U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #187, 97-12-29
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
549
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, December 29, 1997
Briefer: James B. Foley
DEPARTMENT
1 Secretary Albright's Upcoming Address on January 13
5 Spokesman's Determination of On-Camera and Off-Camera
Briefings
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
1 Norwegian Initiative for the Peace Process
2 Prospects for Meetings with Prime Minster Netanyahu and
Chairman Arafat
IRAN
2-3 Reported Visit to Iran by Congressman Tom Lantos
3-4 Gas Deal with Turkmenistan
CHINA
4 Agreement Signed with Russia to Build Nuclear Reactor Plant
in Eastern China
8-9 Annual Human Rights Resolution at Human Rights Commission
in Geneva/US Position
SOUTH KOREA
4-5 IMF/Accelerated Disbursement of $10 Billion of Funds
PANAMA
6 Agreement on Multinational Counter-Narcotics Center in
Panama
IRAQ
6-7 Oil for Food Program
7-8 Access to UNSCOM Inspectors of Sites
SAUDI ARABIA
8 Khobar Towers Attack Investigation/Level of Cooperation
ISRAEL
8 US Ambassador's Comments re Terrorist Incident in Egypt
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OFF-CAMERA PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #187
MONDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1997 12:50 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Good afternoon. A bigger turn-out than I expected. I was
wondering what would happen if we gave a briefing and nobody came. Would it
be a briefing?
Just one small announcement, because you've been asking me since we
announced that the Secretary would be giving a speech at the beginning of
the year to review her first year in office, and especially looking ahead
to the foreign policy challenges that she will outline for the next year. I
can tell you that the speech will be held at the National Guard Building,
which is near Union Station, on Tuesday, January 13. We're still working on
the time, and we'll have that for you as soon as we've finalized it.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about the Norwegian initiative to
try to get the Middle East peace talks revived? The Foreign Minister is
not too impressed with the American effort, and calling it limited.
MR. FOLEY: I don't think the United States' initiative is limited at
all. It's long-standing, and certainly, as Secretary Albright has stated
very forthrightly, 1997 has not been a year of accomplishment. But we have
been able to restart the process after the serious blow that occurred
following the terrorist bombings of the summertime. She believes strongly
that a serious effort on all sides is underway. Some of the gaps have been
narrowed, she was able to report, following her recent meetings; but major
gaps remain. And that is why we're looking forward to the visits in
Washington of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat, early in the
new year, to help bridge those gaps.
So I think that the Secretary has been frustrated with progress so far, but
remains as dogged as ever in her determination to press forward because of
the seriousness of what's at stake. Now, the Norwegians have long played an
extremely helpful role in the Middle East peace process, and so we would
certainly welcome their continued efforts.
QUESTION: You don't see it disrupting what you're trying to do?
MR. FOLEY: No, not in the least. I think the EU in their latest summit,
in fact, noted the importance of the central role of the United States in
the Middle East peace process, and pledged to continue to work with us
cooperatively. That's always been, I think, the hallmark of their efforts -
a parallelism with our own. So we don't see any competition, if you will.
QUESTION: Did they alert you to their plans in advance? And has there
been much consultation between the two governments?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of what level of consultations have or have not
occurred. I've just seen reports that the Norwegians have expressed an
interest in contributing to the process, and we welcome that.
QUESTION: Right, but you're unaware that there - that Norway notified the
United States in advance of its plans.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not ruling it out, Carol. We have, obviously, a
close relationship with the Norwegians, an ongoing dialogue both here and
in Oslo. So I would be surprised if we hadn't had conversations with
them. Certainly, the Middle East peace process is an ongoing subject of
dialogue between us and the Norwegians, as well as with our other European
partners.
QUESTION: Are you any closer to fixing a date for the visits of the Prime
Minister and the Chairman?
MR. FOLEY: I'd have to refer you to the White House. I'm not aware
whether actual dates have been finalized. You'd have to check with
Mr. McCurry.
QUESTION: The White House has basically sort of dismissed this report
about Tom Lantos possibly being an envoy to Iran on behalf of the US. Do
you know anything more about how this idea may have gotten started? And if
Lantos is not being thought of as an envoy, are you considering some sort
of overture through either an American or somebody else? I mean, I know
your policy, so I will stipulate from the start that you want an
authoritative dialogue, if they make a gesture of an authoritative
dialogue; but I'm trying to find out if you've progressed beyond that.
