U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #36, 98-03-23
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1003
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, March 23, 1998
Briefer: James B. Foley
RUSSIA
1,2 Cabinet Dismissed; US View / No Change in Economic Reforms
or Int'l Cooperation / US Policy
1,2,3-4 Secretary's Mtg in Bonn With Foreign Minister Primakov /
Status of FM Primakov
1-2 Changes in Govt in Democracies
2,3,4-5 US Not Informed Before Action / Contacts with Govt/
Gore-Chernomyrdin Contacts
3 Gallucci Talks on Missile Technology Sales to Iran / Export
Controls
4 Missile Sale to Armenia
5 Gen. Lebed's Comments About Unaccounted For Weapons
9,13-14 AmCit Missionaries Released / Investigation Continues /
Level of Govt & Church Contacts /Ransom / Isolated
Incident / Obligation to Protect Religious Freedom
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
6-8 Dennis Ross Travel / US Ideas to Revive Peace Process /
Israeli Cabinet Action on US Ideas
GREECE
8-9 FM Pangalos Mtg with Secretary / Forum for Resolving
Imia-Kardak Issue
TURKEY
9 Visit by Secretary Albright
SERBIA-MACEDONIA
9-10 AmCits Released / Taken to Macedonia / US Congressional
Delegation Denied Entry to Kosovo
CUBA
10-11 Managing Safe & Orderly Migration / Highly Paid Baseball
Players Undermine Orderly Departure Policy / Bahaman
Repatriation to Cuba / UNHCR Interviews
11 Communication to Cuban Govt of Changes Announced by Secy
Albright March 20
MEXICO
11-12 Foreign Visitors Expelled for Engaging in Political
Activities
12-13 Implementation of Money Laundering Law
CONGO (K)
12 Expulsion of UN Investigative Team
OIL
13 Efforts by Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela to Manipulate
Prices
KOREA
14-15 Update on Four-Party Talks / Subject of US Troops in South
DEPARTMENT
15-16 GAO Report on Computer Hackers
IRAQ
17 UNSCOM Inspections of Presidential Sites / Lifting of
Sanctions
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #36
MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1998, 1:20 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department. I apologize
for my tardiness; there's a lot of news today. I don't have any opening
statements, so, George, let me go right to you.
QUESTION: Well, as you may have heard, President Yeltsin has fired his
cabinet, and I'd like to know if you folks have any thoughts on that
subject.
MR. FOLEY: Well, we've seen the reports that you have - that President
Yeltsin has dismissed the Russian Government, including Prime Minister
Chernomyrdin. We are following these developments closely.
The United States has worked productively with President Yeltsin's
government to support the course of Russia's transition to a democracy and
a market economy, as well as Russia's integration into the world economy.
US policy remains one of support for Russia's transition to a market-based
democracy and its integration with global and regional institutions.
Now, we've seen the reports in the press. I think the salient point for you
today is that we have no reason to believe that a change in government
presages any change in Russia's basic orientation either in terms of
domestic economic reform or cooperation with the international community as
we have seen these recent years. I would note that in any case, American
policy towards Russia is not a function of personalities, but is a function
of our search for common interests and common positions on major international
challenges.
Finally, we have not had high-level contact with Russian authorities, to my
knowledge, to date. But Secretary Albright will be meeting with Foreign
Minister Primakov who, apparently, is continuing in that capacity tomorrow
evening in Bonn. And in addition to discussing the Contact Group meeting,
which will take place on Wednesday in Bonn, of course, this will be an
opportunity for Secretary Albright to discuss with Foreign Minister
Primakov the implications of the change of government in Russia.
QUESTION: Jim, in the Administration's opinion, is this the act of a
healthy, rational leader?
MR. FOLEY: I think it would be a mistake to overdramatize a change of
government in Russia. I think President Yeltsin spoke to this in a
televised address, when he announced that he would be changing the
government. I think he noted that he was thankful to Prime Minister
Chernomyrdin for the hard work he had done and the successes he had
achieved, but he believed it was necessary to give a new impulse to
economic reforms.
I think that in a government such as Russia's, where there is not the
separation of powers as there is in our system, you look at other
democracies in the world - France, for example - where the president has
the right to dissolve parliament that this is something that happens in
democracies from time to time.
