U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #54, 98-05-01
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
884
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Friday, May 1, 1998
Briefer: James B. Foley
CROATIA/ARGENTINA
1 Croatia's Extradition Request to Prosecute Dinko Sakic for
Crimes Committed During Holocaust and Swift Action by
Argentina to Arrest Sakic
1 Role of US Government in Arrest
1 Jurisdiction of Case
2 Croatian Government's Commitment to Prosecution of Sakic
2 Captured Nazi Document in US National Archives
2 Reported Croatian Request for Extradition from US of
Momcilo Djujic
2-3 Status of Croatian Archives
3 Role of Dinko Sakic at Jasenovac Concentration Camp
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
1 Bougainville Ceasefire
CAMBODIA
3-4 Status of UN International War Crimes Tribunal
3,4 David Scheffer's Travel to Cambodia
4 Cambodia Genocide Program and Documents
4-5 Elections and Pursuit of International Tribunal
4-5 War Criminals
TURKEY
5-6 Turkey's Aspirations to Join European Union
5-6 Reported Calls by Secretary Albright to European
Counterparts
5 US relations with Germany re: Turkey
5-6 Cyprus and Turkey Relations and the EU
EUROPE
6 Beginning of Euro Currency
GREECE
6-7 Reported Opening of PKK Office in Athens
SERBIA
6-7 Update on Situation in Kosovo
7 Review of Contact Group Decisions
7-8 Issue of Readmitting Yugoslavia
9 Impact of Contact Group Decisions on Montenegro
9 Prospective Investment Ban
MEXICO
9-10 Updated Department Consular Information Sheet on Mexico
10 Reasons for Updating Consular Information Sheet on Mexico
10-11 Issue of Dual Citizenship
10 Mexican Government's Reaction of Information Sheet
CHINA/JAPAN
11 Reported Dispute over Oil
JAPAN
11-12 Japanese Government Officials Concerns Regarding Book "The
Rape of Nanking"
IRAN
12-13 Iran's Reaction to Department's Terrorism Report
MEPP
13-14 London Meeting Between Albright & Arafat and Albright &
Netanyahu
IRAQ
14 American Policy, Sanctions and Deadlines
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #54
FRIDAY, MAY 1, 1998, 1:00 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department. I have a number of announcements
that I'm just going to post for you in the Press Office.
One is a statement that welcomes Croatia's extradition request to prosecute
Dinko Sakic for crimes committed during the Holocaust and also praising
Argentina for swift action in their arrest of Sakic.
Also, we'll be posting a statement about the Papua New Guinea Bougainville
cease fire. So with that, I'd like to take your questions.
QUESTION: Regarding the arrest of the Croatian. Did the US have any role
leading up to his arrest?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that the US played any role specifically in the
sort of mechanics of his discovery and arrest by the Argentine authorities.
But certainly, we have taken a public position which, I believe, we have
also conveyed through diplomatic channels, both to Croatia and to Argentina,
that we supported this suspect's arrest and the fact that he needed to be
brought to justice.
I think it underscores, as you'll see in the statement I'm going to release,
the fact that we believe that, indeed, there is no statute of limitations
on war crimes. It leads me to underscore the point that we believe and
continue to believe that all options are open to bring to justice those
indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
and to call upon indictees now to surrender to ensure their safe transport
to The Hague.
QUESTION: There seems to be an issue, by the way, as to who's going to
get Sakic and put him on trial. The government in Belgrade today said that
they would like to claim the right to try him, rather a court did. Do you
have a view on that?
MR. FOLEY: Well, the alleged crimes were committed in what is now
Croatian territory. I believe that we have not challenged the jurisdiction
of Croatian authorities, but let me underline what you'll see in the
statement that we're going to release. We call on Croatia to ensure now
that Dinko Sakic will be vigorously prosecuted, that the trial will be open
to international observers and the media, and that everyone with evidence
to give, no matter from what country they may come -- and I think this has
an implicit reference to your question, Roy -- will be welcomed and
heard by the Croatian judicial system.
