U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #180, 97-12-12
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
763
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Friday, December 12, 1997
Briefer: James B. Foley
DEPARTMENT
1 Background Briefing on Diplomatic Security Investigation re
Ambassador Lawrence
IRAN
1 Statements from the OIC Meeting in Teheran
1,12 --Call for Cooperation and Dialogue
1,2-4,12 --Condemnation of Terrorism
2 --Middle East Peace Process
2 --Lifting of Sanctions on Libya
MIDDLE EAST
4 Assistant Secretary Indyk's Visit to the Region
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
4-6 Reported US Pressure on Israeli Government re Peace Process
RUSSIA
6 President Yeltsin's Health
6-8 HEU Agreement
BOSNIA
8 Reported Meeting Between Milosevic, Plavsic and Krajisnik
CAMBODIA
8 Reported Agreement to Allow Prince Ranariddh to Return to
Cambodia
CHINA
8-9 USUN Ambassador Richardson's Remarks re China's Progress
Toward Democracy and Free Press/Comparisons to Cuba
CUBA
9-10 Visit by US Officials to Cuba Two Weeks Ago
UKRAINE
10-11 Visa Revocation Case
IRAQ
11 Ambassador Butler's Visit to Baghdad
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #180
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1997, 1:10 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Welcome. I have one announcement to make.
The Bureau of Diplomatic Security has completed its investigation into the
claimed Merchant Marine service of the late Ambassador Larry Lawrence.
Diplomatic Security has concluded that Ambassador Lawrence was a full-time
student at Wilbur Wright College in Chicago from September 1944 to June
1945, and was not a Merchant Marine volunteer, as he had previously
claimed.
The Diplomatic Security investigation into Ambassador Lawrence's background
is now closed. Senior officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security will
be available to answer your questions regarding their investigation during
a background briefing that will begin approximately 30 minutes after our
regular press briefing ends - I anticipate more or less around 2:00
p.m.
QUESTION: Yesterday you said there were something like 142 resolutions
approved at the Islamic summit in Tehran. I wonder if any of them caught
your eye, that you'd like to comment on.
MR. FOLEY: A few of them did. I don't think we have all of them, still,
in our possession, and therefore, the opportunity to have reviewed
them.
But let me begin by saying that the texts in English, in any case, are
coming in; and we're working off an Iranian version of the - but haven't
seen the officially released text in English. On the basis of what we have
seen, we give a cautious welcome to a moderate tone that seems to have been
struck in some, if not all, of the resolutions.
We welcome, for instance, the call for cooperation, dialogue and positive
understanding among cultures and religions, and the rejection of the
ideology of confrontation. We also support the OIC's condemnation of
terrorism in all forms and methods, and the statement that the killing of
innocent people is forbidden in Islam. We would expect that all OIC members
would reject attacks on civilians wherever they occur, and for whatever
reason that they may be carried out.
We support the OIC's call that the campaign against international terrorism
should continue, and that the granting of asylum to terrorists should be
stopped. We also note with interest a reference to full respect for the
honor and rights of Muslim women.
On the issue of Arab-Israeli peace, we would have expected the conference
to openly support the peace process, as previous OIC summits have done, and
we note that omission with disappointment. In addition, we reject the OIC's
call for lifting sanctions on Libya. However, I would note that the OIC did
not issue any call for a lifting of sanctions against Iraq.
QUESTION: When you talk about the tone, the overall tone, being a little
more conciliatory - I forgot which word you used - to what do you attribute
that? Do you attribute that to - do you see Iran's hand in any of this, or
do you think it was the weight of the other members of the OIC that caused
this moderation?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as I mentioned yesterday, insofar as the peace process
is concerned, for example, the resolutions, as we've seen them, do not
reflect stated Iranian views. I think you'd have to ask the Iranians
whether they were forced, as host of the conference, to adjust to achieve
consensus, or whether this represents a change of heart and a reflection of
their professed desire to have more good-neighborly relations in the
region.
I think what we can state with some certainty, though, is that some of our
close friends in the Islamic world did, in fact, contribute to the
generally moderate tone that we've seen in the final declaration.
