Browse through our Interesting Nodes on the Eastern European States 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
Friday, 29 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 #51, 98-04-27

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>


639

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Monday, April 27, 1998

Briefer: James B. Foley

ANNOUNCEMENTS
1		Today's Background Briefing by a Senior Department Official
		  Regarding the Situation in Kosovo

SWITZERLAND 1 Contact Between Under Sec. Eizenstat and the Swiss on the Issue of Nazi gold

SERBIA 1-2 US Policy Regarding Foreign Intervention in Kosovo; US Reaction to Vote by the Republic of Serbia Against Foreign Intervention in Kosovo 3 Update on the Serbian Arms Embargo

RUSSIA 2 Status of START II in the Wake of PM Kiriyenko's Nomination by the Russian Duma 10 SIBERIA: No US Reaction to Current Election Situation, Alexander Lebed

GERMANY 3-4 US Comment on the Election Results in the State of Saxony-Anhalt

IRAQ 4 US Position Regarding Iraqi Compliance with UNSCOM 4-5 Support for Sanctions Against Iraq within the UN Security Council 5 TEM's Assessment of Iraqi Compliance with the UNSCOM Mission 5 US Policy Regarding the Furthering of Sanctions Against Iraq 5-6 Update on the Oil for Food Program 6-7 Russian Position Regarding Sanctions Imposed on Iraq

CUBA 7 US Policy Regarding Cuba's Return to the Organization of American States 7 Discussion of Human Rights Between the Canadian PM Chretien's and Castro 7-8 Impact of US Embargo to Cuba 8 US Reaction to Castro's Remarks Concerning the Imposed Economic Embargo 8-9 Status of Upcoming OAS Vote Regarding the Return of Cuba to the OAS

MEXICO 9 US Reaction to the Pastors of Peace being Attacked in Chiapas

CYPRUS 9 Update on the Situation in Cyprus; Amb. Miller's and Amb. Holbrooke's Travel to the Region

TURKEY 9-10 Readout on the Bilateral Meetings Between Amb. Miller and the Turkish Dep. FM 10 US Designation of the PKK as a Terrorist Organization


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #51

MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1998, 1:00 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department. I don't have any announcements except to underline -- I think we already indicated out of the press office -- that we're going to have a senior administration official briefing on background this afternoon about the situation in the former Yugoslavia, with a particular look towards the Contact Group meeting in Rome on Kosovo scheduled for this Wednesday. So with that, George, let me open the floor.

QUESTION: Are there talks going on in the building today involving Under Secretary Eizenstat and the Swiss on the issue of Nazi gold?

MR. FOLEY: I don't know whether Under Secretary Eizenstat himself is involved. I'm not sure of his whereabouts today; I can check that for you and get that to you after the briefing - that should be easy to verify. But what I can say is that Under Secretary Eizenstat first convened the parties to the class action suit at their request last December in Zurich and he has brought them together several times since then. He is going to continue to remain actively involved in facilitating direct talks between the parties as long as the parties desire and as long as the opportunity remains for progress towards a just and fair resolution.

QUESTION: Can you say if the talks have opened here today?

MR. FOLEY: I want to get that for you after the briefing. I believe there are talks taking place today, yes.

QUESTION: There are a few people in Switzerland who believe there's going to be a statement on this issue from this building at 4pm.

MR. FOLEY: Well, they haven't been down to the press office this morning and indicated that to us, but I'd be glad to get that for you.

QUESTION: On Kosovo. The Republic of Serbia has voted, I think but all but 3% of the voters say they don't want any foreign intervention in Kosovo. On the other hand, the Albanian Kosovars are saying that they're coming across the border and they're going to

continue their military actions and I would ask, is this really not for Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav leadership to meet these armed incursions across the Albanian border?

MR. FOLEY: Well, first of all, I think what surprised us about the vote in Serbia last week was that actually 3% of recorded voters voted against the government's position, I think given our known views about the nature of democracy or the lack of democracy in Serbia, it's no surprise that the vote produced the result that it did. We continue to believe, as a member of the Contact Group, that what the Contact Group called for in its first meeting in London and subsequent meeting in Bonn -- calling for direct negotiations, unconditional negotiations, between the FRY leadership and under President Milosevic's sponsorship and the Kosovar Albanians -- is essential.

The border problem right now that we have begun to see - reports of incidents along the Albanian and Yugoslav border in Kosovo - are really symptomatic and, indeed, a consequence of the failure of Milosevic to take meaningful action towards achieving a viable solution to the crisis. As you will recall, the Contact Group called additionally, as well as for direct and unconditional negotiations, called for a pull-back of the special police, called for international mediation, called for international presence for monitoring, for the delivery of humanitarian assistance. In almost every one of these areas we've seen nothing but obstruction on the part of Milosevic.

