that might be
hit? Is that for their safety that they've been moved?
MR. MCCLENNY: The answer to both questions is really the same. That was a
decision made by Chairman Butler of the UNSCOM, not by the United States.
QUESTION: But do we approve of what Chairman Butler did?
MR. MCCLENNY: We support Chairman Butler fully, just as all the other
members of the Security Council did.
QUESTION: The United States over the weekend, and over the course of the
last few days, has talked a lot about the diplomatic pressures that you're
putting on Iraq to follow through with the sanctions. You want to try to
work this out diplomatically; you want to exhaust these channels of
diplomatic sort of pressure, if you will.
MR. MCCLENNY: We hope not to exhaust them, actually.
QUESTION: But nevertheless, is it - are we assuming that you're going to
work the diplomatic chains indefinitely? I mean, is there any kind of time
you're going to put on this, or are you just going to let this extend to
another two weeks?
MR. MCCLENNY: No, there's no particular time deadline one way or the
other. We're not allowing ourselves to be dictated artificially when we'll
come to a solution of all of this. I think those of you who watched the
weekend programs saw a number of Administration officials out there. They
were all very clear about all of these questions. It's our much preferred
course to resolve this matter quickly, peacefully and multilaterally.
We're working hard on the diplomatic track right now to do everything we
possibly can to ensure that we follow up every possible lead, that we go
all the right places. We want to do this as carefully as possible. We're
serious; we're persistent in this regard. We would prefer not to resort to
force, but we're not ruling anything out. If it becomes necessary, then
that's something we'll have to deal with at that time.
QUESTION: Lee, just to clarify, you're saying, then, that if Iraq
complies, then the US is willing to consider changing the composition of
the inspectors --
MR. MCCLENNY: No, I didn't say that.
QUESTION: You didn't say that?
MR. MCCLENNY: I did not say that.
QUESTION: Okay, well you said anything - you said words to the effect
that it might be possible to talk about some new arrangements after that.
MR. MCCLENNY: Might be possible - that's a double qualifier, I think. But
we're pursuing a lot of diplomatic initiatives, and I'm not going to get
into what the details might be. That's something that's being worked at a
number of levels, and talking about it publicly is not going to help it at
this point.
QUESTION: Okay, well, others are talking privately --
MR. MCCLENNY: Well, I'm not, not from this podium.
QUESTION: Others are talking on background. You're saying, then, that
there are - things are possible if they comply. There's other --
MR. MCCLENNY: And as we've said from here before, the first step is to
come into compliance with UNSCOM, and then we can talk about things. We're
always willing to talk about things. Whether we will come to some sort of
arrangement afterwards or not, I really don't know. That's something to be
dealt with at that point in time.
We're willing to look at things if there are legitimate complaints of one
sort or the other. But dictating to the Security Council is no good.
QUESTION: So then can you confirm this, as you call it, wire service
report that the US is considering increasing the amount of - or tampering
with the oil-for-food sale?
MR. MCCLENNY: Not from this podium, not on the record. I'm not
comfortable talking about our diplomatic efforts in any detail at all;
other than to assure you that we're working hard on all fronts with our
friends and our allies, those who have special relations --
QUESTION: Do you --
MR. MCCLENNY: Let me finish, please. Those who have a special
relationship with Iraq and those who don't. There is a wire service story,
I've seen it. I can't confirm or deny its contents one way or the other.
QUESTION: You can't deny it, either?
MR. MCCLENNY: It has a certain ring of plausibility to it, yes, How's
that?
QUESTION: It has a certain ring of plausibility?
QUESTION: -- the result of the opposition the Secretary faced with the
Gulf allies over military action?
MR. MCCLENNY: You're asking me to get into areas that don't - that I
really don't feel comfortable talking about; on top of which, there's a
premise to your question which I don't accept. We're working the diplomatic
track right now; we're not working the military track.
QUESTION: Which is the premise you don't accept?
MR. MCCLENNY: That we're working a military track before a diplomatic
one, which I think was the premise of the question.
QUESTION: So the Secretary was not seeking approval from the Gulf allies
for military action? She wasn't asking Saudi Arabia to let them use their
base for military action?