QUESTION: Can I assume that US officials have talked with officials from
states that we're friendly with, who attended this conference, to get a
personal read on what went on there?
MR. FOLEY: We will be having those conversations through our embassies.
The conference broke up yesterday. I wouldn't want to rule out that
delegations, having returned to their countries, have not been in touch
with our representatives overseas. I haven't seen any reports coming in
this morning on that, but we'll undoubtedly be discussing, with our many
Islamic country friends, the conference and the results.
QUESTION: So this analysis is a text analysis?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, it's a text analysis. And I can't even tell you it's a
definitive text analysis, but you have been urging me, as the conference
has progressed, to comment on various points in the conference, and I'm
trying to accommodate a bit today, although really we don't have the full
and final and certainly definitive read-out of everything that was
passed.
QUESTION: Does that include an analysis of the text on the terrorism
resolution, because as of yesterday, they seem to be differentiating
between condemning terrorism and allowing for - my quotes - "terrorist
acts" within the context of national liberation struggles, fights against
colonialism, and that sort of thing.
MR. FOLEY: There may, Howard, have been another reference - and I've seen,
as you have, the press reports that indicated that there may have been
another resolution or element of a resolution passed which seemed to give a
green light to terrorist acts of that nature. I can't confirm that. If it's
true, we categorically reject it.
The resolution that we've seen on terrorism that I referred to, though, in
the beginning of my remarks, made no such reference or no such exception.
It was pretty categorical that - and I can go over it again - that the
killing of innocent people is forbidden in Islam; and not only that, that
they would oppose the granting of asylum to terrorists. As I said, we would
expect that all OIC members would reject attacks on civilians, wherever
they occur and for whatever reason that they may be carried out. That's
our view.
QUESTION: Does the definition of terrorism seem to coincide with the
American definition of terrorism?
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen their definition of terrorism.
QUESTION: But you're embracing the resolution, assuming that there is
some common ground?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not embracing the resolution.
QUESTION: You're welcoming it.
MR. FOLEY: Welcoming it insofar as it is a thorough-going and unqualified
rejection of terrorism.
QUESTION: That's an assumption you're making.
MR. FOLEY: The statement that the killing of innocents is forbidden in
Islam is something that we strongly support and endorse.
QUESTION: Did Iran project a certain tone of anti-Americanism in some of
the statements?
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen all of the statements.
QUESTION: In some of them?
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen specific reference to the United States in what
has crossed my desk. There may be such, but I can't comment on it.
QUESTION: There were Iranian press reports that one of the resolutions
condemned "Israeli state terrorism," or Israeli state something along that -
yes, it's Israeli state terrorism. It's unclear to us whether that was the
definitive language, or whether that really was in there or not. Is it
clear to you?
MR. FOLEY: I asked that question before coming in, and our officials
aren't sure because we don't have possession of the definitive final text
of all the resolutions. But I'll break the rules and answer it hypothetically.
If it is true, of course we would reject such a characterization of
Israel.
QUESTION: The declaration is also condemning all kind of military
cooperation with Israel. For that reason, the Turkish President left the
summit and half of the meeting. Do you approve of this resolution or
declaration?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I've not seen it, but certainly we've made clear our
view that the development of ties between Israel and other countries of the
region is a positive development. We've welcomed, in particular, the
developing closeness of ties between Israel and Turkey.
QUESTION: Will the OIC conference be a topic of discussion for Martin
Indyk, who announced his trip in a background briefing for Israeli
reporters yesterday?
MR. FOLEY: I'll answer your question as you put it. Ambassador Indyk, as
you know, recently began his new job as Assistant Secretary. He has already
visited the entire Gulf, Yemen and Egypt. He's now visiting the core four
states of the region. In the coming months, he will also go to North
Africa.
The major purpose of this trip will be to review with the leaderships of
these countries the entire range of bilateral issues between us. He will,
of course, also discuss the peace process. But that's not the major focus
of the trip.
I was asked earlier whether we would be talking to friendly governments who
were represented in Tehran for the OIC conference. Undoubtedly, he'll have
an opportunity to discuss that with them.
QUESTION: New subject?