So I'm not going to steal the thunder of our briefer this afternoon, who is going to talk a little bit more directly about the situation in Kosovo and about the prospects for the upcoming Contact Group meeting in Rome. But I can say about the border incidents that we've seen referred to by the Yugoslav army that the US does recognize the sovereign right of nations to protect their borders. But there are additional reports of a significant military build-up in the interior of Kosovo, and we believe these reports are troubling given the recent incidents of disproportionate use of force by the government. We have raised this concern with senior officials in Belgrade. Again, the United States reiterates the UN and the Contact Group's call for the immediate withdrawal of special police units from the Kosovo region and for Belgrade authorities and the Kosovar Albanians to engage in an unconditional dialogue. It is clear that the status quo in Kosovo is not sustainable and that the level of mistrust and the wide gap between the two parties make it impossible for these parties to have productive talks without some kind of international assistance, which is additionally what the Contact Group was calling for.

QUESTION: So the United States policy would be for all sides - all armed sides to

stand down and disengage?

MR. FOLEY: Absolutely. We have called for both the standing down, the withdrawal of the special police units and the non-intervention of the Yugoslav army on the one hand, and we've also called on the Kosovar Albanians themselves to eschew violence. So far we've only seen one response, from the Kosovar Albanians who have agreed to enter into a dialogue with Belgrade.

QUESTION: I have a question about Russia and the situation in parliament there. How much concern is there about the threatened retaliation by the Russian Duma against President Yeltsin basically backing them against a wall on confirming his Prime Minister? Are you worried about the possibility that they would slow down, for example, ratification of START II?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I would - I'm not familiar with recent reporting of statements by Duma members in the wake of the confirmation of Mr. Kiriyenko as Prime Minister. As you know, on Friday, we welcomed his approval by the Duma. I believe Vice President Gore also spoke with the new Prime Minister and looked forward to continuing the commission that's been doing good work over these years. So we're rather optimistic about the prospects, at least to continue close cooperation between the United States and Russia on a range of issues.

President Yeltsin, as well as his new Prime Minister, have reiterated their support for continuing to pursue economic reforms at home and the basis thrust of Russian foreign policy, cooperation with the United States and other western nations abroad. So we don't see any change in Russian Government conditions, per se.

Your question has more to do with the Duma in that, insofar as the START II ratification is concerned, we've seen even the chairman, or the Speaker of the Duma before the Kiriyenko nomination was approved coming out in favor of early ratification of the treaty. We think it's in the interest of both the United States and Russia, and the Russian Government itself is committed to pursuing ratification. If the speaker of the Duma himself is endorsing it and urging an early vote in favor, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. But we will have to see how the situation plays out. I think the next step is Prime Minister Kiriyenko has to name a new government; I believe that's expected this week, so it's premature to comment on what the legislative calendar may be in the weeks ahead.

QUESTION: Back on Kosovo - have you seen the report out of Europe that the EU has drawn up a list of new military items which will be embargoed or sanctioned in the case of Serbia?

MR. FOLEY: I have not seen reports of a new list. As you know, the Security Council approved, what I understand to be a blanket arms embargo; and so if this involves some sort of clarification of further implementation or elucidation of items to be covered in such an embargo, then that's probably a positive step.

QUESTION: What about police equipment?

MR. FOLEY: I have not seen that report.

QUESTION: Also, on another subject. Have you seen the results of the voting in the Saxony-Anhalt in Germany, with a trend toward a growth of strength by the extreme right?

MR. FOLEY: Yes. From this podium we don't make it a practice of commenting in detail about elections that take place, especially in allied nations. We believe Germany is an extraordinarily solid democracy and has been so for half a century; we have full confidence in Germany's democratic system. We, of course, will be watching developments closely. There are going to be national elections later this year, but we certainly don't see the results in that state of Saxony-Anhalt as a harbinger or as any kind of a national bellwether.

QUESTION: Iraq on the UN today. As you know, the Security Council is hearing from Mr. Butler on sanctions. Can you give us, just in case anything's changed since we last asked you, which isn't long ago, I realize, what is the latest US position on whether or not it is ready to declare Iraq in substantial compliance on the nuclear part of the work of UNSCOM?

MR. FOLEY: Well, let me just say, first of all, that UNSCOM Chairman Butler will brief the Security Council today. We look forward to hearing what he has to say. I believe the IAEA will also brief it's six month report to the Security Council today, as well. I would rather not comment, at this point, in order to prejudge the outcome of these briefings, as well as the follow on discussions that will occur after those briefing.