MR. MCCLENNY: What we were asking for was trying to find a solution, a
way to get out; trying to build a consensus among all the parties involved;
and reminding some of the front-line nations in that region about the
special threats that Iraq poses to them, and the threats that they face
from Iraq.
As I've indicated now, at least a couple of times, Sid, I'm not going to
talk about what the conversations were expressly about. We're working
diplomacy first. If it comes to military stuff, we'll do that later.
QUESTION: Does the US have permission, standing or otherwise, to use
facilities in Gulf countries for --
MR. MCCLENNY: I don't honestly know whether we have permission from the
nations in the region for those kinds of things. But it's a hypothetical
question, and we haven't come to that bridge yet.
QUESTION: Can you characterize Foreign Minister Primakov's diplomatic
activity these days?
MR. MCCLENNY: I can't.
QUESTION: And say what your hopes and expectations might be for that
particular initiative?
MR. MCCLENNY: I can't characterize it any way, one way or the other. We
do think that those nations that have a special relationship or a special
communications channel or special ties of one sort or the other with Iraq
bear a special responsibility for impressing upon Iraq the seriousness with
which the international community views this present crisis. But I don't
know about his specific movements or what specifically he's working on. It
would really fall to him to characterize his activities.
I'll repeat, I'm not going to get into details of diplomacy, one way or the
other. I mean, it's a plant that flourishes not in bright light at this
point. We can talk about it after the fact.
QUESTION: Would you characterize the latest statements from Iraq as a
little bit more encouraging, perhaps, opening the door a little bit wider
to possible diplomatic solution? And also, when you were saying Iraq has to
be in full compliance, would they just have to agree to be in full
compliance, or would they have to actually take steps to be in full
compliance?
MR. MCCLENNY: No, I think they'd have to be in full compliance. But
really the answer to your question is - the answer to both questions would
be contained in the first question, the first answer, excuse me, which
would be - it's flown out of my head. Repeat your first question for me; I
had a good answer for you.
QUESTION: Do the latest statements from Iraq - is that at all slightly
more encouraging?
MR. MCCLENNY: Yes, thank you. No, I don't think so, frankly. It's still a
case of Iraq attempting to dictate to the Security Council. That's not
encouraging at all. That's been the problem from the beginning.
QUESTION: Lee, why has the US changed its approach towards this?
MR. MCCLENNY: How have we changed our approach?
QUESTION: By offering concessions.
MR. MCCLENNY: That's your assessment. We've been down this path. I'm not
going to talk about diplomacy and what's going on in diplomacy - whether
we've offered or haven't offered. I'm just not going to go there, Sid.
QUESTION: Well, it falls to you today, as the only person around here
speaking publicly, to explain what's going on --
MR. MCCLENNY: To the extent that I'm capable of so doing. And to the
extent that it will advance our diplomatic efforts, I'm happy to do so.
QUESTION: Well, this government apparently has made a major change in its
policy towards this crisis. There's loads of people talking on background,
but now it falls to you to explain why the United States has changed - why
the President of the United States has changed his approach, or is the
Secretary sort of flying by the seat of her pants out there?
MR. MCCLENNY: Where do I begin, Sid?
QUESTION: Why is the US - where you begin is why the US has changed its
approach towards this stand-off.
MR. MCCLENNY: Well, I don't know that we've changed our approach. I don't
see it that way, frankly, Sid.
I have not confirmed for you in any way that there's been any change in our
approaches. I don't think you know what our approach was a week ago or ten
days ago, particularly. There may be people out there backgrounding, but
from this podium, on the record, I don't have any new initiatives to
announce for you. I don't have any new initiatives to confirm or to qualify
or to categorize or describe in any way.
We are working hard - we've assured you many times from this podium and
from other places on a diplomatic track - on a diplomatic track to find a
peaceful resolution to this problem; one that will meet the basic
requirements of everyone, which are putting Saddam Hussein and company back
in compliance with UNSCOM regulations, and getting to work on dealing with
the real problem, which is the destruction and dismantlement of his program
of weapons of mass destruction.
