U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #38, 98-03-27
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
794
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Friday, March 27, 1998
Briefer: James B. Foley
STATEMENT
1 Decision by the Hevesi Committee Not To Impose Sanctions
Against Swiss Banks
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA
1-2 President Milosevic's Decision Not to See Special Rep
Gelbard
2-4 President Milosevic's Compliance with Contact Group Demands
PAKISTAN
4 Additional Security Precautions for US Diplomatic Missions
NIGERIA
5-6 US View re Return to Civilian Democratic Rule
CUBA
6-7 Ban Lifted on Cuban Baseball Players
7,12-13 Reported Resumption of Construction of Juragua Nuclear
Plant
7 Prospects for Cuba's Return to the OAS
8 House Bill re Ineligibility for Aid for Countries that Aid
Cuba
JAPAN
8 Fiscal Stimulus Announcement
8-9,12 Japan's Opening of Dialogue with Iran
INDIA
9 Prospects for India on UN Security Council
RUSSIA
9 Yeltsin Names New Prime Minister
CYPRUS
9-10 Accession of Cyprus to European Union
CHINA
10 Arrest in New York of Wang Bingzhang
10-11 Acting Under Secretary Holum re China and Non-Proliferation
MALAYSIA
11 Detention Camp Riots
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
11-12 Update on Ambassador Ross' Travel to Region
MEXICO
12 Senate's Vote to Overturn Certification Decision
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #38
FRIDAY, MARCH 27, 1998, 1:20 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: This is not the normal Friday afternoon level of attendance;
it's beautiful outside. I think we ought to adjourn. Can we do this outside
under a tree? Just like in college with the professor and his acolytes.
I have no announcements. I'm going to post a statement concerning the
meeting in New York City yesterday of the Hevesi Committee and the Swiss
banks that Ambassador Eizenstat attended. But we'll post that after the
briefing.
QUESTION: Milosevic wouldn't see Gelbard - what does the State Department
think of this?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we think, first of all, that he's not getting the
message, the message of the Contact Group.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. FOLEY: I think Ambassador Gelbard --
QUESTION: -- Gelbard, too, he's not welcome in Belgrade because at first
they said they wouldn't let him land and then they let him land and now
they won't talk to him.
MR. FOLEY: I think Ambassador Gelbard did receive a message and can draw
conclusions from President Milosevic's failure to see him; and that message
is that he's not getting the message of the Contact Group. Clearly there is
serious work to be done, which he is not addressing himself to. We have a
month until the next Contact Group meeting. The Contact Group in Bonn this
week decided to maintain the sanctions that were decided on March 9,
to go forward with the arms embargo resolution, and to meet in one month to
impose further sanctions if President Milosevic does not implement the
demands of the Contact Group. This means that he's not off to a good start
in the wake of the Bonn meeting.
Clearly, the essence of what the Contact Group has been calling for since
March 9 -- there are a number of demands and requirements of the Contact
Group, but if I had to define one that was paramount, it was that President
Milosevic take personal responsibility for the process of political
dialogue and an end to the repression. He's not taken that personal
responsibility. We've seen that President Milutinovic has been forwarded as
the interlocutor thus far with the international community, with the
Kosovar Albanians and that's not sufficient. I think we all know who's in
charge in Belgrade. And we hope that what Belgrade termed a scheduling
problem does not recur because the clock is ticking over the next 30, 29
days until the next meeting of the Contact Group and there's not much
time for him to get the message and begin an unconditional dialogue with
the Kosovar Albanians.
QUESTION: Is there a message here for the Europeans, save Britain, who
restrained the US and Britain from imposing tougher sanctions in Bonn? Did
they miscalculate? I say, except for Britain and the US, the feckless four
were reluctant to impose strong sanctions. Is there a message here for
them?