But I can refer you to what Spokesman Rubin said on the subject last week, which was that we would be pleased to recognize progress where it occurs, and there apparently has been some progress - I would emphasize some -- in the area of understanding some of what Iraq had done in the nuclear area. Bbut if we're talking about transitioning to a different form of monitoring, which is what it would involve down the road in all of these areas where UNSCOM and the IAEA have responsibility, the transition would be to long-term monitoring and we would be prepared to consider that if Iraq is able to answer some of the as-yet unanswered questions in the nuclear file, in the nuclear area, and also continue to demonstrate good faith in its cooperation with the UN, generally. But I wouldn't want to highlight what position we are specifically going to take in New York.

QUESTION: Do you note any erosion of support for sanctions against Iraq?

MR. FOLEY: No.

QUESTION: Within the Security Council?

MR. FOLEY: No, none whatsoever. We note that Iraq is attempting to build a drumbeat of noise, if you will, in order to try to garner support for their position that sanctions ought to be lifted. But we don't note any weakening of the international consensus, and certainly within the Security Council, that the lifting of sanctions is predicated on the verifiable completion of the disarmament process. I think the UNSCOM report that is being discussed today indicates that there really has been no progress -- little, if any, progress over the last six months towards identifying, verifying and destroying Iraq's missile and chemical and biological weapons capability since last October. Obviously, there was a significant hiatus during this six-month period caused by Iraq's attempt to divide the Security Council and prevent the inspections from taking place. So it's not surprising that there hasn't been that kind of progress.

What we have had is an initial site visit under the new Memorandum of Understanding negotiated by the Secretary General to the so-called presidential sites. But one visit does not make a successful completion of UNSCOM's mandate. On the contrary, the Iraqi's have been emphasizing the question of procedures; the fact that they allowed one visit when what is at stake is the question of whether Iraq has disarmed and has provided all the answers that UNSCOM is seeking about what it has done historically with its biological, nuclear, chemical weapons and missiles and what's been destroyed and what hasn't been destroyed; and we've seen no progress on that front.

On the contrary, I would also point out that, as you know, there was a group of - the so-called TEM, the Technical Evaluation Mission, was convened in Vienna in March at Iraqi instigation in order to assess Iraqi compliance with the UNSCOM mission. That TEM, which included experts from all over the world -- including, I believe, Russia and China -- found that Iraq remained woefully short in its obligations on the biological issue. So we see, of course, from our point of view, no reason to even begin to consider the question of lifting of sanctions. But I have not seen any of evidence that other members of the Security Council have noted any need to reconsider sanctions in view of what, I think, everyone agrees has been inadequate performance on Iraq's part.

QUESTION: Jim, given the inadequate performance, would the United States prefer to see heightened sanctions against Iraq?

MR. FOLEY: I think it's clear that Iraq is fully dissatisfied with the level of sanctions such as they exist. Clearly, what Iraq seeks to do by all means - by propaganda, by evasion, by noncompliance - is to attempt to get out from under the sanctions such as they exist. I think it's clear that the sanctions have succeeded in their basic mission since the end of the Gulf War in terms of containing Iraq, preventing Iraq from rebuilding its capabilities in the military field with which it can threaten its neighbors, with which it can further develop weapons of mass destruction. I think any sort of neutral observer would have to conclude that Iraq's failure to comply with the disarmament demands placed upon it at the end of the Gulf War is indicative, indeed, of a desire to maintain its capabilities in this area; and they are willing to apparently continue to endure sanctions without doing what's necessary to see them relieved.

So I think that currently it's not a question of ratcheting up the sanctions at this point. I think we are still seeing a work in progress. We were satisfied that the inspectors were able to go visit the presidential sites for the first time. But as I said, that was a single visit. The agreement that Iraq signed with Secretary General Annan called for, among other things, unrestricted access, which I believe in UNSCOM's view means that UNSCOM will have the ability to go back, including non-notified or surprise inspections to those presidential sights and, indeed, to sites around Iraq. Yes.

QUESTION: On Iraq. Do you have any update on the expanded Oil For Food Program? Do you know where that stands?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have an update specifically on the implementation of that resolution.

I can tell you that last week, I think it was last Monday in London, there was a meeting of international organizations of several countries designed to look at how the international community can act to direct assistance - and when I say assistance, I mean the proceeds of the increased oil sales that are envisaged in the coming months in Iraq -- but to use those proceeds in a way that gets really to the neediest people in Iraq. I think that meeting in London focused specifically on children, I believe, under the age of five. They discussed a number of items, including a nationwide immunization program.