In terms of details, in terms of inside baseball stories of diplomacy, I
don't have anything for you.
QUESTION: Well, are you then saying that it was the United States'
intention all along to change the oil-for-food deal and to consider --
MR. MCCLENNY: I'm saying it's been our intention all along to dismantle
his weapons of mass destruction program. That's where we're going; that's
what we're trying to get.
QUESTION: And this is --
MR. MCCLENNY: Beyond that, I'm not going to confirm details.
QUESTION: This was a tactic you all have had in your back pocket all
along?
MR. MCCLENNY: Beyond that, I'm not going to confirm details, Sid.
QUESTION: Lee, have you - has the diplomatic --
QUESTION: Twice you've --
QUESTION: Has the diplomatic venue yielded any progress? I mean, can you
--
MR. MCCLENNY: Well, I think the Secretary's comments from the Gulf
suggested that she feels cautiously optimistic and heartened by her contact
with our various allies.
We're having contacts obviously here in Washington and in some other
capitals. In general, we're optimistic about getting where we want to get
in the end.
There is a broad consensus that Iraq has behaved abysmally; that it's not
in compliance; that it has to get back in compliance. And that's where
we're starting to work from.
QUESTION: Is there a reality behind the fear that Saddam is taking
advantage of the inspectors being gone to produce more anthrax or nerve gas
or whatever? And is this driving this whole situation to a crisis that
might require military intervention?
MR. MCCLENNY: Well, I'm not an expert in biochemical weapons or weapons
production or whatever. I think it's safe to say - and indeed, I think some
other spokesmen more senior than I, for the Administration, have made it
clear that what's been destroyed or dismantled by UNSCOM over six-plus
years can't be rebuilt immediately.
Now, I've seen some statements by people more knowledgeable than I that
certain periods of time might be required to build certain kinds of
capabilities. I don't' know what those deadlines honestly might be; don't
know what the facts are one way or the other. We're aware, though, the
competent experts in the Administration are aware of what kinds of
parameters we're working within. Those are the sorts of real deadlines -
not artificial deadlines - that we're working against. Beyond that, I
really can't get into it.
QUESTION: Lee, you mentioned that things are going on here in
Washington. Can you talk to us about that? Are they in this building? Who's
involved?
MR. MCCLENNY: Certainly in this building and outside this building. There
have been public references to the President's phone calls and
conversations. I think there have been veiled references to various people
inside this building. But I couldn't identify those people, and it wouldn't
serve any particular purpose, frankly, to talk about it. We're working
aggressively on it.
QUESTION: The spokesman is often asked the same question on various
issues, and we're often - not always, but sometimes - told that the
Secretary or whoever has been in touch with x, y and z. There's nobody -
you can't --
MR. MCCLENNY: I had, unfortunately, a brief conversation with the
traveling party - two, actually, earlier today; but both of them very
brief. We didn't get into details of who she'd talked to one way or the
other. There was a broad agreement that I wouldn't talk about - and indeed,
I won't talk about the details of it.
I think if you look at some of the people who were on Sunday public affairs
talk shows, you'll see some of the principal players here in Washington,
certainly; with the exception of the President, below that level.
QUESTION: If what's been destroyed by the inspectors can be rebuilt
immediately, then when will the inspectors' job ever be done? And two, is
there enough expertise - can the number of Americans on the inspection team
be reduced without getting rid of the expertise needed to carry out the
inspection regime?
MR. MCCLENNY: Both are questions that are excellent and very interesting
questions, but really need to be referred to someone who is technically and
militarily, if you will, competent. I don't have answers for them. UNSCOM
might be able to help you with them, though.
QUESTION: You said a moment ago that once Iraq is back in compliance with
UNSCOM, you were willing to talk about things; we're willing to listen to
legitimate complaints, I think, were your words. Do you consider Iraq's
complaints about the composition of the inspection teams to be legitimate
complaints?
MR. MCCLENNY: No.
QUESTION: So you're not willing to talk about that.
MR. MCCLENNY: We could discuss all sorts of things, and I don't know what
we're going to talk about if and when Iraq gets back in compliance; and
let's hope that they do get back in compliance.