MR. FOLEY: You could step up here when you answer your question, after
posing it, Carol; I'd be delighted to cede the place. But I'd have to refer
you to Congressman Lantos himself on the question of his visit or the
possibility or prospect of a visit. We understand that he's currently in
California. There were some press reports that had him in Iran today, and
we checked that out. We don't have information on his schedule. You'd have
to check with his office for that.
But we believe that any dialogue, any official dialogue, should take place
between our two governments. And I can repeat what you eloquently stated --
that we look for an authorized dialogue, and one that would be acknowledged
publicly, with the Iranian authorities. That's a long-standing US
policy. We have not yet seen a definitive indication on the part of the
Iranians that they are prepared for such a dialogue.
They have made some interesting and even encouraging comments, the Iranian
president, in recent weeks; and he indicated at the time of his last public
declaration that he might have more to say on this at the end of the month,
looking toward the American new year. So perhaps we'll learn more on that
occasion. But I have nothing new to report in that area.
QUESTION: Has Lantos told you he's going to Iran, though?
MR. FOLEY: He has expressed an interest in visiting Iran. But let me
emphasize that should he actually be traveling to Iran, it would not be at
the request of the White House or the State Department.
QUESTION: But nonetheless, there have been cases, with other governments
which the US is not friendly with, you've used members of Congress, even
though you haven't specifically sent them. Richardson in North Korea, for
example, a number of times. Would you brief Lantos before, if he were to
go, and would you - would he carry a message? I mean, there are all kinds
of possibilities here.
MR. FOLEY: I am, I think, trying to make clear that this would not be
such a case, that it is not something that we encourage, and again, if he
were to travel, he would not be traveling as a special envoy or as a
representative of the United States government.
QUESTION: But would you brief him?
MR. FOLEY: We would certainly be willing to talk to Congressman Lantos. I
believe there may have been some informal contact already in this
regard. We would certainly be willing to brief any member of Congress about
the foreign policy of the United States. So that would not be indicative of
any government, and premature on such a visit.
QUESTION: But it is not something that we would encourage. That is the
position of the US Government?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, it's something that we would discourage.
QUESTION: While we're on that, you say that there has been informal
contact?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, it is my understanding that the Congressman expressed to
the White House and the State Department an interest in visiting Iran.
QUESTION: While we're on Iran, do you have any reaction to the gas deal
with Turkmenistan?
MR. FOLEY: Yes. I'd like to make clear that the United States opposes, as
a matter of policy, the construction of pipelines across Iran. However, the
press report that you are referring to actually covers two separate
pipeline projects.
It reports on the newly opened pipeline between Eastern Turkmenistan and
Iran, which we understand will be devoted to delivering Turkmen gas to
Iran. This pipeline project pre-dates the enactment of ILSA by
approximately two years. However, the report also indicates that Turkey,
Iran and Turkmenistan have authorized a shell to draw plans for a new
natural gas pipeline across their territories.
As we have indicated previously, Turkey's plans to purchase gas from
Turkmenistan do not appear to constitute sanctionable activity under
ILSA. However, we will examine carefully any new proposals for the
construction of trans-Iranian pipelines in light of the provisions of
ILSA. If any such project is found to involve sanctionable activity, we
will take appropriate action under the law.
QUESTION: So the gas - the pipeline from Turkmenistan to Iran is not
sanctionable because of pre-dates, and the Turkish deal doesn't seem to
trigger ILSA; is that what you're saying?
MR. FOLEY: Well, you're right in the first instance - it does pre-date,
and so it doesn't trigger it. In the second instance, nothing has happened
yet.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. FOLEY: I understand there's a feasibility project or survey that may
be underway. We would have to withhold judgment and see what actually was
involved, if it moved to the stage of execution, to determine whether it
fell within the provisions of ILSA.
But again, I can state clearly that US policy is to oppose the construction
of pipelines across Iran.
QUESTION: Whether or not ILSA is involved, you still oppose the
Turkmenistan and Iran --
MR. FOLEY: That's right. That's right. Other questions.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MR. FOLEY: Sure.
QUESTION: China and Russia today signed an agreement, apparently, to
build a $3 billion - Russia will build a $3 billion nuclear reactor plant
in Eastern China. Russia apparently is going to give China a loan for this
project. I wondered, given the fact that the President had cleared the way
for US firms to bid on nuclear projects in China, if you were a little
concerned that Russia has somehow gotten a jump on this market right now.
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of the report, Carol. I'd have to take the
question.