So we think that this is essential work; and I would note that the Iraqi Government, unfortunately, declined to participate in that meeting. That, perhaps, is not a good omen for possible future Iraqi cooperation with this oil-for-food increase that was decided by the Security Council in recent months. And the sad fact is that it is, I think, crystal clear that Saddam Hussein and his regime really do not see it in their interests to remove the humanitarian problems that are facing their people because they find this to be their best argument in the propaganda battle: to try to have sanctions lifted without having complied with the need to disarm in the areas of weapons of mass destruction.

It's an open question as to whether the best plans that the international community may come up with to help Iraqi children, to help the elderly and pregnant women in Iraq, to help with hospitals and schools and infrastructure, whether indeed there will be the cooperation that will be necessary from the Iraqi regime in order to provide this assistance to the Iraqi people.

QUESTION: Still on Iraq. It's clear that the US doesn't - you've made the position clear that the US doesn't want to ratchet up any kind of more sanctions; however, you're not happy with the way things are going. But, once again, it looks like the Russians are suggesting that they want to reward Saddam Hussein for opening up his presidential palaces. Is the US disappointed that, once again, Russia is advocating leniency in this?

MR. FOLEY: In answer to, I think, the first question I got, I stated, I think emphatically, that we don't see anyone on the Security Council arguing for lifting of sanctions now. I think everyone understands that the consideration of lifting sanctions, must follow the issuance of a clean bill of health by UNSCOM, that namely the disarmament process has been completed; and we've seen no progress on the disarmament front in the last six months, so that's not on the table. There had been reports that some nations looking at the IAEA recent report have seen progress on the nuclear file, and that that progress ought to be acknowledged. I stated to Jim Anderson a few minutes ago our view that there has been some progress, and we would be willing to acknowledge such progress if Iraq is able to answer the remaining questions, having to do mostly with the concealment mechanism involving their nuclear weapons programs in the past, and if Iraq continues to cooperate with the UN inspectors in the coming months.

QUESTION: Are you disappointed that the Russians are once again jumping to the gun and wanting to put things ahead of the end game?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think your question had to do with whether nations on the Security Council are urging the lifting of sanctions; that's, to my knowledge, not the case.

QUESTION: There's growing support inside of the Organization of American States by calling on the next Assembly General of the OES about to reinstate Cuba as active member. My question is, is the United States ready to build up support to reject that vote exactly as they did in 1962 when Cuba was suspended as an active member?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we look forward to Cuba's return to the Organization of American States; that is, a Cuba which has undertaken a credible and far- reaching transition to democracy and we hope that day comes sooner than later.

QUESTION: Are you disappointed by the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada, in his speech in Cuba, he a little bit mentioned the fact of human rights - he was supposed to talk with Castro about human rights, and according to what you were expecting, and he only did a little mention of it?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think it's premature to react to Prime Minister Chretien's visit to Cuba, which has only begun. We'll have to see what happens in the course of his visit and we will certainly be in touch with our Canadian friends after the visit to discuss what results, if any, have obtained, particularly on the human rights front, in Cuba.

But I think we've made clear all along that we are skeptical that government-to-government engagement with Cuba can yield beneficial results on the human rights front until Cuba has actually undertaken a systemic, democratic change. However, given Canada's very strong human rights stance throughout the world, we would certainly expect that Prime Minister Chretien, if not in his opening comments but in the course of his visit, will press for progress towards democracy and human rights, and that that will remain a major focus of his trip.

As we have noted in the past, however, for our part we have seen no evidence that the constructive engagement approach used by Canada and other nations has resulted in the type of democratic change or respect for human rights that is our shared goal. We may have differences in tactics from time to time with friends around the world. But I think there's no difference of view in what we would like to see as a result, which is a real genuine transition to democracy in Cuba.

QUESTION: But at the same time, 36 years of embargo hasn't made change in Cuba.

MR. FOLEY: I don't think that's the first time I've heard that argument from this

podium.

QUESTION: It's not an argument; it's a fact.

MR. FOLEY: And would you care to describe to me the results of engagement with Castro in terms of changes in Castro's behavior; complete, utter lack of any indication of an interest in catching up with the rest of the world and the tide of history over the last 10 years towards democratic governments and respect for human rights. We see no evidence whatsoever. On the contrary, I think one could argue that the US embargo was in some sense undermined, if you will, during the long period of the Cold War when Castro was receiving heavy subsidies from the Soviet bloc. That's no longer the case. We believe that the embargo actually is having an impact today.

QUESTION: Did you see - did you see Castro's welcoming remarks? He urged the Canadian -

MR. FOLEY: I was told about them.