I think that at the time when the - (inaudible) - government was invited to
submit its resignation, there were sort of dramatic interpretations being
given at the time, which also were not borne out. So again, the United
States sees no reason to anticipate any change of the basic Russian
positions on both domestic and foreign policies. We certainly look forward
to working with the new government that President Yeltsin will be
naming.
QUESTION: Primakov's status remains the same as far as you know?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't know more than what you and I both have seen in
the press. I think he has indicated, first of all, that he's staying on in
an acting capacity, pending the formation of a new government. I believe he
also indicated that he expects to be staying on in that capacity in the new
government, but I suppose Secretary Albright will have an opportunity to
find that out more directly with him tomorrow.
QUESTION: Did the US really become aware of this through the press?
There's been no -
MR. FOLEY: We've been aware of rumors in Moscow of impending government
changes over the recent weeks, but we had no advance notification of the
formal decision.
QUESTION: Has there been any indication that Yeltsin intends to continue
his policies? There was a lot of talk around the time of the Gore-
Chernomyrdin meetings that the changes were now in place and you were
secure in the fact that they were there and operating over a period of
time. But doesn't this give you pause? Are you sure they're going to
continue?
MR. FOLEY: Well, first of all, we have to go by President Yeltsin said
when he made this announcement, that he remains committed to the program of
economic reforms. Secondly, as I pointed out, this is not the first
transition from one government to another under President Yeltsin in
Russia.
We believe that Russia's new institutions are firmly anchored and that
Russia's course, Russia's choice for economic reform, for market-oriented
reforms and for cooperation with the West and integration into the global
economic and political system is irreversible; first of all, because it is
in Russia's interest to recover from the long decades of misrule and
economic mismanagement that this transition is necessary and is in Russia's
interest. And secondly, it is in Russia's foreign policy interest to
work cooperatively with the United States and our other Western partners
and again, we expect no change.
QUESTION: Will the Wisner, now the Gallochi talks continue on sales to
Iran?
MR. FOLEY: We don't expect any change in our working relationship with
the Russian Government to include that channel on that important issue.
QUESTION: Now that there's a counterpart change?
MR. FOLEY: I think that's too early to say.
QUESTION: To follow up on that, The Washington Post has a story in
today's paper about Russian intelligence agencies recruiting Russian
scientists for work with Iran on nuclear-related issues. Do you have any
comment on that?
MR. FOLEY: I'm aware of that story. I didn't actually read it myself, so
I can't address it specifically. But the Administration, as you know, has
engaged the Russian Government on this issue that Betsy referred to, at the
very highest levels. The Russian Government has made clear that it's policy
is to abide by its MTCR commitments and not assist Iran's missile
program.
We have worked the problem very hard with the Russian leadership. Our
objective has been to cut off all links between Russian entities and the
Iranian missile effort. On January 22, the Russian Government took a major
step when Prime Minister Chernomyrdin signed an executive order substantially
strengthening the Russian export control process, providing new authority
to stop transfers of dual use goods and services to missile programs and
programs of weapons of mass destruction. Putting this legal authority in
place is an important step, as we have said over the last month, but our
focus now is on implementation and enforcement. The United States and
Russia are working together bilaterally to strengthen export controls,
including implementation of the "catch all" approach in the January 22
executive order.
QUESTION: Has there now been any conversations between US officials --
Ambassador Collins or anyone in the embassy -- and anyone in the Russian
Government about these changes?
MR. FOLEY: I can't speak to what contacts may or may not have occurred in
the last hours. I did check on that subject, anticipating your question,
and I was told that embassy officials had spoken with counterparts in the
Russian Government, but I don't have specific names for you.
QUESTION: Do you know how those conversations came out - if they were --
MR. FOLEY: Well, I would prefer, as I sort of implied, that Secretary
Albright have an opportunity to address that subject directly with the
traveling media as a consequence of her conversation with Foreign Minister
Primakov, because that will certainly be contact at virtually the highest
levels of both of our governments.
QUESTION: Are you talking about tomorrow night in Bonn?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: So, you're saying that we need to wait another 24 or 36 hours
until we -
MR. FOLEY: Well, I've said that our embassy has been in contact with
Russian Government officials. I have not specified the level or the
personality. But I'd rather let the two foreign ministers speak to their
contacts when they have the opportunity to do so in Bonn.
QUESTION: Do you know if Vice President Gore has spoken to Mr. Chernomyrdin?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that. I heard before coming out here that
there was a message that perhaps had already been sent from the Vice
President, or a statement on the termination of the Russian Government; but
I don't have a text before me.