QUESTION: I want to ask you a couple of questions about the IMF bail-out
of Korea. Is the United States, as a key member of the IMF, confident that
South Korea will be able to comply with the IMF conditions? And what
happens if they don't? And finally, just to kind of throw them all in
together, how confident are you that the US Congress will be supportive of
this very large amount of money?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'd really have to refer you to the Treasury Department
on most of your questions. I think there were three, and the second one I
would regard as hypothetical. We fully expect that South Korea will
implement fully the terms of the IMF program, the reforms that were agreed
to, and we have every indication that the president-elect is committed to
that program.
Now, in terms of the latest development, though, that you referred to, the
United States, along with the IMF and other industrialized nations, has
supported accelerated disbursement of $10 billion of funds already
committed under Korea's IMF program. We believe this effort is critically
important to US economic and security interests.
We agreed to accelerated disbursements contingent on Korean Government
commitments to intensify measures to restructure the financial system and
to deepen ongoing market liberalization measures. We believe that
stepped-up disbursements are intended to quicken the pace of financial
sector restructuring and encourage restoration of market confidence. So we
believe that the two are tied together.
QUESTION: While I've got the platform, can I just ask you for the record,
what today's reason is for not allowing the television media to cover this
briefing?
MR. FOLEY: Certainly. The policy of televised briefings is something that
I take responsibility for when I'm standing in for my boss, the spokesman,
Jamie Rubin, who, as you know, regularly briefs on the record, on camera. I
choose to do so on a less regular basis. I can't give you an overall
blanket policy, but I choose to do it when I think that perhaps we have
significant news to make or are expecting news to be made on a given day.
But here we are between the Christmas and New Year's holidays, it's a slow
day, and I didn't think it was necessary or advisable today.
QUESTION: Just for the record, I know I speak for my television
colleagues when I say that, for us, television cameras are note pads;
there's no difference. As we see it, you are simply favoring the print
media over the television media, and we don't see any reason why you should
do that.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't see it as favoritism at all. I think that on
slow days like these between holidays, in the past, you might note that
perhaps we didn't have daily briefings in slow periods like that. The fact
is, I'm doing a briefing; it's on record. But I take your point.
QUESTION: Well, except - may I chime in? CNN is doing a package on the
Iran-Turkmenistan deal. We could have used an on-camera comment.
MR. FOLEY: Okay. I prefer to discuss this outside the confines of the
briefing and save the briefing itself to discussion of foreign policy.
QUESTION: Let me go to the subject of Panama. Is it a done deal between
the United States Government and the government of Panama that the US will
retain a military presence specifically for drug interdiction - and I think
it's at Howard Air Force Base - is this done? Is this accompli?
MR. FOLEY: Well, it's almost done. I issued a press release the day
before Christmas noting that the United States and Panama had essentially
reached agreement on the establishment of the MCC or Multinational
Counter-Narcotics center in Panama. But there are a few details, in terms
of finalizing the text, that need to be completed. We expect that to happen
in the next week or two.
QUESTION: Can you provide the details of the deal - any details of the
deal, or what is still lacking to be agreed upon? Can you say anything on
this?
MR. FOLEY: No, I can't. They're very minor details. The essentials have
been agreed, and we'll be in a position to discuss those when we've got the
final agreement.
QUESTION: You can't give a number on American troops who will be allowed
to remain?
MR. FOLEY: No, no, not at this stage.
QUESTION: A couple things on Iraq and the oil-for-food program. Iraq said
today that it was cutting food rations because they're not getting enough
out of the oil-for-food program, I guess, to supply their people. The other
thing they said was that they've asked the UN if they could use some of the
oil-for-food revenues to underwrite the Hajj, which apparently is going to
be tripled in size this year. I wondered if you had a reaction to either of
those or both.
MR. FOLEY: Not the second one. I'd have to refer you to the relevant UN
bodies or committees that deal with the Iraqi use of funds generated in the
oil-for-food program.
On your first question, though - the Iraqi announcement that they've cut
rationing - it is really appalling and, indeed, tragic that Iraq has done
so, claiming on the one hand to be concerned about the humanitarian plight
of their own people, and yet on the other hand, to consistently thwart the
efforts of the international community to meet those humanitarian needs.
For example, I can speak for the United States in saying that we've
indicated our eagerness to consider and recommend for approval contracts
for food worth nearly $120 million that are currently with the UN Sanctions
Committee Secretariat. However, Iraq has taken, really, the outrageous step
of requesting that these contracts not be distributed to the Sanctions
Committee for consideration.
It is appalling that Iraq would delay consideration of contracts for
humanitarian goods that are in critically short supply, while at the same
time alleging that the United States is not sensitive to the suffering of
the Iraqi people. The truth is that we are doing everything possible to
alleviate suffering in Iraq, while Saddam Hussein continues to increase and
then use this suffering for political purposes.