MR. FOLEY: Without editorializing your question, I think that only time
will tell whether President Milosevic gets the message in time for the next
Contact Group meeting. Clearly, the Contact Group this week determined that
his actions to date were not sufficient. Therefore, there was no decision
to relax in any way the sanctions that were decided on March 9. As you know,
in the days leading up to that meeting, there had been some talk
in the air about carrots, about recognizing progress to date.
QUESTION: Not from the podium.
MR. FOLEY: Not from the United States, period. But they reached consensus,
the members of the Contact Group, that while there were some steps taken,
that they were insufficient - insufficient to justify any relaxation of
sanctions, and insufficient to the point that the Contact Group is
committed to apply new measures, punitive measures, in the next month if
progress is not achieved.
QUESTION: There was another setback, or another snub, today, when Mr.
Geremek went to see Milosevic. He asked for the Felipe Gonzalez, I guess,
to be the mediator, and was told they didn't want an outsider. Do you have
any comment on that?
MR. FOLEY: It's part and parcel of the same pattern of intransigence on
the part of President Milosevic. We think he's making a serious mistake if
he doesn't wake up and implement what has been called for by the international
community in the form of the Contact Group.
QUESTION: But I'm not really clear whether, in fact, the Contact Group
made this - wanted this. It's not in the second --
MR. FOLEY: Well, on March 9 in London, the Contact Group specifically
called on the Belgrade authorities to cooperate with the OSCE. Contact
Group members have endorsed former Prime Minister Gonzalez as the OSCE
representative; in addition, he's been nominated as the EU representative
to represent those organizations in an effort to help mediate a political
solution to this crisis.
We can speak a lot about what was decided in London on March 9, what was
decided this week in Bonn, and have a scorecard of what was implemented now,
what was not implemented now, what may be implemented at the end of the 30-
day period that Milosevic was given. But what I think is indisputable is
that the prospects for Serbia and the FRY's integration into the world
economy have been dealt a serious setback because of the events of the
last month. I think we're already seeing anecdotal evidence that the
prospects for investment in Serbian businesses have gone down.
I think the fact that on March 9, the Contact Group called for a moratorium
on government-financed export credit support for trade and investment,
including for privatizations, in Serbia is having a dramatic effect; that
there is, in fact, an overall chilling effect both on the part of foreign
investors who might have sought to invest in the Serbian economy, and on
the part of Serbian would-be entrepreneurs as well. It has to be very
demoralizing, the idea that because Serbia had cooperated in recent months
with the international community in Bosnia over Dayton implementation.
We had seen some prospect of possible further integration of Belgrade into
the European and world economies; and that process has come to an abrupt
halt and there's no prospect of it resuming, barring a complete change of
attitude on the part of Belgrade insofar as Kosovo is concerned.
QUESTION: But was there a change of attitude by the Contact Group? I mean,
they didn't mention this in the Bonn statement - that there should be a
outside mediator in these talks. This couldn't have just been dropped out
by accident.
MR. FOLEY: Well, they reaffirmed their demands that they made on March 9
in London, and that included cooperation with the OSCE. I can get the
specific reference for you if you want, Roy.
QUESTION: I have it in front of me here. In other words, just that - but
they didn't state it specifically. I mean, Milosevic has rejected this
consistently - the entire government has - and the fact that the Contact
Group didn't state it explicitly just sort of raises the question of
whether they are explicitly demanding it or not.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't think I have the time right now to go through
the Contact Group statement in Bonn. My understanding is that they did
reaffirm Felipe Gonzalez as the OSCE representative in Kosovo. But we can
look into that after the briefing.
QUESTION: Is this, in the United States' view, at least, then, an
essential condition for genuine negotiations - that you have an outside
mediator present?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, it is; it is. There are other essential conditions, one
of which is the pull-back of the police units in Kosovo. Some false claims
were made to that effect within the last week, which are not borne out by
the facts on the ground. On the contrary, we're seeing a reinforcement of
the position of Serb police - FRY police - in Kosovo.