I mean, I appreciate your desire to know more about what we would or
wouldn't accept, but those are our diplomatic secrets that have to be kept
secret until we're ready to deal with them one way or the other. I'm just
not in a position to talk about it publicly.
QUESTION: A follow-up to my question is --
MR. MCCLENNY: Generically, we're ready to talk, broadly, about what might
be done to make things more acceptable to Iraq or to other partners. If
there's some room for compromise there, without any way compromising the
basic mission - which is destroying the weapons of mass destruction - then
why wouldn't we be willing to talk about it? Logic tells you that would be
the situation.
QUESTION: So you're not ruling out discussions? Once they're back in
compliance, you're not ruling out discussions?
MR. MCCLENNY: That's the first step - get back in compliance.
QUESTION: You're not ruling out discussions about --
MR. MCCLENNY: No.
QUESTION: Okay, thank you.
QUESTION: What are legitimate complaints?
MR. MCCLENNY: Legitimate complaints would be complaints that are
legitimate, Sid. Beyond that, I don't think it's helpful to me as a
diplomat to give you a legalistic definition.
QUESTION: No, I mean, you said it, Lee. You referred to legitimate
complaints. What are legitimate complaints that Iraq has? I mean, you
raised it.
MR. MCCLENNY: I didn't say Iraq had legitimate complaints. I said we
would hypothetically be willing to listen to legitimate complaints. We're
probably willing to listen to illegitimate complaints as well, but we're
not going to do anything about them.
QUESTION: Does Iraq have legitimate complaints, in your --
MR. MCCLENNY: Not that I've seen so far, no. Composition of the team, if
that's what you're referring to, no; allegations that we're somehow
behaving specially towards them, no, clearly not. Our goal through UNSCOM,
as a member of the Security Council, has been to dismantle their program of
weapons of mass destruction, period.
This other stuff is fluff; it's chaff that's been thrown out there to
distract people.
QUESTION: What about the impact on the Iraqi people? Is that a legitimate
complaint of the sanctions?
MR. MCCLENNY: There are concerns. We are concerned as anybody else about
the terrible suffering of the Iraqi people. I would note that we
co-sponsored the oil-for-food program. We've helped administer it. It's
unfortunately Iraq's Government's fault - Saddam Hussein's and his
compatriots' fault that the Iraqi people are suffering as they had.
If they'd never invaded Kuwait to begin with; if they'd never engaged in
this kind of bellicose dealing; if they had never backed out of
oil-for-food for a period of time; if a lot of things, this situation would
be much different. It's Iraq's fault that Iraq is in the situation it's
in.
QUESTION: But you do concede the suffering of the Iraqi people would be
one legitimate complaint that --
MR. MCCLENNY: I don't know that it's a complaint; it's a fact that the
Iraqi people are suffering. It's Saddam Hussein's fault; that's another
fact. Is there more that can be done? Perhaps, and we'd be willing to look
at it. We have a wide and broad humanitarian impulse within our society,
and I think it bothers us that people are suffering.
We've done a lot; we've done a whole bunch - I don't have the figures here
in front of me - but a whole bunch to ensure that the suffering is kept as
minimal as possible. Ultimately, though, the responsibility for that - the
fault for that, if you will - lies with Saddam Hussein, not with the United
States.
That's not why Saddam Hussein has tried to curtail the activities of
UNSCOM. It has nothing to do with the suffering of the Iraqi people; he
doesn't care. He obviously doesn't care. We do, but he doesn't.
Let's do over to this side a little bit. My neck's getting stiff looking
that way.
QUESTION: Different subject.
MR. MCCLENNY: Do we have --
QUESTION: Can I just get one final - so does Iraq have any hope of
sanctions being removed while Saddam Hussein is still in power?
MR. MCCLENNY: Sure, if they're in full compliance with UNSCOM. If we
manage to dismantle their weapons of mass destruction. Absolutely.
The decision of who rules in Iraq is one that needs to be made by the Iraqi
people. I'm not going to disingenuously suggest that we think there's
democracy there and they have the full right to choose, but we have laws
against the assassination or the removal of heads of state, and we're not
going to go that route, as near as I can tell.
