Browse through our Interesting Nodes of Mass Media in Cyprus 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
Sunday, 22 December 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 #183, 97-12-18

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>


631

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Thursday, December 18, 1997

Briefer: James B. Foley

ANNOUNCEMENTS
1		Kenya Elections
		Mexico-AmCit Killed

TURKEY 1 Report of Turkey to annex Turkish occupied area of Cyprus 9-10 Prime Minister's Washington meetings and agenda of issues 10 Status of pipeline across Iran to Turkey

CYPRUS 1 EU or NATO for Cyprus

MEXICO 1-2 Release of kidnapped AmCit 2 US policy on payment of Ransom

VIETNAM 2-3 Vietnam and Jackson-Vanik Amendment 3 MFN status

BOSNIA 3,4,5,7-8 Arrest of alleged war criminals 4 Status of Kradzic 5-6 Aid package to Bosnian Serb Republic

SOUTH KOREA 8 Elections

IRAQ 8-9 Butler report and next steps for US and UNSCOM

MIDDLE EAST 9 Ross travel 9,10 Presidential meetings with Netanyahu and Arafat


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #183

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1997, 1:00 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: Where's the Associated Press? Do we have a quorum?

I have a couple public announcements that I'm going to post - one connected with the upcoming elections in Kenya. The other one involves Mexico, and the sad news that an American citizen was killed, was murdered on December 15 in Mexico City, in an apparent taxi robbery. What the public announcement does is to strongly urge American citizens to only use taxis summoned by telephone, and it gives some detail about the nature of regularized, official taxi service that American citizens and residents of Mexico City are advised to follow in the interest of their own safety.

I'll take your questions.

QUESTION: How do you respond to the Turkish Government's statements, even by Prime Minister Yilmaz, that Ankara is proceeding now to annex the Turkish occupied area of the Republic of Cyprus in response to the recent EU decision?

MR. FOLEY: I'm certainly not aware of any such comments, and we believe that the focus should be on the UN-sponsored talks between the two communities. The United States supports that point toward the establishment of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. That's the only solution we think is a viable and fruitful one to bring peace and reconciliation to the island. It's a process that we're supporting, that Ambassador Holbrooke is involved with. We look forward to a resumption of those talks, following the Cypriot elections in February.

QUESTION: One follow up - since a lot of discussion is going on after the EU decision, do you prefer to see Cyprus to become first a NATO or EU member?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of the status of any consideration on the NATO side. I'd be happy to check the record to see if there is anything on that.

But we've stated from this podium our belief that the accession of Cyprus into the European Union is a potentially positive development that offers a perspective for improving chances of a resolution of the problems between the two communities on the island.

QUESTION: Can we go back to Mexico? This American who was kidnapped, I think last week, appears to have been released. Do you know if any ransom was paid?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that. I really could make no comment on any actions that the victim's employer may have made.

I can tell you that it is the policy of the United States Government to oppose the making of concessions. We will not pay ransom, the US Government to free prisoners, to change our policies or agree to other acts that might, indeed, encourage additional terrorism. But I can confirm that the US citizen was released yesterday after being held for over a week in Mexico. We are obviously very pleased that he is safe.

The US Embassy in Mexico City has been in close contact with Mexican authorities and with the victim's family. We understand that he is in Acapulco now. We don't have a Privacy Act waiver from the American, and therefore, can't really provide further information at this stage.

QUESTION: In such cases, do you advise the employer or the family not to pay ransom?

MR. FOLEY: We state clearly our policy, which is against the payment of ransom, yes. But I can't comment on what private firms or the employer's views and actions might have been in this case. I'm not aware of the answer to the question that you pose.

QUESTION: Do you make a recommendation?

MR. FOLEY: I'd want to be careful, because you've asked a very specific question - whether we proactively discourage the payment of such moneys in those cases. I do know that we make clear what our policy is. But it's a fine point, and I'd like to check the record and get back to you.