QUESTION: You know the Croatian Government under Tudjman has sort of
cleansed its World War II record to some extent; changing the name of the
"Victims of Facism Square" to the "Square of the Great Croatian People,"
etc. Apparently Sakic was back in Croatia in 1995 and received by the
Croatian Government. Given this pattern, do you have any concerns about the
seriousness of the Tudjman Government's commitment to a vigorous prosecution?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not aware that he had returned earlier. Obviously,
if that is true we would expect that he will receive an altogether
different sort of welcome; indeed, incarceration upon his return to
Croatia. We have no reason to doubt that the Croatian authorities will
charge him and prosecute him in a free, fair, open trial but do so
vigorously. I think that the international reputation of Croatia would be
on the line here and that it would certainly be in the interest of the
Croatian authorities to make sure that this trial is up to muster under
international standards.
As to the first part of your question, let me say that we have here in our
possession, and we can make available also in the Press Office, a copy of a
captured Nazi document located in the US National Archives by the US
Department of Justice, Office of Special Investigations, which indicated,
this document, that as of December 6th, 1943, some 120,000 people had been
killed at Jasenovac, which is the site of the massacres, along with 80,
000 people at Alt-Gradiska and 20,000 in other camps in Croatia. The
United States is making a copy of this document available to Croatian and
Argentine prosecutors and the United States will be receptive to further
requests for access to US archives of captured Nazi documents which we
think can be material to the case and to the prosecution.
QUESTION: One other question. The pro-government or state-run newspaper
in Zagreb yesterday said that the Croatian government also wants to
extradite from the United States Momcilo Djujic, who is a famous Chetnik
commander from the Second World War that's been living here for many years.
Do you know anything about that?
MR. FOLEY: I have not heard that. I would be happy to look into it for
you, though. Sure.
QUESTION: There is a report in a Croatian newspaper that the Croatian
government has lost some of its archives regarding that period and, I guess,
specifically dealing with Sakic - I think it's the Vjesnik paper which
reported it. Are you aware of that? Are you concerned about that?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that, but I think that really echoes the
question that was just asked that I tried to address by indicating that the
United States has documents pertinent to the case, we believe, in our
archives and we are more than willing to make any such documents available
to prosecutors both in Argentina and in Croatia.
QUESTION: Speaking of war crimes, how are you doing on the Cambodian War
Crimes Tribunal?
QUESTION: I have one still on Croatia and Mr. Sakic.
MR. FOLEY: I'll come to you. Go on.
QUESTION: Do you have any exact information on what Mr. Sakic's role was
at the Jasenovac camp, because the story that he was a commander there
doesn't quite gel with the age which is given for him. He would only have
been about 20 or so at the time.
MR. FOLEY: Well, as I understand it, he is to stand trial for crimes
against humanity and other war crimes committed during, obviously, the
World War II period. I have to refer you to judicial authorities who may
have specific information as to what specifically he may be charged with. I
suppose that is a matter that has been discussed between Croatian and
Argentine authorities. Clearly, if the Argentine authorities were able to
arrest him and the Croatians to seek his extradition, they have prima facie
evidence of war crimes committed. I don't have that information here at the
podium, but if we have that in the State Department I'll get that to
you afterwards.
I'm sorry. There was a question on Cambodia.
QUESTION: Yes, on Cambodia and War Crimes Tribunal.
MR. FOLEY: The question specifically, because I think in my briefing
yesterday I talked about the fact that the United States had circulated to
other members of the Security Council a draft on the creation of an
international criminal tribunal. As I understand it, there are a number of
questions that have to be addressed. There may be a working group
established in New York on the subject. I don't have a specific readout as
to how the consultations are going but, as I said yesterday, we are
hopeful that we can garner the support necessary to see the establishment
of the tribunal.