QUESTION: Jim, I've got a question on the same region, which is Mr.
Seselj is in the government. I don't know if you've had a comment on it,
but apparently his forces have 15 of the 35 government portfolios. I'm just
curious of what your reading is of that government
MR. FOLEY: Well, again, this is another question I received, each of
which, alas, permits me to comment that authorities in Belgrade do not
appear to be moving in the right direction towards political dialogue,
reconciliation with the Kosovar Albanians, and a halt to the process of
repression there. His appointment to the government is equally a step in
the wrong direction.
QUESTION: Mr. Gelbard, in the past, has called him a fascist. Is this the
view of the State Department?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm certainly not going to quarrel with Ambassador
Gelbard's words. If he walks like one and talks like one, I think -
(Laughter.)
I'm not going to quibble with the characterization.
QUESTION: Pakistan - there's a great threat from terrorists to the US
Embassy in Pakistan and also against Americans. Also, this threat is
equivalent 1979, when four Americans were killed.
MR. FOLEY: I'll get you that. I have an answer somewhere in my book,
which is not leaping to - thank you, PA. Public Affairs.
We have taken additional security precautions in Pakistan, at our missions
in Pakistan. It's obviously not our policy to discuss security measures in
a public forum, but our overseas missions constantly review their security
postures and take additional measures when needed. We received some
information regarding a possible threat to our diplomatic missions in
Pakistan.
We receive threat information on our diplomatic missions all the time,
frankly, and that threat is always taken seriously. We take precautions to
counter these threats, to ensure the safety of our personnel and the
security of our facilities; and that's what we've done today in Pakistan.
But we have no specific threat information directed against American
citizens as such in Pakistan at this time.
The information we received was specific to US diplomatic missions in
Pakistan, and security measures, as I said, have been taken to counter this
threat.
QUESTION: Anything to do with the civil war in Afghanistan or Mir Kasi's
death penalty in the US?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have the information before me of the nature of
the security threat involved. But if I had that information, I would not be
in a position to share it with you, either.
QUESTION: Jim, are you prepared to answer any questions on Nigeria, to
the extent that there was news today in South Africa. I think it was when
the President said that it was okay if President Abacha is elected as a
civilian in the upcoming elections. This appeared to contrast with the
previous line - that being that "Nigeria needs and deserves a real
transition to democracy and civilian rule, not another military regime
dressed up in civilian clothes." This was, as I understand it, Susan Rice,
of two weeks ago.
MR. FOLEY: That continues to be the case. There was some misreporting -
at least wire service misreporting - what the President actually said. But
what I can tell you is that we are encouraging reform and democratic
principles in Nigeria, and we hope for a free and fair process to elect a
credible civilian government. The Abacha regime currently shows no signs of
living up to its commitment in this regard.
The President stated very clearly that our objective is a return to true
civilian, democratic rule. True civilian, democratic rule means a process
that includes free political activity, release of political prisoners,
freedom of the press and free, fair and transparent elections. The current
transition process appears to be flawed and failing.
What Assistant Secretary Rice said stands; which is that a military
dictatorship in civilian clothes is not acceptable. In other words, it is
not sufficient for a general simply to remove his uniform and declare
himself a civilian. The process itself has to have integrity and not be
manipulated. We've consistently urged that the regime honor its own
commitment to make a genuine transition to civilian, democratic rule.
QUESTION: The President said, "and if he stands for election, we hope he
will stand as a civilian." That seems to be - gives Abacha some wiggle room
there.
MR. FOLEY: I don't think so; I think that's to misinterpret our position.
What we are looking for is for Mr. Abacha to make good on his pledge, which
is a credible, free and open process.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. FOLEY: To suggest that anything that is going on in Nigeria today is
tantamount to the beginnings of a free, fair electoral process - credible
electoral process - is really illusory and unfounded. It's just really very
hypothetical at this point, in the absence of some of the things that I
talked about: the release of political prisoners; freedom of the press; a
free and fair electoral process -- that, in actuality, the candidacy
of a military man would be anything but a superficial changing of
uniform. We'd have to see some really significant change in the context of
what's happening in Nigeria before we could bless something like that.