QUESTION: Could you tell us something about a decision towards declaring Vietnam exempt from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I can. The Administration has decided to begin consultations with Congress this week on that question of waiving the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. Waiving Jackson-Vanik is one of the statutory requirements to allow OPIC and EXIM to support American businesses operating in Vietnam; but it will not in itself permit these programs to begin operations. Completion of a bilateral trade agreement would be required, in addition to Jackson-Vanik, before MFN status could be considered for Vietnam.

Now, our decision to proceed with congressional consultations was based on our assessment that granting a waiver would further the Jackson-Vanik goal of freer emigration from Vietnam. We believe it would also advance our interest in encouraging Vietnam's integration into world markets and regional organizations, and also help American companies compete in Vietnam.

I'd like to emphasize that the central goal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver would be to promote continued progress by the Vietnamese Government toward allowing its citizens to emigrate freely. Achieving the fullest possible accounting of our missing from the Vietnam War remains our highest priority in relations with Vietnam, and we believe that Vietnamese cooperation in this area has been and continues to be excellent.

Now, we also believe the Vietnamese authorities have developed a solid record in their implementation of the orderly departure and Amer-Asian refugee programs. This year we have seen additional progress on freedom of emigration for Vietnamese, particularly for those eligible for the resettlement opportunity of the Vietnamese returnees' program. In January of this year, Vietnam signed an agreement to implement the program. In early October of this year, the Vietnamese authorities decided to drop the requirement that candidates have an exit visa before being allowed to have their Immigration Service interview.

So, as I indicated, the Administration has decided to begin consultations. The actual waiver decision has not been made, but we're launching the process.

QUESTION: How about MFN, will it be included in the concessions?

MR. FOLEY: Well, as I indicated, we would need to pursue the Jackson- Vanik waiver and to complete a bilateral trade agreement before we could consider MFN for Vietnam.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about the arrest of the alleged war criminals, the Bosnian Croats?

MR. FOLEY: Potentially, I have a lot to say about it, so I can launch in on it, if you'd like. If you have specific questions, it might be --

QUESTION: Start by saying who actually made the arrest? Were they NATO folks, were they some sort of local gendarmarie?

MR. FOLEY: They were SFOR forces who conducted the operation, but I'd have to refer you to the Pentagon for more precise operational details. I'd be happy to take questions about the fact of the arrests and any policy questions you might have on the event.

QUESTION: Can we look forward to more such encounters?

MR. FOLEY: Well, as we've said numerous times, we're not ruling out any actions in this regard. I think I'd like to put this in some context, though. The fact of the matter is that the international community had expected the signatories to the Dayton Accords to live up to their obligations; and that included ensuring that those indicted for war crimes be brought to justice before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

The fact is that, largely, the parties have failed to do so; and this convinced us of the need to take action. This instance was determined to be an appropriate moment. But all possible options for future action, including additional operations, will be kept open, if the parties continue to fail to meet their obligations.

QUESTION: Jim, can I ask, the President this morning made some interesting comments about Karadzic. He said that if he flees the country, if he's deep enough underground, if you can't have any impact on it, you might make the peace work anyway. Is that suggesting that the United States has given up on trying to arrest Karadzic or the prospect that he might be arrested one day?

MR. FOLEY: No, not in the least. I think that's a misconstruction of what the President said. He was asked a specific question, which was, I believe - you'll have to check the record - whether we could go forward and successfully implement Dayton in the absence of Mr. Karadzic's transfer to The Hague, by one means or another. And he certainly did not rule out any options regarding Mr. Karadzic's future movement towards The Hague. But he did say that we have made considerable progress over the last two years in helping to rebuild Bosnia and solidify the peace there, and we've made accelerated progress in 1997, since the springtime, on any number of fronts.

We've seen, in the Republika Srpska itself, where he wields influence, that his influence has begun to decline. That was reflected in the legislative elections that were held there recently. So we think he's becoming increasingly marginalized, his influence reduced. But let there be no doubt, his place is in The Hague. He's been charged by the War Crimes Tribunal with serious crimes. He has claimed his innocence, but apparently his conviction of his innocence is not sufficient to compel him to make his way to The Hague, as he's supposed to as an indicted war criminal. But if he believes that he's innocent, he ought to make himself available to the Tribunal. And certainly authorities in the Republika Srpska have an obligation under Dayton to apprehend and transfer him to The Hague.