I think because we've just introduced the proposed resolution, there are
all kinds of questions raised that are not merely of a substantive nature,
but of a more procedural nature in terms of the location of the tribunal,
the funding, the mechanisms involved. I don't have the details for you on
that, but again we're just in the early stage in the sense of only having
circulated this text the other day or earlier this week.
I can also point out to you the fact that our Ambassador who follows the
war crimes issue, Ambassador David Scheffer, has traveled recently this
week to Cambodia as an important demonstration of the importance the United
States attaches to accountability for war crimes and crimes against
humanity.
US policy has consistently and strongly supported bringing to justice
surviving Khmer Rouge officials who exercised the most senior Khmer Rouge
leadership positions from 1975 - 1979. The Cambodian Government has
formally requested assistance from the international community and the
United Nations to help bring Khmer Rouge leaders to trial before an
international tribunal. The Cambodian Government has reiterated that call
publicly in recent weeks. The US is doing what it can to help; Ambassador
Scheffer's trip to Cambodia, including consultations with government
officials, with NGOs who are researching Khmer Rouge war crimes, and others,
is an important part of our effort.
QUESTION: Would you say why it took almost 20 years to get this
initiative off the ground considering the magnitude of the crimes committed
there?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I would dispute the notion that we've not been hard at
work on this issue. You're familiar with the fact that the United States
Government had funded the Cambodia Genocide Program at Yale University and
set up a documentation center that I referred to in Phnom Penh. This center
is a nonprofit, international non-governmental organization whose purpose
is to serve as a permanent institute for the study of the Khmer Rouge
regime. This documentation center now houses unique archives on the Khmer
Rouge reign in Cambodia and contains documentary evidence on the period '75-
'79 in Cambodia.
During his visit this week to Cambodia, Ambassador Scheffer consulted with
the expert staff at the documentation center and he was assisted by
officials from the Department of Justice in beginning an examination of the
voluminous materials available at the center. It is our strong hope that
our research and investigation will be helpful to the work of an international
tribunal.
Your question, in terms of the timing, I think has mostly to do with the
facts on the ground in Cambodia; the fact that the Khmer Rouge were more or
less safely ensconced in their stronghold in Cambodia over the last decade
and it's only been within the last year or year and a half that that
stronghold began to crumble and now is virtually eliminated that the real
prospect or the prospect of apprehending senior Khmer Rouge officials
involved in war crimes has become real and perhaps imminent.
QUESTION: How do you address concerns about the timing also in terms --
in relation with the elections coming up? I mean, there are some concerns
that it would be destabilizing.
MR. FOLEY: As we've stated in many contexts and as I stated today, we
don't believe there is any statute of limitations on war crimes. But
neither do we believe that the fact that in some cases war criminals are
brought to justice half a century after commission of crimes, as in the
case of Mr. Sakic, does not mean that in the present time if we have an
opportunity to apprehend and bring to justice war criminals, that we
shouldn't do so based on tactical or political considerations. I think this
is a moral imperative and while I can't get into the details of our
efforts in this regard, as you know, the fact of the matter is that,
as I indicated, the prospects are increasing that the international
community can bring these alleged war criminals to justice.
We have separate concerns about the prospect for free and fair elections in
Cambodia that are currently scheduled, I believe, for late July. We are
working hard in the context of the Friends of Cambodia group to do all that
we can to persuade Mr. Hun Sen to establish the conditions for free and
fair elections, for an environment devoid of intimidation that allows all
political forces, excluding, of course, the Khmer Rouge, to participate in
those elections. We remain hopeful that it will be possible for those
elections to take place under those conditions as scheduled in late
July.
QUESTION: And how quickly do you think it can be set up, the tribunal?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we're working on separate tracks. First, the question of
the tribunal itself, and we've just circulated a draft in New York. I can't
tell you how that is going. Separately, we are keeping our eye on the
question of the eventual availability of accused war criminals. I can't
obviously get into that subject from the podium, but those are parallel
efforts that are currently underway.