QUESTION: In this briefing, apparently Indyk said that these advertisements
that have been running in American newspapers about US position in the
Middle East peace process, apparently are signed by this Committee to
Protect Israel, were in fact orchestrated from Prime Minister Netanyahu's
office. Is that the State Department view?
MR. FOLEY: I've not - first of all, I'm not privy to the briefing that
you mention, so I can't confirm any of the particulars. So I really
wouldn't want to answer the question.
I saw one of those ads that appeared in one of the local newspapers
yesterday. It wasn't indicated - there were no names attached to it. I
couldn't describe the providence of that advertisement from my own
perspective.
QUESTION: The State Department doesn't know?
MR. FOLEY: Not to my knowledge, no.
QUESTION: Ambassador Indyk, I'm told, also denied very strongly during
his briefing with Israeli reporters yesterday, that there would be any type
of pressure from the Secretary or from the Clinton Administration, for that
matter, on Prime Minister Netanyahu, which appears to be a complete -
either a complete reversal or a different take on the policy. Can you
address that in any way?
MR. FOLEY: I can't agree with your premise at all. I don't think you've
seen anyone from this podium talk about pressuring Israel.
The Secretary has described her sense of urgency over the lack of progress
in the Middle East peace process this year. She's committed herself,
provided the parties are willing to meet her halfway and to share her sense
of urgency to play a positive role in helping to achieve progress. She's
looking forward to achieving progress next week in her meetings with Prime
Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat.
Nobody has talked about pressuring anybody. These tough decisions will have
to be made by the parties themselves. We will do everything we can to
encourage them to make the tough decisions and to reach agreements, but we
will do so in strict respect for the nature of the relationships we have in
the region. And there is not room for pressuring or brow-beating. There's
room for encouragement. There's room for a creative American role in
helping the parties to reach agreements.
This is a very serious process that the Secretary has helped to launch.
She's made a date with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat for
next week, and she's expecting to make further progress. She's looking
forward to a serious outcome, both next week and as the process continues.
But I just reject the nature of - the characterization of the relationship,
as you described it.
QUESTION: Well, is the reverse true, then, that you're completely
satisfied with Prime Minister Netanyahu's approach to the peace process and
the pace with which he's conducting it?
MR. FOLEY: First of all, I'm not going to give a score card from the
podium. Secondly, if anyone is going to give a score card, it will come at
the end of the game. This is a process we're engaged in, and we look very
much forward to the meetings in Europe next week and to the progress that
we hope to achieve. I wouldn't want to handicap that or prejudge the
outcome.
QUESTION: As far as the pressure on Israel that has been the subject of a
number of articles in recent weeks, would you have us, then, just disregard
what hosts of American officials are telling us on background, and only
take what you're saying here on the record about pressure on Israel and
dissatisfaction with the Prime Minister?
MR. FOLEY: I cannot now and can never speak to what officials, unnamed
officials, may be saying, unofficially, to the press. That's not something
that I can do from the podium. I can state American official policy from
the podium, nothing more and nothing less.
QUESTION: Why does the Clinton Administration appear to be taking sort of
a two-track approach here -- saying one thing publicly and then running out
and saying something completely different in private? Usually the two are
supposed to be complementary.
MR. FOLEY: I'll repeat what I just said. I can't comment on what
officials may or may not be speaking about privately.
QUESTION: Jim, what's the latest you've heard about Mr. Yeltsin's
condition? Is he improving? What was the last report?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of any change in his condition.
QUESTION: Any - I mean, getting better or worse or - I mean, there has to
be - I'm sure you're updated to some degree.
MR. FOLEY: I asked for an update. I was told that our understanding is
that he's still suffering from the flu and remains in that sanitarium
outside Moscow, but I have no medical bulletin for you. We're not aware of
any change in his health or in his status.
QUESTION: Can you say that there's a report out of Moscow that he, in
fact, suffered something -- I think it was a brain spasm.
MR. FOLEY: I've not heard that or seen that. I asked people just before
coming in here whether we knew of any changes. I was told no.