QUESTION: So the message from Vice President Gore --
MR. FOLEY: I don't want to misspeak, Charlie, whether it was a message to
Prime Minister Chernomyrdin or a statement concerning the end of his
government.
A statement, I've been reliably informed.
QUESTION: Within this building, has Strobe Talbott or has Mr. Sustanovich
had any conversations?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that they've spoken with counterparts, but as I
said, I know that our embassy officials have been in contact with Russian
Government counterparts.
More on this subject?
QUESTION: According to the Russian and American newspapers' report,
Russia is preparing to sell a new group of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to
Armenia. And Azerbaijan President Heydar already wrote the letter to
Yeltsin against this sale, which already is against the conventions arms
agreement between the US and the other groups. Do you have anything on this
subject?
MR. FOLEY: I couldn't comment on it, because I haven't seen that report.
I'd be glad to look into it for you, though.
QUESTION: Prime Minister Chernomyrdin is very close to Vice President
Gore, of course. They've had these regular meetings of the Gore-Chernomyrdin
Commission. But also, Prime Minister Chernomyrdin is someone who's been
looked on by the United States as a leading force for market reform within
Russia and a leading force for the transition to democracy and a free
market economy. So does the United States Government see it as - without
commenting on the internal changes - does the United States Government
see it in any way as a loss for the Russian Government's movement
toward a free market economy; or just the mere fact that Prime Minister
Chernomyrdin is leaving? Do they see that as a loss, a personal loss of
someone who is a valued partner?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think the Vice President may speak to that directly,
and I wouldn't want to characterize his feelings on the subject. But
without minimizing in any way the respect that we have for Prime Minister
Chernomyrdin and the fine work that has been accomplished in the Gore-
Chernomyrdin Commission and channel, I would emphasize what I said at the
outset; which is that our policies are based on our interests and our
search for common ground and common interests with the Russian Government,
and that is not going to change. This is not a function of personalities,
as I said.
In a more general way, I think that we have to get used to the idea that
Russia is, indeed, a democratizing country, with democratic institutions
that are growing. I think we have to have confidence in the ability of
Russians to work their way through political change within democratic
channels. As I said, changes of governments are not unusual in democratic
systems. This is not the first such change in Russia, and we fully expect
that Russia's basic foreign policy and economic reform orientations will
continue.
QUESTION: Thank you, Jim. Last week in Kurt Weldon's committee, General
Alexander Lebed gave testimony to the -- illustrated that his assertion of
nuclear weapons that were unaccounted for, especially backpack nukes, had
been confirmed by the Russian Government in sort of an indirect way. He
also said, in answer to a query, that the PLO may or may not have - he
could not confirm or deny - the PLO had purchased two nuclear weapons
sometime back in the early '90s. Is this government at all concerned about
the PLO possessing terrorist weapons? And secondly, what do you think about
Mr. Lebed saying that he was arrested when he went home and charged
with giving away state secrets and --
MR. FOLEY: Bill, that's a mouthful right there. I'm not sure I'm going to
cover all that ground or remember all the ground. But we certainly take any
reports of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction extremely
seriously. And we're not in the business of talking about intelligence
reports on this subject from this podium, but I think I can say in a
negative way that I'm not aware of any such reports such as you're
indicating.
The gentleman in question, I think, has a well-deserved reputation for
making statements that are provocative in nature. I would hesitate to speak
to the particular issue about the suitcase issue, not having before me the
text of what we stated at the time these reports first surfaced. This was
many months ago, but we did certainly look into those reports. We did
discuss the reports with Russian counterparts, and were assured that they
were erroneous.
QUESTION: Dennis Ross - is he getting ready to go somewhere?
MR. FOLEY: You mean to go out to buy lunch or -
(Laughter.)
-- to go home for dinner?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, thank you, Sid.
QUESTION: No, to the Middle East.
MR. FOLEY: I can confirm that the President and Secretary Albright have
decided to send Ambassador Ross to the region to consult with Prime
Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat in order to finalize US ideas. He
will be leaving, I understand, Wednesday evening of this week.