QUESTION: I want to read you briefly two quotes. "Let me state clearly
and unequivocally that an electoral victory by any military candidate in
the forthcoming presidential election in Nigeria would be unacceptable."
That was Susan Rice.
"There are many military leaders who have taken over chaotic situations in
African countries that have moved toward democracy, and that can happen in
Nigeria." That was Bill Clinton. Do you really think that's two articulations
of the same policy?
MR. FOLEY: If we were to see the changes in Nigeria that we called for,
and I enumerated - the release of political prisoners, true freedom of the
press, free political activity, free, fair and transparent elections -- and
this gentleman were able to participate in such a process, I think it would
be surprising to most observers that he would stand a chance of winning
elections in such a process.
QUESTION: It sounds as if you're talking about Fidel Castro.
(Laughter.)
MR. FOLEY: Well, we are calling for a similar process in Cuba, indeed.
And I think Mr. Castro's failure to open up to such a process reveals a
certain lack of confidence on his part.
QUESTION: What you're saying and what the President said are not
necessarily different - which the President mis-said, are not necessarily
different.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't accept that.
QUESTION: So you're saying that if he meets your standards and runs as a
civilian, which you doubt he can do, then it's fine.
MR. FOLEY: I'm saying that that - I'll give you my answer to that - I'm
saying that that is wildly hypothetical, at this point, in the absence of
any context of movement of the opening up of the political system in
Nigeria.
QUESTION: But you are not saying flatly that you do not want Abacha to
run for president; you're saying that if he meets these conditions, which
you say is wildly hypothetical, it's fine.
MR. FOLEY: I'm saying that that prospect is wildly hypothetical.
QUESTION: Castro has given some kind of relief to the professional
baseball players in Cuba. Do you think that is because of the Pope's visit,
or the special treatment the United States gives to the baseball players of
Cuba to earn a lot of money in this country?
MR. FOLEY: I think that it reflects the fact that, perhaps, the Cuban
Government has discovered that its practice of banning players from
baseball for suspicion of planning to defect has backfired for them. The
baseball players who left Cuba last week and those who left in late
December had all been banned from playing baseball in Cuba because of
suspicions that they were planning to defect; and, of course, they left the
island anyway.
The policy of banning players from baseball is a clear example of the Cuban
Government's use of harassment and intimidation to prevent the Cuban people
from freely exercising individual rights, including the right to work. Now,
in terms of their announcement that they will stop sending baseball players
abroad on government contracts, it has been the practice of the Cuban
Government routinely to send skilled individuals, including baseball
players, other athletes and coaches, medical doctors, teachers and others
abroad on government contracts as a source of hard currency for the
government. All such travel is arranged by the government, and the
individuals keep only a modest amount of what they earn. The Cuban
Government apparently has decided to forego sending baseball players
abroad as a source of earnings for the government.
QUESTION: There is an official from the White House who's name is Richard
Morningstar. Yesterday he confirmed that Ukraine and Russia send material
and specialties to continue the construction of the Juragua plant in Cuba.
And he said that the United States is talking with the Russians and the
Ukrainians, trying to tell them that the US is going to impose sanctions to
them if they continue to send materials and specialties to Juragua.
MR. FOLEY: Yes, I heard about that story before I came in here and I
checked and our experts are unaware of any such initiative as you
described. The United States though, I can tell you, is opposed to the
completion of the plant. We have made known our concerns repeatedly to
countries whose firms were considering participation in the completion of
the project.
QUESTION: There was today in Argentina another initiative to bring Cuba
into the Organization of the American States by the Secretary General of
the OAS. And I think there are other countries also that would favor for
Cuba to come back into the OAS. Do you have anything?