As far as SFOR is concerned, it remains part of the SFOR mission, as was demonstrated in the wee hours of this morning, to apprehend war criminals. It's largely a question of the tactical situation permitting such action to take place. SFOR commanders have to approach this with due discretion, with concern for the operational context, but SFOR's mandate has always permitted apprehension of persons indicted for war crimes.

I can repeat to you what the guidance is, that under the North Atlantic Council guidance to IFOR and SFOR, it's specified that troops "should detain any persons indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal who come into contact with IFOR in its execution of assigned tasks." Now, SFOR having encountered these individuals, awaited a favorable moment for their detention. The primary concern by the commanders in such situations is to seek to minimize risk to SFOR forces and to innocent bystanders.

But they acted fully within their mandate. And, again, as far as Mr. Karadzic is concerned, I think, as we noted in July, at the time of the Prijedor operation, this success today ought to serve as a warning to those indicted for war crimes who remain at large -- a warning that they will be held individually accountable for their actions. And I repeat they should surrender voluntarily, like the ten Bosnian Croat indictees who did so in October of this year.

QUESTION: Can you say whether this is part of the beginning of a new campaign, or is this just one offensive that happened to arise because the SFOR forces - they were there and saw an opportunity?

MR. FOLEY: I can't tell you that, for obvious security reasons. We're not going to be in the habit of signaling what SFOR may or may not be doing. There's a list of indicted war criminals. SFOR has a mandate to apprehend them, and it will continue to do so in the performance of its mission and in the context of the prevailing tactical situation. The action today, again, should be considered as a warning.

QUESTION: Do you know if these two were on that public list of 66 or so --

MR. FOLEY: I'd have to refer you to the Tribunal. I would hazard to say - my understanding is that one was on a public list and one was on a sealed list. But you'd have to go to the Tribunal to confirm that.

QUESTION: Could you just clarify the aid package to the Bosnian Serb Republic? There's just the World Bank loan, and is there bilateral aid?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I can go over what has been done bilaterally.

QUESTION: No, is there new bilateral US aid in the offering to Republika Srpska?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I won't go through what AID has done in 1996 and 1997, since you don't want me to do so. But I can say that AID intends to continue the bilateral aid programs it has in the foreseeable future, although it does not yet have final plans for projects in the Republika Srpska for 1998. That's something that they are developing, and information on that we'll be happy to bring to your attention when it's available.

QUESTION: Did it add substantial aid programs?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, Barry, if you'd like -- even though Carol --

QUESTION: In the Republika --

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: In Srpska?

MR. FOLEY: Yes. We announced some of this, you will recall, earlier this year -- aid targeted at certain municipalities in the Western Republika Srpska.

QUESTION: Yes. But you know how this has been presented in the media as a three-point program: the bank loan; more US aid -- larger, in fact, than the bank loan -- and then hoping to elicit more than twice as much from other countries.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I spoke to the World Bank issue yesterday.

QUESTION: Well, the World Bank's taken care of.

MR. FOLEY: And you and your colleagues asked me, after the briefing, about further bilateral programs. And believe me, we've done some asking since the briefing yesterday, and we're told that AID is not yet in a position - it hasn't finalized its plans, but there will be a continuation of programs for next year.

QUESTION: Anything --

MR. FOLEY: I don't have anything on the substance.

QUESTION: No, but I mean - all right. Well, if you don't have anything -

MR. FOLEY: Yes. I'll try to continue to follow that and get back to you when I get something.

QUESTION: Is there an end to US troop involvement in Bosnia? I mean, I ask in this sense -- by the Administration. The Administration is keeping the troops there, and the same Administration sees the Dayton accords working out quite well - much better, probably, than certainly most people in Congress anticipated. They expected Americans to be hurt, and they were very dubious about the agreement.

So I'm trying to sort of pursue the Administration logic. If things are going well, but not all problems are resolved, and you still need the troops there, can you anticipate a day when there won't be problems - when things will be going well enough so that there will be no problems? That's hard to imagine; isn't it?