QUESTION: And do you have an opinion on if the Russian leader were to
become incapacitated, whether there would be cause for concern, in terms of
-- what the procedure would be, in terms of who would assume power and so
forth?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't want to credit the thesis in your question, and
it is hypothetical, but I do believe that there are arrangements within the
Russian constitution that foresee and address any eventuality of that
type.
QUESTION: More on Russia. What do you know about the Russian HEU
agreement?
MR. FOLEY: We are carefully reviewing the - there was a press conference
yesterday in Moscow -- the MINATOM/TENEX highly enriched uranium press
conference, which apparently focused on the natural uranium component of
the HEU - the highly enriched uranium - agreement.
Today is a Russian holiday, so we have not been able to answer all the
questions that were raised in that press conference. We believe that this
decision affects only one aspect of the HEU commercial contract, namely
that which deals with sales of natural uranium.
The most important aspect of the agreement, which is the blending of at
least 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium from dismantled nuclear
weapons down to low enriched uranium for use in commercial reactors, does
not appear to be affected by this decision. We understand that this, which
is the fundamental nonproliferation component of the agreement, will
continue uninterrupted.
QUESTION: Was that the first that you'd heard about it - at that press
conference yesterday?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: So the United States had no prior conversations with Russian
officials about their decision to change this in any way?
MR. FOLEY: I believe that is true.
QUESTION: And this is legal?
MR. FOLEY: We're planning to follow up with Russian authorities at the
first opportunity.
QUESTION: Is it legal? Can they do this? Isn't there a written contract?
MR. FOLEY: Well, this part of the agreement is covered in the contract.
It's not -- in other words, the natural uranium component is covered in the
HEU. So it's something that we're going to have to sit down and talk to the
Russians about.
I can't comment as to whether it violates the agreement in any way. We'll
have to see. We have to talk to the Russian officials. We didn't have the
opportunity to do so today because of the holiday. But we'll do so at the
earliest moment.
QUESTION: Are you disappointed that they've chosen -
MR. FOLEY: I wouldn't want to characterize our reaction until we've had
an opportunity to talk to them. There was a press conference, and it wasn't
an official encounter that I could draw any conclusions from.
QUESTION: And how much is that part worth?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have any dollar figure on that.
QUESTION: And you're not disappointed that the Russians didn't consult
with you first?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we need to talk to them and confirm to them that this is
something new, that this is an initiative that is in any way a departure
from the agreement.
I wouldn't want to say we're disappointed until we've had a chance to talk
to them.
QUESTION: And as far as you're concerned, it hasn't really even happened
yet; right?
MR. FOLEY: Right.
QUESTION: So you're not even sure that it was a statement of Russian
policy.
MR. FOLEY: Right, right.
QUESTION: Milosevic met with Plavsic in Krajisnik today. Do you have
anything on that?
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen any reports that they were meeting today.
QUESTION: Another question - apparently there's a deal that would allow
Ranariddh to go back to Cambodia. What do you guys know about that, and do
you think it's a good idea?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't know about any deal as such, Carol. But we have,
ever since the events of last July, called upon the safe return of all the
exiled politicians. We believe they have the right to return to Cambodia
free of hindrance, free of intimidation, and to resume their role in the
political process. Their safe return is integral to the ability of Cambodia
to conduct free and fair elections, which are scheduled for next May, and
which are so critical to not only the international community's ability
to help Cambodia, but the prospects for Cambodia to overcome the reversal
of the last year and to resume the path of stabilization.
QUESTION: But you can't confirm that there's an agreement that will allow
this to happen yet?
MR. FOLEY: As you know, the UN has been involved in working out the
modalities of the return; and also the UN has been involved in helping to
ensure the safety and the monitoring of the safety of exiled politicians
who do return. So there is a process that is underway.
I believe several of the exiled politicians have returned in recent weeks -
at least one of the senior leaders. We hope that Prince Ranariddh will be
able to return himself. There is the matter of the legal proceedings
against him, and they need to be addressed in a way that permits him to
return safely. That's what we call for.
QUESTION: A question that was left over from yesterday -- I had asked if
the United States felt that China had a relatively free press. Did you -
were you able to get --
MR. FOLEY: I recall your question. You were referring to Ambassador
Richardson's comments at the National Press Club. I can tell you that his
remarks were made in the context of the question asking him to compare the
situation in Cuba with that of China. His view was that conditions in the
latter were relatively more favorable than in the former. This is a
relative call, obviously.