MR. FOLEY: I believe that Cuba was never formally excluded from the OAS,
but their participation was suspended back, I think, in 1962. The United
States believes the conditions have not changed in terms of the lack of
democracy in Cuba to justify a change in our opposition to Cuba's return to
the OAS.
QUESTION: In other words you're trying to - (inaudible) - over 33
countries and the OAS?
MR. FOLEY: I didn't hear the question.
QUESTION: Do you say the United States doesn't feel that Cuba needs to be
reinstated as a participant in the OAS. That means you are going to vote
against over 33 countries that, I mean, the majority of Latin American
countries now feel that Cuba needs to be working with the inter-American
group.
MR. FOLEY: Well, our view is different. That's all I can tell you.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - the foreign minister at the Vatican today about
the humanitarian --
MR. FOLEY: No, I didn't.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. FOLEY: You'd have to tell me what he said. You'd have to ask me a
question that directed me in the direction of --
QUESTION: He seemed to be rejecting the whole idea - the measures that
were announced by the President to alleive humanitarian hardship. I don't
know if he's in a position to do anything, but, I mean --
MR. FOLEY: Maybe it's not out of character, but I'd have to say it would
be surprising if the Cuban Government opposed measures that were intended
to provide humanitarian relief to the people of Cuba. It's not out of
character, but it never ceases to amaze.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - in the House saying that countries that help Cuba
will not be eligible for American aid. Is it going to create any problems
with South Africa, for instance? Mandela said today, yesterday that he is
still supporting Cuba.
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen the report and I'm certainly not even aware of
such --
QUESTION: This was yesterday.
QUESTION: A little while ago, Secretary Albright called Japanese Foreign
Minister Obuchi to discuss the need to boost the Japanese economy; and as
of yesterday, the Japan ruling party approved the economic stimulus
package. What's your reaction on that?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we believe it's encouraging that Japan is taking steps
towards stimulating domestic demand. We were lacking details on that
announcement.
(Phone rings.)
Tell them I'm busy.
(Laughter.)
We look forward, therefore, to further elaboration of the specific measures
involved and we'll have to await the substantive details before we can give
a broader assessment of the new Japanese package.
QUESTION: On Iran, the Japanese Government is resuming a government-to-
government dialogue with Iran by sending a high-ranking politician to Iran
next month. What's your reaction to that?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, the United States itself has called for an
open dialogue, official authorized dialogue with Iran and we don't oppose
the dialogue that other nations may have with Iran. We simply state in such
cases that we trust that our close friends and allies will make clear to
the government of Iran our continuing concerns, shared by our friends and
allies, over specific aspects of Iranian activities of concern to
us.
QUESTION: Several US lawmakers have called on the (inaudible) to support
India's desire to join the UN Security Council. Now, what's the problem?
Why is the US not supporting the world's largest democracy to join the
world body's security council?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we announced our position on Security Council reform
back last year at some point; and as part of our position, I can refer you
to the text of what we said at the time, though. We favored that different
regions of the world would be able to nominate members of the Security
Council on a rotating basis and that continues to be our position.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the US congressmen calling now on
the - (inaudible) - to support?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we stand by the position that we announced last year,
but we will be happy to look at any proposals coming out of Congress, I'm
just not aware of it.
QUESTION: Yeltsin has formally named Kiriyenko as his prime minister. I
was wondering if you had a general comment, and specifically these concerns
about his age, the fact that he lacks experience. I mean, would that not
prompt concerns, for instance, with US investors, that this guy is actually
up for the job?
MR. FOLEY: Well, he is youthful. He is 35 years old - a former fuel and
energy minister. That's undeniable, Carole. But he's a man with some fairly
remarkable experience, given his age. Before joining the Russian Government,
he founded a commercial bank and he also headed an oil refinery. I would
note also that Mr. Kiriyenko participated in the US-Russia Joint Commission
on Economic and Technological Cooperation here in Washington earlier
this month. So he seems to be a dynamic gentleman who has a reputation as a
vigorous supporter of the general policies of economic reform, supported by
President Yeltsin. So we look forward to working with him and his
government if, indeed, they are confirmed.