QUESTION: How do you define Iraq as getting back in compliance? I mean,
what are the specific --
MR. MCCLENNY: Well, UNSCOM has to go back in, and they have to stop the
oft repeated - again, I'm apologizing for not bringing my notes on this
particular area - but their obstruction of, obfuscation of, resistance to
UNSCOM inspectors' efforts to get to the bottom of whether they do or
whether they don't have what kind of programs for developing weapons of
mass destruction.
There are some people who believe that UNSCOM was getting close, and that's
why we see the Iraqis precipitating a crisis. I don't, myself, know whether
that's the case or not. But I know that we don't know yet the full scope of
the effort that the Iraqis were mounting, and we want to get to the bottom
of it.
Saddam Hussein with biological, chemical, nuclear or other sorts of weapons
poses a serious threat not just to Iraq's neighbors, but to the United
States and other peace-loving nations around the world.
QUESTION: Wei Jingsheng -- has there been any contact with Beijing since
he has been released? Any message sent to Beijing? Second, who has met with
him in the United States, from the US Government side? And third, do you
have any information of when his movements might take him to Washington?
MR. MCCLENNY: On the first question of whether there's been contact with
Beijing subsequent to this, I don't honestly know. We were not - how do I
put this? We were not party to the decision for Mr. Wei to come to the
United States. It was a decision that was taken unilaterally on one hand by
the Chinese Government - their decision to offer him a medical parole - and
his decision, please, then to accept their offer of medical parole.
We were informed at one point that this was a possibility that might
happen, but we were not a party to it. There was no deal, there was no
implicit or explicit arrangement of any kind that involved us.
Your second question was?
QUESTION: Second question was, who has had contact with him since he's
been in the United States from the government side?
MR. MCCLENNY: Well, he came from China aboard a flight that had two
officials from the US Embassy, I believe; I think a nurse, as well as a
Chinese-speaking reporting officer from the embassy.
Since he's arrived here, the Deputy Director of the Office of Chinese and
Mongolian Affairs, Mr. James Keith, has gone to Detroit to ensure that
appropriate arrangements are made, and is in touch with him, with Mr. Wei,
there in Detroit.
And your third question?
QUESTION: And the third question - do you have any information on when
his movements might take him to Washington?
MR. MCCLENNY: I don't. He's at the, I believe, the Henry Ford Hospital in
Detroit, undergoing medical treatment and check-up and what not. He will
make decisions for himself about his movements within the United States
when he wants to.
I do understand that he's asked for a little time to rest and get his feet
back underneath him. He's got a number of decisions to make, perhaps.
QUESTION: Follow up on that - you said that at one point of time the
State Department was aware of the fact that Wei Jingsheng might be
released?
MR. MCCLENNY: That he might be released, mm-hmm.
QUESTION: At what time was that?
MR. MCCLENNY: What time was that?
QUESTION: What point? Was it during the summit?
MR. MCCLENNY: I don't have an exact date for you. This is something that
has been out there, if you will; that we've known the possibility of for
some time. I wouldn't get into our diplomatic exchanges.
QUESTION: And along with --
MR. MCCLENNY: You know that the case of Wei Jingsheng was discussed at
the level of Jiang Zemin and President Clinton while here. The case was
discussed by State Department officials, the Secretary's level, lower than
that, in a number of places.
There are many ways that ideas can be communicated. I don't know the
specifics of how it was communicated. But I know that this has been
something we've been hoping might happen, and have been looking for, but
couldn't predict when it might happen.
QUESTION: But did it crystallize more during the summit?
MR. MCCLENNY: I don't think it crystallized until he got on a plane and
landed in Detroit?
QUESTION: Was the issue of Wang Dan raised as well? And is there some
kind of a timeline for the release of Wang Dan? Has that ever been talked
about or mentioned?
MR. MCCLENNY: You're talking about during the summit? There were specific
cases raised, and there were general human rights issues raised, again, at
various levels during the time of the summit - before the summit and after
the summit, as a matter of fact, beyond that. But I can't confirm which
individual cases were raised.