QUESTION: The New York Times reports that Secretary of State is engaging
in intense efforts to (inaudible) the EU to adopt a more conciliatory
policy towards Turkey. It says that the Secretary called some of her
counterparts in Europe. And I want to ask you, is it true that the US
considers the EU policy on Turkey as the biggest disagreement it has today
with Germany and as an obstacle to Ambassador Holbrooke's efforts for a
solution to the Cyprus problem?
MR. FOLEY: Well, our relations with Germany are excellent. They are in
excellent shape and I expect that will be reflected in the President's
visit to Berlin next month, which I think will be of a celebratory nature
given the end of the Cold War and now the splendid news of the Senate
ratification of NATO enlargement. We have a lot to celebrate in common with
Germany and the relationship could hardly be better, I would say.
On the issue of Turkey's aspirations to join the EU, I would point out that
we recognize the obvious, which is that we are not a member of the European
Union. We have no formal role in determining the EU's relationship with
third countries. We can offer friendly advice, but no more, and the advice
we give is as a friend. We have long believed that Turkey's place in future
is in Europe and that it is in the strategic interest of the US, of the EU,
and Turkey that the EU and Turkey have a constructive relationship. So we
consistently support efforts on both sides to build and improve that
relationship.
QUESTION: On my question of the phone calls by the Secretary to European
counterparts, can you confirm that?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, Secretary Albright is in Seoul, South Korea
at the moment. I haven't been in touch with the party to verify each and
every international phone call she's made. I can't confirm that, but it
certainly would not be remarkable if she has been conferring with her
European counterparts on a range of issues also having to do with Kosovo
and other issues. She certainly worked the phones heavily, I understand,
yesterday in anticipation of the Senate vote which proved so resoundingly
successful.
QUESTION: On the issue of Cyprus, does the US consider this problem
between the EU and Turkey as an obstacle to the efforts for a peaceful
solution?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we believe that Turkey's future is and ought to be in
Europe and that that perspective can be a useful element in the overall
search for a solution to problems in the eastern Aegean, generally
speaking.
QUESTION: Tomorrow is the birth of the Euro currency and I was wondering
whether the US had any comment on this historic event and second, whether
this more united Europe is going to effect in any way the US-European
relationships in the future?
MR. FOLEY: It's not a novelty. Since the beginning of the common market
in the 1950s, the United States has been a strong supporter of a strong and
increasingly united Europe. So we welcome the introduction of the common
currency.
There is certainly an inter-relationship that did exist at the time of
NATO's founding between our security relationship with Europe and Europe's
efforts to become more cohesive and united and successful economically, and
the two continue to complement each other.
QUESTION: I came in a little late so I'm sorry if this question has
already been asked. But there are press reports that PKK opened an office
under its own name as PKK in Athens, Greece. Do you have any comments on
that?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that report.
QUESTION: You're not aware of that report?
MR. FOLEY: No.
QUESTION: On Kosovo - I was wondering if you have anything new on what's
going on on the ground? There are a lot of reports about a serious build-up
of and a lot of army activity and police activity.
MR. FOLEY: I, frankly, do not have a status report on Kosovo today. I'm
not aware of any new significant developments over the last 24 hours, to be
perfectly honest. Nevertheless, our concerns remain about the build-up of
FRY security forces, be they special police or the VJ -- the Yugoslav army -
it's very troubling. It is a situation that could deteriorate if President
Milosevic does not grab the moment, seize the day, and take on board the
message that the Contact Goup so clearly gave him the other day in
its meeting in Rome.
As I indicated yesterday, President Milosevic is now on the spot. He is
facing a fork in the road and one path could bring him and his people back
into the community of nations and international institutions. The other
path is greater isolation for the FRY and, unfortunately, for the people of
Serbia with whom the United States has had historically excellent
relations. To us it seems to be a simple choice. He should agree, Mr.