QUESTION: You've dealt with him through this forum?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, we have.
QUESTION: Ambassador Holbrooke, when he was in Bonn, he said that the
European acceptance of Cyprus is the biggest obstacle in the solution. Is
that his view, or do you share this view?
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen that comment, so I couldn't comment on it. But
our view has been that the accession of Cyprus to the European Union -
which, of course, will take some time and must proceed through a process of
negotiations -- but that prospect can be a positive catalyst in a
settlement of the disputes that separate the communities on Cyprus. So we
continue to hold that view.
QUESTION: But on the - (inaudible) - for example, the Turkish side that
doesn't accept any negotiations, any dialogue on it. It means that this
will collapse; am I right or wrong?
MR. FOLEY: Well, that's unfortunate. I believe that there are prospects,
and the United States is not going to endorse any particular formula, I
would hasten to add. But there are prospects. One can envisage a possibility
of a joint delegation that meets the needs and the desires of all of the
people on Cyprus. We hope that there will be an effort and a will on all
sides to cooperate - such that a joint delegation of some kind can be
agreed to and can participate in the EU accession talks.
QUESTION: Chinese pro-democracy activist, Mr. Wang Binzhang has been
detained for investigations into his forgery of an American passport. Can
you confirm on that; and also, where are we in these investigations?
MR. FOLEY: Well, if you want an answer to where the investigation is,
you'll have to ask the New York - the US Attorney's office in New York
City. I can, indeed, confirm that the gentleman was arrested last night,
March 26, in New York by special agents of the Diplomatic Security Service
on charges related to passport fraud. He is scheduled to be arraigned in
New York later today. As the case is now before the courts, however, I have
no further comment that I could possibly make.
QUESTION: What is his current visa status? Will he face criminal charges,
or will the United States Government give him a special parole because he
is like Wei Jengsheng, a pro-democracy activist, unwelcome in China?
MR. FOLEY: First of all, I believe that the gentleman is a US immigrant -
a legal, permanent resident of the United States. In terms of any possible
criminal charges, I'd refer you to the US Attorney in New York City. I
can't comment on the investigation.
QUESTION: Mr. Holum, the Under Secretary of State, said in Beijing that
the United States is satisfied with China, that Beijing has kept its words
on the nuclear nonproliferation. Does that mean that President Clinton is
ready to offer China access to missile technology on his trip to Beijing?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we've had a series of articles that have appeared in the
media in Washington - one based on allegedly leaked secret documents;
secondly, the astonishing publication of an allegedly secret document; and
all kinds of follow-up articles and speculation in this regard - none of
which bear any resemblance to the truth or to the facts.
It's interesting to go forward with publishing an allegedly secret document,
claiming a smoking gun, in effect, that just wasn't there. I cannot state
clearly enough that the United States is not proposing any offers of access
to missile technology. The report is flat wrong.
QUESTION: Before US and China signed treaty on nuclear issues, is China
going to pledge already to accept US position that it will not sell any
kind of technology, especially missile, to Pakistan, Libya, Iran and other
countries?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we are, of course, always concerned about any reports of
the transfer of such technology to other nations. We are vigilant in
assessing such reports. We don't have indications that there's been any
deviation from commitments that we have from Chinese authorities in this
regard.
QUESTION: Can I ask about a Malaysia/Indonesia story? Apparently there's
been these riots in Malaysia of Indonesian refugees and threats of
deportations. I'm wondering of the United States, through the embassy there,
has intervened in any way with the Malaysian Government in the situation.
