Visit our Treaty, Convention & International Organization Document Archive 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 #187, 97-12-29

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>


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.)


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 Tuesday, 30 December 1997 - 23:57:32 UTC