QUESTION: What ideas is he going to finalize?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, the United States took stock in recent
months of the situation of the Middle East peace process, which was,
frankly speaking, a sorry situation. We concluded that there had developed
an inability on the part of the two sides to deal productively with each
other, to respond effectively to each other. So President Clinton decided
to table some American ideas that we thought could help bridge the gap
between the two parties. This has been an iterative process, and the United
States has continued to refine its ideas in consultation with the
two parties. And the purpose of Ambassador Ross' visit will be to
finalize our ideas in meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman
Arafat.
QUESTION: Do you have anything about Netanyahu's comments, vis-a-vis the
American proposals on ceding territory to the Palestinians?
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen his specific comments. I am aware of reports, in
any event, that the Israeli cabinet did make some statement or take some
action yesterday, based apparently on what they said were reports on US
ideas. I don't believe that the Israeli cabinet has acted on the basis of
formal and final US ideas.
QUESTION: The Israelis keep saying that the United States is about to
announce some specific proposal, including specific figures for an Israeli
pull-back in the West Bank. Various Administration spokesmen have professed
ignorance of any such intention by the United States. Can you take us any
further on that? Does the United States have any plan to announce publicly
some proposal.
MR. FOLEY: Well, first of all, I wouldn't use the word, "plan," even if
it's a plan to something. We're talking about US ideas, and, no, I can't go
into the specifics of those ideas. They are still in the process of
finalization. But certainly there has been a lot of press reporting on the
subject.
We believe that we, the United States, have a responsibility to the peace
process because we have significant national interests - political and
security - in the Middle East. The fact is that the stalemate that has
existed for most of the last year does raise questions about the viability
of the peace process. So we have a responsibility to our own interests, a
responsibility to our relationship with our partners in the region to put
forward our best ideas about how to revive the process, bring the
parties back together in a productive mode. So our ideas reflect our
best judgment on what is necessary to move forward at a time, as I
said, when the peace process needs to be resumed.
We understand the view in Israel that Israel will make its own decisions
with regard to the peace process, and we do not challenge that. We accept
that, and nobody is talking about attempting to impose ideas on any of the
parties. But we believe we do have a responsibility to make an honest
judgment, to convey honestly our best views on what could revive the
process and get the parties back on track.
QUESTION: After the Israelis were here last week, requesting that you all
not go public with these ideas, plan, however you want to say it, how would
you respond to an analysis that Dennis Ross is going to Israel in a last
attempt to get Israel to go along with the broader withdrawal, before
President Clinton does, in fact, go public with his idea for a withdrawal?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I know this issue of going public or not going public
has certainly garnered a lot of attention in the media, and I really can't
address that today. What we're focused on is indeed finalizing our ideas,
and that's the purpose of Ambassador Ross' trip. We're going to assess
where we stand on the basis of the results he obtains this week.
QUESTION: I don't understand. How does one finalize ideas? One finalizes
a plan or a strategy. Ideas are something you throw on the table and
they're accepted or rejected. I mean, you're sort of indicating there's a
plan that you're --
MR. FOLEY: I didn't use that word.
QUESTION: I know you didn't.
(Laughter.)
But you're finalizing something.
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: What do you mean, finalizing something? Finalizing it for
preservation, finalizing it for announcement, finalizing it for what?
MR. FOLEY: Well, the modalities of delivery are not something that I can
address myself to today. But what I can say, though, I can repeat what I
said a few minutes ago; which is, this has been an iterative process. This
is not a process in which the US will seek to impose its will on either of
the two parties, but in which we try to give it our best shot to advance
ideas that we think can bridge the gaps. It's in iterative process
that is continuing, but we believe Ambassador Ross' visit is critical
to where we go next.
QUESTION: Last Friday, the Greek Foreign Minister, Theodore Pangalos, met
with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright here at the State Department.
The talks covered extensively Mr. Pangalos' proposal for a moratorium and
the creation of a no-fly zone over Cyprus and a US guarantee. Mr. Pangalos,
however, did not succeed to convince her. The same proposal, presented by
Mr. Pangalos to a bunch of US officials during a breakfast at the Greek
Embassy without any result. Therefore, I'm wondering why you government
--
MR. FOLEY: Mr. Lambros, could you repeat the last sentence? I didn't hear
it. Something about the Greek Embassy --
QUESTION: I said the same proposal, presented today by Mr. Pangalos to a
bunch of US officials during a breakfast at the Greek Embassy without,
again, any result. Therefore, I'm wondering why your government is not in a
position to guarantee the proposed moratorium and the no-fly zone over
Cyprus.