QUESTION: You don't have any - anything prepared?

MR. FOLEY: Well, did you have a particular reference?

QUESTION: Well, he recommends the convening of an international war crimes tribunal for those responsible for imposing an economic embargo against Cuba for the past 36 years.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I have not seen those comments specifically. They are absurd; I think it's an instance of Castro-enteritis, if you will, which we've seen on other occasions. Clearly, the plight of the Cuban people, their economic backwardness is wholly the result of the economic system in place for the last four decades. Cuba is in the same category as other communist states, but it's in its own category in having failed to make a transition to a market-based economy. That clearly is the root cause of economic problems in Cuba. Yes.

QUESTION: Yes, I have a follow-up on the OAS and Cuba. You said the United States would look forward to the return of Cuba - implicit that there were changes in Cuba. However, the next OAS assembly is going to be in less than two months. Are you having talks with other countries in the OAS - what is going to happen if this vote comes up now? If they are not making a condition that there will be changes in Cuba - but they vote the proposal?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think our view was implied in what I said, and all that I've been saying over the last 10 minutes, which is that we see no evidence that Cuba has joined the ranks of the all the other nations of the hemisphere in terms of transitioning to democracy, respect for human rights, a market-based economy. Therefore, our view is that they ought to continue to be the odd man out of the OES since they are clearly the odd man out in terms of the fundamental political and economic trends in the hemisphere.

QUESTION: My question - I'm sorry - my question is whether this is already being discussed with Latin American countries after the summit and before the - the OAS assembly?

MR. FOLEY: I think if it had been a significant issue in the sense that we were engaged, either on our part or on the receiving end of diplomatic initiatives, that I would be aware of it. I am certainly not. Yes.

QUESTION: To Mexico. The group of Pastors for Peace were attacked yesterday. Do you have any reaction to that or any comment?

MR. FOLEY: Well, our Embassy in Mexico City is attempting to confirm that a bus carrying members of the US-based group Pastors for Peace was attacked, as you say, April 25 in Chiapas province by persons who were throwing rocks. Apparently, no one was hurt according to a spokesman for the group. The group was in Chiapas delivering aid to refugees of the conflict in that province. We understand that the group intends to continue its mission. The safety of American citizens traveling in Mexico is, of course, a major concern to the United States Government and a topic of continuing dialogue between ourselves and the Mexican Government. Yes, Patrick.

QUESTION: Do you see any signs of any progress on the Cyprus issue prior to Dick Holbrooke's visit there?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think that's asking a lot that there would be progress between now and his arrival in Cyprus on May 1. Rather, we're focusing on his visit; on Ambassador Miller's visit. Ambassador Miller goes to Cyprus on May 29, and Ambassador Holbrooke follows on May 1. As we have said before our activities are intended to --

QUESTION: April 29?

MR. FOLEY: Yes - what did I say?

QUESTION: May 29...

MR. FOLEY: Yes. He's a remarkable man, but I don't want to mis-state his

arrival date; it is May 1. But his activities, along with Ambassador Miller, are intended to

support the UN's effort to find a solution to the Cyprus dispute based, as you know, on a

bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. Yes.

QUESTION: Last week, Turkish Deputy Foreign Minister, Ambassador Haktanir, and a large Turkish delegation had a meeting in this building -Thursday and Friday. Do you have any read-out about the meetings? And also, do you reach any tentative agreement about Cyprus or the energy line and Iraqi subjects?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we're not in the practice of coming out and talking explicitly about all the subjects that were discussed in our bilateral relations, especially with a close ally such as Turkey. We have an excellent dialogue and we are going to be continuing high-level contacts with Turkey over the coming months. I can't report the specifics of that meeting though.

In terms of Cyprus, I think it would behoove me to say very little on the subject now. We wish Ambassador Miller and Ambassador Holbrooke well this week. We will see if we are in a position to report anything in the wake of their visit.

QUESTION: Ambassador Haktanir has also told that he brought some new document and new proofs which involvement of the PKK terrorist activity in Syria and Greece. Do you have any information on this subject?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I can repeat what I said, which is I'm not going to talk about what was discussed privately. The PKK has been designated by the United States as a terrorist organization. Our position on the PKK is well known. Yes.

QUESTION: Yes, Jim, Alexander Lebed is leading his runner-up into a run- off in, I think it's Krasnoyarsk province in Siberia. Does the State Department have any comment about his success in this election? Or for that matter in the electoral process?

MR. FOLEY: No. Thank you.

(The briefing concluded 2:10 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 Monday, 27 April 1998 - 23:35:23 UTC