QUESTION: But at any point of time, was it suggested that Wang Dan might
be released, too? Maybe right before the President goes to China maybe?
MR. MCCLENNY: I wouldn't go there one way or the other. We're hopeful
that Wang Dan and indeed all Chinese citizens who are imprisoned for the
peaceful expression of their beliefs, religious or political would be
released. We think they should all be released.
QUESTION: The political dissidents in China have said that this is just
China's way of getting rid of the two major thorns in their side - Wei
Jingsheng and, at some point of time, Wang Dan. But that it's going to draw
international attention away from the real issue which is that there are at
least 3,000 if not more political dissidents who are still in prison; and
that as soon as these two gentlemen are out of sight, the whole issue is
going to be out of mind. Is there some concern?
MR. MCCLENNY: It won't be out of our mind. We're aware of the situation
in China. It's something we've discussed for a long time with them, before
the release of Mr. Wei and after the release of Mr. Wei. We'll continue to
work on it, and I think other Americans who are interested in China will
continue to do so, too.
QUESTION: But we've never heard of any other names being mentioned here.
MR. MCCLENNY: There are other names that are mentioned from time to
time. If you look at our human rights report, there are some names there,
as well. But there's not room for a categorical list. Not for any country
in the world do we do a full and total listing of all the people.
I think there probably is a list. It would be something that would change
from time to time and what not. But are we interested in the question of
human rights in China? Very much so; the President made that very clear. If
it wasn't abundantly clear in the press conference that he and Mr. Jiang
held, then I don't know what more proof really needs to be brought
forward.
QUESTION: Do you know anything about as a condition of Wei's release,
that he leave China? And if so, what does the US say about this expulsion
of Wei.
MR. MCCLENNY: Whether there was a condition - I understand that the
Chinese Government explained to Mr. Wei that if he were granted medical
parole, he would be expected to leave China. It's our view that's a
decision on the part of Mr. Wei and the Chinese Government; and again, one
to which we were not party.
It's our hope that Mr. Wei would be permitted at some point to go back to
China, where he would also be, we hope, permitted to express his political
views in a peaceful way and not be imprisoned for them.
QUESTION: Doesn't this government have an opinion about expulsions? I
mean, it certainly did when Israel expelled several --
MR. MCCLENNY: We're glad that Mr. Wei, who is in need of medical care,
was able to get out of China and get good medical care here in the United
States. I think I'd leave it at that.
QUESTION: But he could have gotten perfectly good medical care in China
if he had access to it.
MR. MCCLENNY: If it had been available to him. I don't think it was
available.
QUESTION: I mean, China has expelled him now. What do you have to say
about China's expulsion of this man?
MR. MCCLENNY: Well, again, I'll repeat what I said before. We think he
should be able to go back to China, and we think he should be able to
peacefully express his political beliefs there.
QUESTION: And what do you think the chances of that are?
MR. MCCLENNY: At this point in time, we'll have to wait until his medical
treatment is completed, and Mr. Wei makes some decisions about what he'd
like to do. It's his decision.
QUESTION: Do you have any information on his state of health?
MR. MCCLENNY: I've seen a press report that indicates that he was in fair
health, I believe, and stable, but malnourished, I think, and extremely
tired. Certainly he's not giving interviews or anything at this point in
time. But I'm not a doctor; I don't have a real good read-out on that.
QUESTION: One more on China, Lee. Mr. Bob Woodward, a very competent
investigator for The Washington Post on Friday revealed more information
about China, the PRC meddling in the internal affairs of the United
States. I'd like your comment on that, and also Mr. Wei --
MR. MCCLENNY: Didn't see the article, but go ahead.
QUESTION: Oh, you didn't see the article?
MR. MCCLENNY: I haven't seen the article.
QUESTION: It said that the Chinese were very happy that Mr. Thompson's
commission had folded. But Mr. Qian Qichen when he was here said that it
was the United States that was meddling in the internal affairs of China,
not the opposite. Can you respond to that?