MR. FOLEY: The US Government is not in a position to guarantee what? I
didn't hear that, Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: Mr. Pangalos proposed moratorium and no-fly zone over Cyprus.
But Secretary of State Mrs. Albright refused.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I have to say that, first of all, I can't agree to your
characterization of the meeting or of Secretary Albright's response. The
bulk of the meeting, which I attended, covered the issue of Kosovo and the
crisis in the Balkans that has been precipitated by Serb repression in
Kosovo. And it was a very productive meeting in that regard.
I would say that Foreign Minister Pangalos and Secretary Albright found
common ground on the need for the repression to stop, the need for a
sincere dialogue on both sides, without conditions, to be instituted to
help diffuse the situation. They talked about the regional situation and
the fact that the United States and Greece needed to be vigilant against
the extension of the tensions in Kosovo.
They did discuss Cyprus and Greek-Turkish relations. The Secretary told the
Foreign Minister that the United States is determined to be helpful in the
search for a resolution of all the problems. She intends to visit Greece
this summertime, and she hoped that the United States would continue to be
able play a helpful role in bridging differences between Greece and Turkey
and helping to promote a Cyprus solution.
But I'm not in any position to comment on the specifics of the points you
addressed.
QUESTION: During the same breakfast at the Greek Embassy, Mr. Pangalos
was trying over and over to convince the US officials of his proposal,
pending since the Imia crisis, that Imia should be addressed to the
International Court of Justice. But there was no response from Mr. Grossman
and the other participants. Could you please, once again, clarify your
position vis-a-vis Imia, since it was brought up again in the talks by
Mr. Pangalos?
MR. FOLEY: I'll give you a two-part answer. First, I'm not going to
comment about al lunch meeting or a meeting that I was not privy to. But on
the general point, though, we have always said that the ICJ could be a
forum for resolving the question of Imia-Kardak.
QUESTION: So I guess the Secretary will be going to Turkey, as well as
Greece, this summer?
MR. FOLEY: I believe that was understood at the time Prime Minister
Yilmaz was here. I don't have a specific date for such a visit. I believe
in the summertime, though.
MR. FOLEY: I believe so, yes.
QUESTION: What is the latest you have on the kidnapping of the Mormon
missionaries in Russia?
MR. FOLEY: The United States Embassy in Moscow was informed Sunday,
yesterday, that the two American citizens who had been kidnapped in Saratov
on March 18 had, thankfully, been released. Travis Robert Tuttle and Andrew
Lee Propst were taken immediately to the police station there to be de-
briefed. At this time, they are still in Saratov, helping police with the
investigation.
Two American Embassy consul officers, as well as church officials, are
currently with the two gentlemen. Both men are in good condition, with only
minor injuries. The Russian investigation into this matter is ongoing, and
we understand that two individuals have been arrested.
We are extremely pleased at the safe conclusion of this matter. We
appreciate the excellent work and cooperation of Russian authorities in
bringing this situation to a successful close.
QUESTION: Do you have any reason to think that there is any wider
involvement than these two people that have been arrested, or perhaps one
other who is a suspect?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have details about the results, so far, of the
investigation. My only information is that two individuals have been
arrested. Perhaps colleagues in Moscow might address their questions to the
Russian authorities.
QUESTION: What about the Americans who were detained by Serbian
authorities?
MR. FOLEY: This morning, Serbian authorities released the six Americans
sentenced to ten days in prison for failing to register their place of
residence with the police. Serbian police transported them to the
Macedonian border where they were met by vehicles from the US Embassy and
taken into Skopje.
We are, of course, very pleased that the six Americans have been released;
but we reiterate our strong view that they should have never been arrested
on such ridiculous charges in the first place. We have protested this
incident to authorities in Belgrade at the highest level, as well as to the
FRY charge here in Washington. This is a clear case of harassment and
intimidation.
The six Americans were in Kosovo with Peace Workers, which is a non-
governmental organization based in San Francisco that is dedicated to non-
violent conflict resolution and headed by a highly respected Quaker
activist, David Hartsough. We have no indication that the Americans were
mistreated in any way; but again, we regard this as falling into a pattern
of harassment of non-government organizations and international individuals
who are present or are seeking to go Kosovo in order to help reduce
tensions there. And you'll recall that the Contact Group, when it met in
London on March 9, called on the Belgrade authorities to allow free
access to Kosovo for a whole range of NGOs and humanitarian organizations.