The Department's views of human rights conditions in Cuba and China are
contained in the annual human rights reports we submit to Congress. The
report states our commitment to universal human rights principles and
describes specific circumstances in individual countries, but does not
itself draw comparisons between these countries.
QUESTION: Right. And the overall conclusion of your report was that China
had virtually silenced dissidents, so that would seem to be inconsistent
with a relatively free press.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I can tell you what the report says. It notes that
although the Chinese constitution identifies freedom of the press as a
fundamental right enjoyed by all citizens, in practice, the government
interprets the Communist Party's 'leading role' as circumscribing that
right. Generally speaking, the unauthorized expression of political views
is not tolerated; however, uncontrolled information about the nation is
flowing into China at an increasing rate.
QUESTION: So would you agree with the phrase "relatively free press."
MR. FOLEY: Again, as I noted, the Ambassador's comments were made in a
comparative context. He was asked a question about policy related to both
Cuba and China, so you have to go back to the context of his remarks.
QUESTION: So do you agree with that comparison, though, I mean,
regardless.
MR. FOLEY: Yes. Yes. I think I stated at the beginning that his view was
that conditions in China were relatively more favorable than in Cuba. I do
agree with it.
QUESTION: Despite yesterday's statement, Turkish fighters, in response,
violated again the Greek national air space over the Aegean islands,
crossing the Greek - the Aegean Sea - crossing the Greek island of Samos
and, of course, ignoring the USA and NATO. Any comment?
MR. FOLEY: Yes. We are looking into it.
QUESTION: There was a meeting two weeks ago in Cuba, between Cuban and US
officials, about the change of American policy towards Cuba. Do you have
anything on this?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, it's not true. The story that appeared in the press
apparently refers to the visit two weeks ago of a working-level US
official. Working-level US officials routinely travel to Cuba on familiarization
and analytical visits. The official being referred to made such a routine
visit.
While in Cuba, he met with a number of interlocutors, including mid-level
Cuban officials, as is customary in such visits. However, no message was
delivered by him to the government of Cuba on behalf of the Administration.
He reiterated, as do others visiting Cuba, what US policy is towards the
Cuba. The main objective continues to be the promotion of a peaceful
transition to democracy and respect for human rights on the island. We have
repeatedly stated that if there are fundamental changes in Cuba, the US
will seek to respond.
QUESTION: Are you familiar with the case of the Ukrainian who attended a
fund-raiser in the presence of President Clinton a month after he had been
barred by the State Department from entering the United States?
MR. FOLEY: You asked the question, and I'm going to do my best to talk
about it. But because there was an article that appeared in the newspapers
this morning I think you're referring to, George; am I right?
QUESTION: I just read the wires.
(Laughter.)
MR. FOLEY: I would like to say, though, in starting out, that the State
Department's visa records are, by law, confidential, and may only be used
to administer US laws and for certain other specified purposes.
The Department provided information from its visa records to the House
Rules Committee, consistent with this provision, understanding that it
would be used in connection with the Committee's investigation. We were
disappointed to see this information leaked to the press.
In accordance with US law, I am limited in what information I can provide
to you now. But I can confirm that the State Department revoked Mr.
Rabinovich's visa in August of 1995. However - and I think this gets to
your question - we were unable to physically cancel the visa at that time
because his passport was not in our possession.
What we did do was to notify the INS, the Immigration Service, to enter his
name into ports-of-entry lookout system. It's my understanding that he did
successfully enter the United States because the transliteration of his
name from cyrillic to Latin did not match the spelling in the computer. INS
has now entered alternate transliterations of his name to make it more
likely that he would be identified, should he attempt to enter without
first obtaining a valid visa.
QUESTION: You can't say why his visa was revoked?
MR. FOLEY: I can't say a lot about it. The Department obtained information
raising the possibility that Rabinovich was not eligible for a visa, or may
not have been. It was revoked in order to ensure that his case could be
reconsidered through a new visa application.