Milosevic, to the framework for dialogue, ensure that the stabilization
measures called for by the Contact Group are implemented, accept the
OSCE Gonzalez mission and begin substantive talks.
QUESTION: Well, now the authorities in Belgrade said today that they
would be willing to cooperate, Yugoslavia would be willing to cooperate
with the international institutions if it is readmitted to them. So there
they are at the fork in the road wanting to really go in both directions, I
guess. But is that acceptable? Is that a basis for discussion?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think timing here is really the critical element. I
will see if I have a reference in what I've got here today to the Contact
Group decisions, but what is critical from our point of view and the point
of view of the Contact Group is that if Mr. Milosevic takes certain steps
then the Contact Group and the international community are prepared to
respond in kind. I think the proposals that were launched by the United
States in the lead-up to the Contact Group meeting, as I said, were
balanced and carefully thought through, the essence being a decision
to give Mr. Milosevic a clear choice in which the international community
would respond either punitively or encouragingly, depending on the choice
that he took.
Now, we're not so naive as to offer incentives up front in the absence
of any change on his part, in the absence of any move to meet the demands
of the Contact Group going back to the meeting in London. But what we have
said - and I'll repeat it to bore all of you profoundly - is that if the
leadership in Belgrade agrees to the framework for dialogue, agrees to and
implements the stabilization measures; if the Gonzalez mission is
launched and if substantive talks begin, then we will promote a clear
and achievable path towards Belgrade's full integration into the international
community, including participation in the OSCE. And in that same paragraph,
reference was also made to international financial institutions.
So it's a clear perspective of reintegration that can occur. And for
someone who, as the elected president of his country, is supposed to have
in mind the interests of his people who have, after all, suffered so
greatly from the effects of the economic mismanagement of the country, from
the effects of the amputation of this country -- its shrinking in size over
the last decade, from the effects of economic isolation and sanctions, the
international community is making very reasonable demands.
We continue to support the territorial integrity of the FRY. We continue to
oppose independence for Kosovo. All that we are asking is that Mr.
Milosevic stop emphasizing repression and start engaging in real dialogue
with his people, the people of Kosovo. The Kosovar Albanians are his people
too and they need to be treated as equal citizens of his nation.
QUESTION: My specific question, it sounds like you're saying he must
first accept these terms and then he can - Yugoslavia can get readmitted to
the international bodies. He wants to basically be readmitted as a
condition for accepting the terms.
MR. FOLEY: Well, that is really not even worthy of serious comment, I
think, given his track record. I said yesterday that Mr. Milosevic has
brought a lot of this on him and his country, but that at times over the
last years he has proven himself able and willing to participate in the
solution of problems that he helped create. We believe that we have gone a
long way in tracing out the possibility of a different relationship with
the international community, with the United States; of a real improvement
in the well-being of his people, if he's willing to take reasonable
measures to undertake dialogue with the Kosovar Albanians.
We believe we have gone, the United States, a long way in offering that
perspective, but to suggest that we would move to the implementation of
incentives in the absence of and before the steps that are necessary to
stabilize and solve the situation in Kosovo is utterly unthinkable.
QUESTION: You were saying, you would lift the outer wall of sanctions --
MR. FOLEY: I didn't say that. I would refer you to the contact group's
statement itself. I don't have it before me, perhaps one of my colleagues
can get it for me.
What is referenced specifically, though, in the Contact Group statement
that follows these predicates or conditions is international participation
in the OSCE. In that same paragraph, there is reference to the prospect of
eventual reintegration into international financial institutions and that
is a prospect that we have no difficulty holding out on the premise that
Mr. Milosevic completely reverses course; not only rhetorically, but
demonstratively implements the actions that are called upon by the
international community. This is not something for today, it's not
something for tomorrow and it's entirely predicated on what actual steps he
takes in the weeks and months to come.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on Montenegro? I mean, the Secretary
promised specifically that Montenegro would not suffer from any new
sanctions, so how exactly are they being shielded?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as I mentioned yesterday, there is a prospective
investment ban on Serbia that will be implemented by May 9 if President
Milosevic has not reversed course and taken the steps that the Contact
Group has demanded. So that will affect, and we believe it will cut deeply.