MR. MCCLENNY: Sure. It's not uncommon for nations whose views on and
behavior in the area of human rights differ from the international norm to
complain about meddling when what we perceive to be legitimate issues are
raised. We don't perceive it as meddling; they do. We disagree.
QUESTION: Yes, do you have any statement on Hungary's referendum
yesterday on NATO expansion?
MR. MCCLENNY: We are very pleased by this overwhelming endorsement of
Hungary's membership in the North Atlantic Alliance. The referendum's
outcome sends an unmistakable signal of the Hungarian people's desire to
join the North Atlantic community and to retake their place in the Western
family of nations.
The vote, along with Hungary's extensive support for NATO's peacekeeping
efforts in Bosnia is another manifestation of Hungary's commitment to
NATO. The strength of the vote shows the Hungarian people are willing to
devote sufficient resources to meet their future NATO commitments. That's
the extent of my statement.
QUESTION: Do you know how many Hungarian people voted in this referendum?
MR. MCCLENNY: 49.24 percent voted; 85.33 percent of whom voted in favor
of the referendum. This is, I understand, under Hungary's constitution, a
legally binding referendum. Also turnout fell within Hungarian norms for
participation in national elections since 1989, which has been the in 45
percent to 69 percent range.
QUESTION: The attack on the tourists in Egypt today - can you tell us
whether any Americans were injured or killed? And can you tell us whether
anybody from the US Embassy in Cairo has been sent to the region? If so,
whom or what type of --
MR. MCCLENNY: I've got lengthy guidance here for you, and I'll go ahead
and launch on it, if I can. We strongly condemn this brutal and horrifying
attack. Such attacks, in addition to killing and injuring innocent tourists
appear aimed at undermining the Egyptian economy, which in turn hurts
ordinary Egyptians.
We'd like to express our deep sympathy to the victims of the attack, their
families and governments, and to the people in the government of Egypt.
At this point, I cannot confirm a casualty toll or provide you with details
additional to those in press reports. As you know, there have been
conflicting reports this morning on the number of casualties or other
details. We understand from Egyptian officials that the death toll may in
fact be as high as 60 - death toll, 60.
We are, of course, checking to see whether any Americans were involved. So
far, we have no confirmed reports. We have been in touch with Egyptian
officials. Several embassy officers are in Luxor to obtain additional
details and provide any assistance to any US citizens if necessary.
To date, we do not know who is responsible for this. Meanwhile, a warden's
message has been issued by the US Embassy in Cairo, cautioning American
private citizens against traveling in Southern Egypt, south of Minya,
M-I-N-Y-A. The notice also says that all official US Government travel to
that area has been canceled until the security situation there has been
clarified.
I understand, as well, that we'll be issuing a public announcement later
today, if it hasn't gone out already, which will go worldwide, focused on
the situation inside Egypt, with words similar to those that I've already
read. There is a copy of the warden's message, and will be - shortly, I
hope - a copy of the public announcement available in the Press Office.
Other subjects? This side, in the back.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Do you have anything to say about that?
MR. MCCLENNY: Indeed, I don't have any guidance on that. But if you would
like to check in later or tomorrow, I can give you something on that. I
apologize; I got word of that late, and didn't have an opportunity to
request anything for my book.
I saw another hand over here.
QUESTION: On Egypt for just one moment, other than the - could you give
us a little bit more on what you expect to come out later today? I wasn't
quite clear on that.
MR. MCCLENNY: Sure. What would come out later today is a public
announcement, which is one of the categories of announcements, messages we
send out. It would be a worldwide announcement.
QUESTION: Saying?
MR. MCCLENNY: Saying essentially that the facts of the case, describing
what is going on; and then all official US Government travel to upper
Egypt, defined as the Minya governant and south has been canceled until the
security situation there has been clarified and further notice
provided. The American Embassy, in this case the US Government, also
recommends that private citizens not travel to upper Egypt until the
security situation there is clarified and further notice is provided. The
US Government would also suggest that American citizens in Egypt exercise
caution wherever they travel in the country.