I would also note that over the weekend, there was a US congressional
delegation that was denied entry into Kosovo by Belgrade authorities. This
denial was ill-advised and serves as another glaring example of Mr.
Milosevic's non-compliance with the March 9 Contact Group demands on
Kosovo. In that statement, the Contact Group called on Belgrade authorities
to ensure access to Kosovo by Contact Group and other representatives to
monitor the situation in areas that had been closed off during Serb police
violence around the Drenica region over the past weeks.
QUESTION: Do you think it's a good idea for such high-profile Cuban
baseball players to get into rickety boats and sort of make their way out
of Cuba in that fashion?
MR. FOLEY: Are we finished with Europe, by the way? We can come back to
it. OK, I'll take the question.
No, we don't think it's a good idea, and the whole purpose of US policy on
the outflow of people from Cuba is intended to manage international
migration so it is safe, orderly and authorized and beneficial to both
countries of origin and countries of destination. That's our general
migration policy around the world and we have a system in place now that
allows such safe, orderly and legal immigration from Cuba. It's working
well, and one of the purposes of that agreement is to, indeed, discourage
this kind of practice which is so dangerous and risky. So, it is something
that we continue to discourage.
QUESTION: Do you think sort of that some of the potentially high-dollar
figure baseball contracts that await some of these refugees serve possibly
to undermine this policy that you just stated?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I can't imagine that there are large numbers of Cubans
who can vie for high-paying contracts in baseball; although I think Costa
Rica may be considering fielding such a team if this trend continues, but
it's not one that we encourage.
QUESTION: You're not discouraging it to the point of recommending to the
Bahamian authorities that they repatriate these nine back to Cuba, are
you?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we are confident that the Bahamians will carefully
consider any claims for protection consistent with international standards
and insure that no bona fide refugee is returned to Cuba. There is an
agreement between the Bahamas and Cuba in that regard, but also the Bahamas
fall under international commitments that are monitored by the UNHCR
regarding the protection of bona fide refugees. We understand, in fact,
that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has been notified
and that a UNHCR representative will travel to Nassau to interview the
nine migrants, as is routinely done for all Cuban migrants held at
the Bahamas migrant facility.
QUESTION: Do you know if this government has now been in touch with the
Cuban Government about the changes that the Secretary announced on Friday
in aid to Cuba?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm going to answer the question but I'm also going to
be prepared to come back to you if I've gotten it wrong for the first time.
But, my understanding is that we had communicated the intended changes last
week with the Cuban Government.
QUESTION: Before they were announced?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: And what has been their response?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of what their response may have been privately.
I, of course, saw, as you did, the television interview that Mr. Castro
gave in which he seemed to not throw cold water on this idea.
QUESTION: What is the US reaction to the expulsions in Mexico from the
Chiapas area from foreigners. The Mexican Government says that these people
have been participating in politics in Mexico, and this to the alarm of
many human rights groups who believe that these people are just monitoring
the situation there.
MR. FOLEY: I think it's difficult and risky, sitting in Washington, to
second guess the decisions of the Mexican authorities. They do have a visa
or immigration law, I believe, that does prohibit tourists, for example, or
those visiting Mexico on a temporary basis, from engaging in political
activities.
But, of course, there is also a concern that we share that international
human rights organizations be able to travel freely throughout the world
and to shed a spotlight on areas of unrest and of concern. So it's a
difficult balance. I believe, in fact, in some instances, the Mexican
Government has hosted recently gatherings of human rights activists from
around the world. So I couldn't comment in a general way. If you had a
specific question, I'd be glad to look into it.
QUESTION: Another one on Mexico?
MR. FOLEY: George had one, and then Bill.
QUESTION: I just wanted to know whether you had any response to the
expulsion by the Congolese Government of the UN team.
MR. FOLEY: I think that the reports are somewhat contradictory, and so
it's difficult to speak authoritatively on what may or may not have
happened. But as we understand it, on March 18 and 19, townspeople in the
community of Wenge, outside Mbandaka protested excavations near a local
cemetery by members of the UN team. Apparently, the demonstrators claimed
that the work there violated local cultural norms.
The provincial governor and police subsequently accompanied the team to the
site. Following negotiations with the protesters, they advised the
forensics team that it could continue with the dig they were undertaking.