MR. FOLEY: Yes, we are concerned about reports of violence in Malaysian
detention camps. We understand that there have been at least nine
fatalities, including eight Indonesian migrants and one Malaysian police
officer. There were also a number of injured people, including 38 Malaysian
police. We deeply regret the loss of life.
We believe that governments should act judiciously in carrying out the
return of illegal migrants, and that such action should take into account
the safety and dignity of the individuals involved, and also be consistent
with the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I would note our belief that all governments do have a sovereign right to
restrict rights of entry and residence to individuals of another country,
while assuring appropriate protection for any bona fide asylum seekers. But
we don't have a definitive account of what happened the other day.
QUESTION: How was Ambassador Ross' consultation going?
MR. FOLEY: Well, he spoke with Secretary Albright on the phone this
morning. She told me that Ambassador Ross reports that he's hard at work.
She also indicated that now was not the moment to characterize the course
of his negotiations. She'd prefer that he have the opportunity to come back
and report to her and the President. We'll have more to say at that
time.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the decision of --
MR. FOLEY: Just a second. You're not going to get much out of me,
Roy.
QUESTION: No, but when do you expect him to come back?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have that. If I can find that out, I'll let you know
this afternoon.
QUESTION: You used the word just now, "negotiations." Is that the word
you want to stick with - that he's having negotiations with the parties?
MR. FOLEY: I suppose that was imprudent. I think that he's in consultation,
is the correct terminology. You'd be a better spokesman than I, Roy.
QUESTION: Is that it? Do you know - (inaudible) --
MR. FOLEY: I don't have that. I can check on that for you, if you'd
like.
QUESTION: Can I go to the last question on Iran and Japan? Does the
Japanese Government decision to send - Europe is also moving towards
dialogue with Iran. For instance, the Italian Foreign Minister has already
gone to Iran. Now the Japanese Government is sending a politician to Iran
to talk with the Iranian Government. Does that change the US policy towards
Iran?
MR. FOLEY: No, I think I made that very clear - that we hope that nations
that do have a dialogue with Iran use those dialogues to convey our common
areas of concern. We think that if we had the opportunity of an official,
authorized dialogue with Iranian authorities, that we, too, would have an
opportunity to put on the table our areas of concern. The Iranian
authorities would be able to table their areas of concern with the
United States, and that through such an official dialogue, that we
might actually achieve progress in the relationship, in addressing
areas of concern and helping Iran to reintegrate into the international
community, which is, I think, the goal that all of us share.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the decision of the Senate to
maintain the certification on Mexico that President Clinton gave to the
country?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, we're pleased with the vote in the Senate. Both the
United States and Mexico realize that more needs to be done on both sides
of the border to thwart the flow and abuse of drugs. So there is no resting
on our laurels on either side of the border. However, we do believe that
cooperation and not confrontation is the best approach in this case.
It was the Administration's position that Mexico had fully cooperated with
the United States in the fight against drug trafficking. We are, as I said,
pleased that the Senate took the same position.
QUESTION: One last question on Cuba. Why is the United States opposed to
the completion of the Juragua power plant?
MR. FOLEY: We have concerns that have to do with safety, regarding that
plant. The lack of adequate safeguards is a primary concern. It's not the
only one, though, given the nature of Castro's political regime.
QUESTION: Two of the highest-level PKK officials --
MR. FOLEY: Just one second.
QUESTION: Carole asked the question I was going to ask.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think we've made clear overall, in this case we have
concerns about safeguards and that really is first and foremost. But as a
general rule though, we discourage investment in Cuba; we discourage
economic activity in Cuba until Cuba has undertaken significant political
reforms.
QUESTION: Two of the highest-level PKK officials (inaudible) Barzani
troops or groups in Northern Iraq. Do you have any information that this
terror organization is falling apart?
MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry, I didn't get the whole question.
QUESTION: The PKK terrorist organization --
MR. FOLEY: But I think it's a question I'll have to research and get you
an answer for after the briefing.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. FOLEY: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:00 P.M.)
|
