Visit the Canadian Hellenic Broadcasting (CHB) Homepage Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923)
HR-Net - Hellenic Resources Network Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Thursday, 28 March 2024
 
News
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  Announcements
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Hosted
  Mirrored
  Interesting Nodes
Documents
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  Constitutions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Other
Services
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts
  Tools
  F.A.Q.
 

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #180, 97-12-12

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

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


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.)


U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
Back to Top
Copyright © 1995-2023 HR-Net (Hellenic Resources Network). An HRI Project.
All Rights Reserved.

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.01b run on Saturday, 13 December 1997 - 3:21:49 UTC