However, the forensics team did not feel secure and they chose to withdraw
to Mbandaka and later to Kinshasa. We understand that team leaders from the
UN are in dialogue with national and provincial-level officials in the
Congo, to try to resolve this problem. Meanwhile, logistics experts
remain on the ground in Mbandaka and a second team of investigators
has deployed to Goma, at the other, the eastern side of the country.
We certainly hope that the UN team and the Congolese Government can resolve
this issue quickly, so that the investigation can continue in the Mbandaka
area.
QUESTION: Anybody want to follow that?
(No response.)
Okay, on Mexico --
MR. FOLEY: Thank you, Bill.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Foley. On Thursday, in response to a question
about the GAO being critical and the DEA being critical of Mexico's drug
fighting and the effect of their drug campaign, she said that she was
urging Mexico to implement the money laundering law that was passed last
year, that is not being implemented, so that the many billions of dollars
in proceeds would not be laundered in the Mexican banks. Does the State
Department join with Ms. Reno at Justice on this particular desire?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm sadly bereft of guidance on this particular subject,
although I think I can get an answer for you. But certainly passage of the
money laundering law was a positive development that we welcome. The state
or status of its implementation is something I'd be happy to check with you
about, but I'm sure the Attorney General knows what she was addressing on
the subject.
QUESTION: Jim, do you have any reaction to the efforts by Mexico, Saudi
Arabia and Venezuela to manipulate the world price of oil?
MR. FOLEY: Well, that's not normally, I think, a State Department
subject; but I'd be happy to take the question and look into it for you to
see if we have an answer for you. I'd refer you, though, in the meantime,
to other departments of the government.
QUESTION: The Mormon missionaries, for just a moment - any idea what
level of contacts were involved in bringing that issue to a resolution? I
mean, how high did this go?
MR. FOLEY: I unfortunately don't have those details for you. Certainly,
our embassy was in contact with Russian authorities in Moscow. But we also
had excellent cooperation at the local level in Saratov; so I would think
it would be a combination of both. We were also in very close touch with
the church, and this was a development that caused a good deal of anxiety
here, worrying about the fate of those two kidnapped victims. We're
mightily relieved by their safe release.
QUESTION: Do you know if there were personal contacts between Secretary
Albright and anyone in that government?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that the Secretary herself had contacts, but she
was following the situation and had been briefed about it over the
weekend.
QUESTION: Was a ransom asked for; and was any money paid?
MR. FOLEY: To our knowledge, no.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. FOLEY: Yes, to the best of our knowledge, there was no ransom
paid.
QUESTION: Is this seen as simply an isolated incident?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not in a position to characterize it generally. It is, on
its merits, an isolated incident. I'm not aware that there's been a pattern
of such behavior of such kidnappings, to make that kind of a judgment.
QUESTION: Do you think that the crackdown approved last year by the
Russian parliament perhaps created a climate in which incidents such as
this one could take place? Any thoughts on that?
MR. FOLEY: I don't think so; I certainly hope not. I believe that
implementation of that law is still forthcoming. We look towards its
implementation in a spirit consonant with Russia's international obligations
and commitments to protect religious freedoms. So I have to refer you to
the church itself to see whether they believe that their activities have
been affected or circumscribed.
I answered the question a minute ago that it seemed to me that this is an
isolated incident. If there were a pattern that one could point to now or
in the future, that would be a different story.
QUESTION: Have you reached any agreement in four-party talks in Geneva at
all?
MR. FOLEY: Have we - I'm sorry, I didn't --
QUESTION: Have you reached any agreement?
MR. FOLEY: Any agreement in the four-party talks?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. FOLEY: Well, alas, not agreement in this latest round. First, however,
I would like to thank, on behalf of the US Government, the People's
Republic of China for chairing the session with a lot of skill; and the
Swiss Government for its support and hospitality. Our negotiators went to
Geneva in order to identify the concrete steps that the four parties could
take to reduce tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
US negotiators proposed various mechanisms based on the already-agreed
agenda to move the dialogue from sterile debate to more productive
exchanges on concrete confidence-building measures. Unfortunately, the
North Koreans were not prepared to consider pragmatic steps forward. The
North Koreans insisted that the negotiations on the withdrawal of US forces
from Korea and a separate peace treaty be placed on the agenda.