I understand that in the last few days, Iraq has provided input to the
United Nations on items that should be included in the new list of
humanitarian goods that are essential in order to improve the condition of
the Iraqi people. We've not yet seen the new list, and so cannot comment on
the details. It's up to the appropriate UN agencies to review and approve
this list so that goods can be purchased and distributed as quickly as
possible.
Iraq knew that another list would be required when the program was renewed
in early December, but intentionally delayed providing its input.
QUESTION: Why didn't they want the contracts to be considered by the
Sanctions Committee? I don't --
MR. FOLEY: It's not clear why they held that up -- whether they had
another list in mind, whether they had other purchases in mind. But again,
these were contracts for approval, concerning food worth nearly $120
million.
QUESTION: Was it all food, or was there other items involved as well?
MR. FOLEY: I believe it was food. It's possible that medicines were
involved as well. But I believe in this instance it was food.
Any other questions?
QUESTION: More on Iraq, just to follow, what is the state of play now
that the visits to Iraq, the evaluation by the UN UNSCOM people has been
given out to all governments for evaluation? Has the US Government come up
with a conclusion as to how to proceed now about the access to the sites
that are being requested and yet are being denied by the Iraqis?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as I indicated last week, at the conclusion of the
Security Council debate and passage of the presidential statement, we
believe the ball is in Iraq's court. Now that the Security Council has once
again categorically rejected Iraq's blockage and attempts to defy the terms
of UN Security Council resolutions - that attempt having failed, it's up to
the Iraqis now to allow UNSCOM complete, unfettered access to all sites in
Iraq that UNSCOM deems necessary to inspect. So really, the shoe is on the
other foot now, and we'll have to await developments on the ground over the
next weeks.
QUESTION: Will the United States favor testing by Mr. Butler and his
people on the ground of Iraq of the Iraqi resolve to deny access? Is that
the next step?
MR. FOLEY: Well, that's really up to Chairman - UNSCOM and his colleagues
to decide where and when they go. He now has a reiteration of the firm and
solid backing of the Security Council to do his job as he sees fit. We
expect that he will do so. The question is to how Iraq responds - whether
they're now finally willing to follow the will of the international
community and allow UNSCOM to do its work remains to be seen. But it must
be very clear now in Saddam Hussein's mind that the prospect of any kind of
weakening of sanctions is completely unrealistic as long as 100 percent
cooperation with UNSCOM is not forthcoming.
QUESTION: There were some stories today on the new military facility
being finished up in Saudi Arabia. I'm wondering, as another year draws to
a close, whether you can assess a level of cooperation that the US is
getting from the Saudis in trying to get to the bottom of the Khobar Towers
attack.
MR. FOLEY: It's not something I can comment on from this podium. It's
something that's the province of the FBI, and I'd have to refer you to
them.
QUESTION: Can you comment on the reported remarks by the US Ambassador to
Israel, who, according to some accounts, suggested that Iran was behind the
terrorist incident in Egypt in November?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not going to go into the Ambassador's confidential
discussions with Israeli leaders. He made clear subsequently that what was
reported was not what he said in the conversation. I won't go beyond that.
What I can say is that we know for a fact that Iran has a relationship with
this group. We also know that -- the group being the al-Gama'a
al-Islamiya. We also know that a branch of the group claimed responsibility
for the attack at Luxor. So this only underscores our great concern over
Iranian support for groups engaging in terrorism.
QUESTION: But you haven't made a specific link? I mean, this is all
inferential.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not prepared to go beyond what I said from the
podium. It's something that obviously is under intense investigation by the
Egyptian authorities. It's a matter that we watch closely and we take very
seriously.
One other question?
QUESTION: Yes, a question on China and human rights. A couple weeks ago,
there was a letter - or an article in the Post, advocating that the US drop
its annual human rights resolution at the Human Rights Commission in
Geneva. There's another letter in the paper today about it. I wonder if the
US had made any decision one way or the other as to whether to pursue the
resolution, basically condemning China, as it's done every year since 1989,
or drop it, as some have argued?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that we've made any decision at this point, but
what I can say, though, is that the original letter or article -- I think
it was a letter.
QUESTION: Article. This was an article.
MR. FOLEY: It was an article. It was by a former State Department
official --
QUESTION: Right.
MR. FOLEY: -- in no way reflected official State Department or US
Government positions.
Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:20 P.M.)
|