In performing the revocation, the Department made no finding of visa
ineligibility. The revocation and a finding of ineligibility are separate
actions. The information that would relate to his visa ineligibility would
have to be determined by a consular officer in the context of a visa
application.
QUESTION: A UPI dispatch is claiming that the Clinton Administration is
accusing Turkey of flying over the hotly contested Aegean Sea. It says
exactly, the Clinton Administration. I am asking you, do you consider the
Aegean Sea as a "contested area"?
MR. FOLEY: Mr. Lambros, I don't see that it would serve any purpose to go
over this sensitive issue which you raise from time to time, and which we
decline to comment on from time to time.
QUESTION: This is a very important statement. They say the Clinton
Administration is accusing Turkey of flying over a contested Aegean Sea. So
could you please clarify for me, if you consider the Aegean Sea as a
contested area. It's very important.
MR. FOLEY: I couldn't comment on a report which I'm not familiar with. So
I decline to do so.
QUESTION: Ambassador Butler is in Baghdad, and he has with him members of
his delegations, some - at least one Russian official; and I gather one or
two other new additions to his team. Is that a decision that was solely
made by him? Or did the US have any role in deciding to add additional
Russians and, I guess, maybe French to the team that went to Baghdad with
Ambassador Butler?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think that's perhaps a curious question, because his
visits to - he's not located in Iraq normally, as I understand it. So I
don't think this is - there was some question at the time when Iraq
welcomed back the inspectors about the composition of the teams of
inspectors. This is the team accompanying him for his contacts with Iraqi
authorities. I wouldn't read any significance into who is accompanying
him.
But to answer your question specifically, that's really a matter of his
discretion and determination to decide; and we support him in that.
QUESTION: You wouldn't read any significance in the fact that he now has
new Russian aids helping him --
MR. FOLEY: No, I would not. We have full confidence in Ambassador Butler.
He is a serious and talented professional who has done his job very
effectively. We wish him well on this important mission in Baghdad.
Thank you.
QUESTION: One more? Can I go back to the Islamic conference for
one?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, sure.
QUESTION: This moderate tone that you detected, does this increase the
chances that the United States would look toward a dialogue with the
Iranians?
MR. FOLEY: We covered this ground earlier this week. I see --
QUESTION: I know, but I'm asking in a new context, which is this moderate
tone that you have detected.
MR. FOLEY: No. This is an OIC conference. These are OIC resolutions and
documents. Without taking away from what I said earlier in the week about
our remaining open to such a dialogue, I'm not changing that or adding or
subtracting to it, still your question, really, we would interpret as
related to the OIC and its activities, and not to Iran, as such.
QUESTION: When you talk about a moderate tone, are you saying that you
are - you like the tone because it's not what you would have expected
coming out of Tehran? Are you saying that it's more moderate than you would
have - you're used to from the Iranians, that the Iranians were not able to
influence the communiques in the way you had expected? Are you
saying that you're seeing a new moderate tone out of the Iranian Government?
MR. FOLEY: The reference to a moderate tone had to do with the OIC
resolutions as we have been able to see them at this stage. Again, in
reference to Jim's question, this has to do with OIC activity, OIC
resolutions. It was not a comment on Iranian attitudes. Insofar as Iran
participated along with the other members of the OIC in the elaboration,
the voting, the approval of these texts, it applies to Iran, as well.
QUESTION: Wouldn't you have expected a moderate tone from a group that
includes some of your closest allies?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: So what - why are you upbeat about it? Were you expecting
worse? What gives you cause to be --
MR. FOLEY: I would not characterize our reaction as "upbeat." You or one
of your colleagues asked what we - how we felt about the general results of
the OIC declarations, and I noted the moderate tone of some, if not all, of
the resolutions.
QUESTION: Specifically, the resolution on Israel, wouldn't you have
expected countries like Jordan and Egypt and perhaps Saudi Arabia to have
been able to have enough influence on that text to keep out those types of
references, state terrorism and so forth?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I've not seen that particular resolution. When I
answered the question, I answered it hypothetically. If it was indeed in
there, we'll have to see that.
Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:40 P.M.)
|