As you know -- because we have stated this often over the last months - the
United States is willing to exchange views on any subject, including that
subject. However, the 37,000 US troops on the Peninsula, vis-a-vis North
Korea's 1.2 million-member army are not, in fact, a cause of tension. On
the contrary, they have helped maintain peace and stability for 45
years. Their presence in Korea is, and will be, determined by the US and
the Republic of Korea on the basis of our mutual security alliance. It is
not a subject for negotiation with any other nation.
However, I can't say that we were altogether surprised by the results of
the latest round of the four-party talks. We always expected the search for
permanent peace to be long and difficult. So we're not - while being
realistic about the short-run, we're not pessimistic about the long-run. As
the Chinese chair of the four-party talks stated at their conclusion, the
four parties will work out the timing of the third plenary session
through proper channels. We expect this process, however difficult,
to continue because it's so important to the four parties represented
there.
Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry, one other.
QUESTION: What about the GAO report of suspected hackers into the State
Department system; anything on that?
MR. FOLEY: Yes. The GAO conducted an audit of the Department's unclassified
computer systems networks last year. This audit found some vulnerabilities
in the security of these systems. We take the GAO's findings very seriously,
and are currently working to improve the security of our unclassified
computer systems. We believe we have corrected a number of the vulnerabilities.
However, there were some errors in the press report that you're referring
to.
For example, we have no information that there was a hacker who had access
to the computer systems of two overseas posts or the State Department
itself; and moreover, the report -- or the allegation that the Department
shut down portions of its computer system last fall, purportedly as a
result of the GAO's findings is untrue. As far as we are able to determine
no systems were shut down.
QUESTION: When did you say, as far as you were able to determine, Jim --
MR. FOLEY: Well, we've looked high and low and we can find no evidence
that any State Department system, central or local, classified or
unclassified, domestic or overseas, was shut down under any circumstances
in any way resembling what was described in the article. We can only
conclude that this rumor or allegation is either simply erroneous or such
an exaggeration that it is unrecognizable.
QUESTION: Can you say why the Department classifies their report,
essentially completely?
MR. FOLEY: Well, the GAO report is classified. And so --
QUESTION: But the press reports say that that's the prerogative of the
State Department. Why would you want to classify the entire report?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'd be happy to look into to get you the right answer,
but it seems to me, insofar that this is a subject that involves protection
of our systems and whether it be classified or unclassified material, it's
not something that we would want to be out there in a public domain for
adversaries to be able to read.
QUESTION: Can I ask you a question about Iraq?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Can I do one more on this, before we move on?
MR. FOLEY: Sure.
QUESTION: Are you saying that, then, that the descriptions, apparently of
State Department officials having to hand carry communications around the
world in order to avoid using computer that that part also was not correct
or was that true?
MR. FOLEY: I'd have to look into that particular aspect of it, but the
reports of this shutdown though, as far as we can determine, were
erroneous.
MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: You don't deny the basic thrust of the article about the GAO
report?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as I stated, the GAO audit, found some vulnerabilities
that we are currently addressing.
QUESTION: But you - I mean, you're denying that you shut down portions of
your international computer systems for two weeks last fall?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: But there was no inside event that prompted this GAO report? Or
was this in the course of a regular review?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of what the genesis of the report was -- whether
it was prompted by a particular incident or whether it was a sort of normal
or regular audit of that nature. I can try to find that out for you.
QUESTION: You're saying that the GAO report uncovered some vulnerabilities,
but you're saying that they were, that at no time were they ever taken
advantage of; that no one ever -
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that, certainly. There was, apparently, in the
article report about a hacker having access to computer systems of overseas
posts or in the Department last fall; and we're just not aware of
that.
QUESTION: There was no penetration?
MR. FOLEY: Not that we're aware of.
QUESTION: There was a lot of Iraqi officials sees the agreement of Kofi
Annan after the presidential palace will be searched and they found nothing,
the economic sanctions will be lifted. And there were some people in the UN
who suggested the same thing. Is that the understanding of the United
States?
MR. FOLEY: Well, you're talking there only about eight sites that are the
so-called presidential sites across Iraq. My understanding and conviction
is that the whole question, the question of lifting sanctions would only be
considered when the IAEA and UNSCOM are able to give Iraq a clean bill of
health; that the disarmament process has been completed countrywide, and
not before that.
Thank you.
QUESTION: Thanks.
(The briefing concluded at 2:05 P.M.)
|