QUESTION: Has Egypt expressed any concern about how this is going to
affect their tourism and, also, that travel advisory also will not -
MR. MCCLENNY: It's a public announcement, not a travel advisory. But,
yes, I think they probably are concerned. I don't know that they have
expressed concern about that to us. We know that they have publicly
expressed concern about - and I imagine privately as well - about the
impact on important industries for them by these kinds of pointless and
senseless attacks. They create panic and fear. That is the purpose of
terrorism, is it not, to create terror? We are very concerned about that,
but our first consideration has to be the safety of American citizens.
QUESTION: So it's a travel warning, not advisory?
MR. MCCLENNY: It's a travel announcement, which is one level below a
travel warning.
QUESTION: Okay, that's what I just wanted to be clear about.
QUESTION: Defense ministry and the tourist -
MR. MCCLENNY: Is this on Egypt?
QUESTION: No, this is Iraq.
MR. MCCLENNY: Okay.
QUESTION: Turkish - the defense ministry and the Turkish general staff,
they announced that they don't want to give permission to use attack
against Iraq, they decided.
MR. MCCLENNY: Are you talking about Incirlik airport?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. MCCLENNY: Sure. Actually, I think I do have something. We have not
made a request to use Incirlik Air Base for any prospective military action
against Iraq in the context of the current dispute over UNSCOM. Whether we
would or would not is a hypothetical question, and I won't deal with a
hypothetical at this point.
QUESTION: Lee, The Miami Herald reported yesterday that Cuban exiles
based in Miami masterminded and financed the bombings in Havana. First of
all, do you have any comment on that report? And second, can you say
whether there has been any - what activity has been --investigative
activity on the part of the US Government has gone on around this case?
MR. MCCLENNY: Couldn't talk about investigative activity. It doesn't fall
to the Department of State. That would be the FBI or local officials, as
the case may be. We have seen the Herald story. People here in the building
have seen the Herald story, I and others. But we are not in a position to
confirm the contents of it one way or the other.
As we have said in the past, we have requested numerous times that the
government of Cuba provide whatever substantive information or evidence it
may have about these bombing attacks, particularly the evidence that would
support its contention that groups or persons with links to the US were
involved in the bombings. This request is still on the table and remains
unanswered.
Our policy is very clear and has been clear for some time. The United
States is committed to supporting a peaceful transition to democracy in
Cuba and we do not in any way condone the use of violence, whether it be
these attacks or other forms of violence.
QUESTION: Well, why are you waiting for the Cuban Government to hand over
evidence? I mean, at issue here is a violation of US law --
MR. MCCLENNY: Which falls to a different agency of the US Government. I
am not in a position to comment on that. We have asked the Cuban Government
for any help that they might be able to provide, and they have not provided
any. If there is another agency of the US Government looking into this, you
would have to ask them or them, singular or plural, what it is they are
doing.
QUESTION: What about contact with the Salvadoran Government, which does
involve State Department activity?
MR. MCCLENNY: If we had received a request - and I can't confirm or deny
that we have - from another agency of the US Government for contact with
the Salvadoran Government, we would naturally process that request.
QUESTION: I heard that Iraq was -
MR. MCCLENNY: How about in the corner here instead since you just did
one?
QUESTION: Thank you. Can we just go to Kazakhstan? The president of
Kazakhstan was here this morning.
MR. MCCLENNY: I got a question about it already and said that I would
have to look into it.
QUESTION: Oh, I'm sorry. So you have to look into it. So you can't tell
us what they even discussed today?
MR. MCCLENNY: I haven't gotten a readout on it at all, no. I apologize
for that.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: In Northern Iraq, in Kurdish - the Iraqi Kurdish factions
fighting each other, the fighting is increased. By the same token as the
Badat*, I believe, they have started some kind of dialog with the Kurdish
faction. Do you have anything on this subject?
MR. MCCLENNY: You are better informed than I am on the
subject. Sorry. I'm happy to look into it and see if there is anything
more, but I don't have anything on it.
That's it? One more. There's always one more.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- official announcement for the 21st of November
preparatory talks with -
MR. MCCLENNY: Don't have anything for you now. Keep posted. We're hopeful
that we'll get some kind of talks, but I don't have anything for you right
now.
Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:50 P.M.)
|