MR. FOLEY: First, let me say, Barry, that --

QUESTION: There's no deadline, is why I asked.

MR. FOLEY: First of all, the President spoke at length about this, and that was followed by a briefing at the White House by Mr. Berger and Mr. Gelbard.

QUESTION: Sure.

MR. FOLEY: And they spoke at length, and I really don't want to sort of try to cover their tracks.

QUESTION: Yes, yes, sure.

MR. FOLEY: Your specific question was asked of the President himself this morning, and he made clear that this is not an open-ended commitment; that there will be no permanent stationing of American forces in Bosnia. But he also described the fact that we've made substantial progress over the last two years, and we see the opportunity to solidify that progress, especially in the civilian implementation area. We believe that a continued international security presence under NATO can permit the coming to fruition of those efforts. It's not open-ended.

The President also talked about benchmarks, and the achievement of the mission to enable us to depart. He didn't set a time frame. He also noted that no final decision has been taken, because we have to see what the NATO options are that are developed, and also the kind of concrete plan towards mission achievement that will be elaborated at NATO, before he makes his final decision.

QUESTION: Jim, how come you say it's not open-ended, when there are no dates for the ending of it?

MR. FOLEY: Well, Barry's question had to do with whether we would ever be departing Bosnia. The obvious answer is, yes, we will.

QUESTION: But open-ended, by definition, means no end date. And there is no end date.

MR. FOLEY: Well, we haven't picked a specific end date now on --

QUESTION: The President said he won't.

MR. FOLEY: That's right.

QUESTION: So how is it not open-ended?

MR. FOLEY: Because he also made clear that this is not going to be a permanent presence. The President would not be going forward to seek, in principle, as he described today, the prospect of American forces remaining in SFOR, if he believed that such a continued deployment would have to be permanent.

He indicated that we believe the mission can be achieved. He didn't set a specific time limit on it, but we've seen such progress achieved in these two years - and accelerated progress in the last seven, eight months - that we believe we can achieve a self-sustaining peace in Bosnia; that the progress that has been achieved gives us reason to believe that, and with some more effort, we'll be able to leave Bosnia without having the situation return to the way it was when the war was going on until 1995.

QUESTION: Just for the record, Jim, why are SFOR troops going after Bosnian Croat indicted war criminals, and not more notorious ones, like Karadzic and Ladic?

MR. FOLEY: Well, again, I am not going to rule out any possible options whatsoever. The key consideration - SFOR has a list of indicted war criminals. It has a mandate to detain those who it comes across in the performance of its mission. But the ability to apprehend is also circumstantial.

It depends, in specific circumstances, on choosing a moment which is favorable to the SFOR forces in terms of minimizing risk to them, minimizing risk to innocent bystanders. But we don't rule anything out. It so happened that the tactical situation permitted this successful apprehension today.

QUESTION: But the bigger the war criminal, does that mean the bigger the risk? I mean, nobody's going to - who's going to rise up and attack peacekeepers if some two-bit criminal is apprehended. But if Karadzic - if you try to put your paws on Karadzic, don't you suppose some of his devoted cohorts would - in other words, aren't you laying off Karadzic because you're afraid it would be disruptive?

MR. FOLEY: I can't accept the premise. It's obviously something that's kept under constant review; and it's also something that can't really be discussed in detail from this podium.

QUESTION: No, but you sort of - when you talk about risk --

MR. FOLEY: I think it's a matter of public information that the gentleman in question is exceedingly well guarded. But I think he should not be sleeping easier; on the contrary, he should be sleeping more fitfully tonight after what happened today.

QUESTION: New subject - (inaudible) - do you have any comment on the ongoing outcome of the Korean presidential election, in which the opposition party candidate is winning, according to the recent tally?

And are you considering inviting the president-elect to visit Washington, D.C., to consult with the pending issue --

MR. FOLEY: Well, a presidential visit would be a matter of presidential invitation. So I would have to refer you to the White House. Of course, it's hypothetical at this point, because we don't know who the winner is. The final results are not yet in.

At the moment, the media reports indicate that it is an extremely close race. So we're awaiting the final outcome, but we don't know what those results are yet.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - until Mr. Butler presented his report to the Security Council before you said anything on Iraq. He's now done so. What can you say about the next step in this confrontation?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I can't say anything that will satisfy you today, because he's just completed his report. I understand the Security Council, in an informal session, will continue to meet this afternoon. The members of the Security Council will have a chance to respond to Ambassador Butler's remarks.

What I can say, though, is that we will be considering our next steps in careful consultation with our colleagues in the Security Council. I believe you might see some kind of a presidential statement coming out of the Council in the next day or two. But I can't expand on my refusal to entertain questions yesterday on what next steps might be contemplated. We're going to have to discuss these first with our colleagues on the Security Council, before we can talk about them publicly.

QUESTION: How would you characterize what Butler had to say to the Council?

MR. FOLEY: I've not seen his report. I understand it was circulated, and I don't think the full text has been distributed. I haven't seen it myself, but my understanding is that if you break it down to its essence, he's saying that Iraq is no closer to- and may even be farther from - full compliance with its obligations to cooperate with UNSCOM than it was before Ambassador Butler's meetings took place.

QUESTION: Is there any possibility that Dennis Ross will go to the Middle East? There are rumors to that effect coming out, to follow up on the Secretary's meetings.

MR. FOLEY: I have not heard those rumors. What I do know -- and it's about all I can say, because the meetings have just concluded and the issue is still with the party, which I think is going to be heading back now to Washington. But I believe the Secretary has recommended a meeting with the President and Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat in January, separate meetings. So I think that's where we're headed. I don't have anything official on that. You'd have to ask the White House about it.

QUESTION: Meetings here?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: What's the purpose of those meetings?

MR. FOLEY: To follow up on the progress that was achieved. I don't have a read-out, though, Sid, on those meetings today. So maybe we'll have more to say tomorrow.

Any other questions? Thank you. Yes, one more, sorry.

QUESTION: You mentioned a few weeks ago that you were unaware of Senator Albright's meeting with Turkey's Foreign Minister as including any discussion on Turkey's illegal blockade of Armenia. In light of Turkey's rejection from the EU, will this issue now be placed on the agenda for the President's meeting with Turkey's Prime Minister tomorrow? And if it already is, will it take higher priority?

MR. FOLEY: Well, the Prime Minister will be coming to Washington, is arriving today on a working visit. He'll be meeting with President Clinton; he'll also meet with the Vice President, with Secretary Albright and the Secretaries of Commerce, Energy, Defense and the Treasury.

He will be discussing trade and investment issues, including cooperation between the US and Turkey in the energy sector. But you can assume he's going to be discussing with President Clinton and Cabinet Secretaries the full range of bilateral and regional issues. Whether it includes specifically that issue, I can't say. We'll have to wait until the meetings take place tomorrow.

QUESTION: I lost track, and the files don't help me. I've lost track of the natural gas pipeline that the US didn't like, going from Iran through the Caucuses to Turkey for export to Europe. Were penalties recommended - it's sort of in limbo. I think the US expressed disapproval months ago, but I don't think you took any action. Is that correct?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not sure there was a need to take any action at that time. I don't believe anything has happened. There have been reports of possible deals and decisions, but we haven't seen anything concrete. What we have done, though, is made clear our opposition to pipelines across Iran.

QUESTION: Right, okay.

QUESTION: Didn't you find that that particular project didn't violate the congressional -- the new laws, because it didn't involve any investment in Iran? Wasn't that where you left it?

MR. FOLEY: I think - of course, this is going back many months to the summertime, so I'd have to check the record to be careful. But there had been a prospect of Turkish purchase of Iranian gas. That was, I think, withdrawn; then it was a question of Turkmen gas, and we applauded that.

On the question of the pipeline as such, our general view is to oppose the building of such pipelines across Iran.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

QUESTION: The meeting that you suggested with the President and Arafat and Netanyahu, is that all three men together, or a separate meeting for each one?

MR. FOLEY: They would be separate meetings, but again, I don't have official confirmation of it.

(The briefing concluded at 1:30 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 Thursday, 18 December 1997 - 23:34:34 UTC