It will affect Serbia only and not Montenegro. In terms of the assets
freeze, it does apply to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbia. The
Contact Group members agree that Montenegro will be excluded from the
freeze to the greatest extent possible but I think, as a practical matter,
most of the assets that are held abroad fall under the rubric of FRY and
Belgrade authorities themselves.
QUESTION: One last thing on the Balkans. Yesterday there was a column by
Evans and Novak which suggested that the Secretary -
MR. FOLEY: I answered that question yesterday.
QUESTION: The Consular Information Sheet which came out this week for
Mexico catalogues quite a list of dangers, especially in Mexico City; it
does everything but conclude that Americans should only travel there in
armored convoys with flak jackets. How dangerous is Mexico for American
travelers?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't accept that categorization; that's very
hyperbolic. The fact of the matter is that 20 million Americans travel to
Mexico.
There certainly has been a major increase in crime in Mexico given the
economic problems that country has faced over the last three or four years.
If you have 20 million Americans in a country that large suffering from a
significant crime wave, then it is going to affect Americans and we have a
responsibility to American citizens to bring this to their attention. As
you know, we have also particular warnings to Americans concerning the taxi
situation in Mexico City. I don't have the warning itself before me, but
it's a warning to Americans not to take renegade taxis, so-called, off the
streets because we've had some very serious incidents with Americans
being mugged, robbed and even killed in such situations.
The new Consular Information Sheet is available and it's quite long and I'm
not going to bore you by reading it because it is available. The previous
Consular Information Sheet dated June 1997 also very explicitly covered the
crime situation as it existed because it was serious at that time, as well.
This one has been updated though to take account of several new areas or
new developments over the last 10, 11 months; notably there are paragraphs
updating information on crime information, updating the situation
involving dual citizens, updating the situation, the security situation
in Chiapas. So for that reason, we decided to release a new Consular
Information Sheet.
QUESTION: In all seriousness, the warnings of the various dangers posed
to Americans there are to a greater degree than the warnings of political
dangers in other countries where Americans are flatly warned not to
go.
MR. FOLEY: Well, we can not play politics with our Consular Information
Sheets. If the State Department has one number one responsibility around
the world, it is our duty to assist American citizens traveling overseas
regardless of political considerations, regardless of circumstances. So we
take this extremely seriously and these Consular Information Sheets are
subject to constant and ongoing review, and there have been some changes in
Mexico that we felt needed to be reflected.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) at all levels. The Governor of Jalisco is here in
Washington and has been saying that this line about Mexico City crime has
reached critical levels is not true and that the State Department is trying
to scare tourism in the United States from going to Mexico and the Embassy
of Mexico last night released a statement saying that it's not true. Have
you been in contact or has the Mexican government contacted you?
MR. FOLEY: I'm sure we've been in touch with Mexican authorities. The
fact of the matter is that our Consular Information Sheets and Public
Announcements and Travel Warnings all over the world are indeed the subject
of discussion with foreign governments, because there can be differences of
views and governments may feel that our information can reflect badly on
them, can have an impact on tourism. We certainly do not in any way wish to
harm our bilateral relationships around the world and in Mexico in
particular. If you have 20 million Americans visiting that country, I think
it would be a really tall order to make a very big dent in those kinds of
figures. Mexico obviously remains a very attractive tourist destination to
Americans.
But that said, we can not in any way, shape or form alter or adjust the
information that we are obligated to provide to American citizens about the
conditions that they will expect to encounter in any country overseas.
QUESTION: Most of this information had been already released by the State
Department in the form of Public Announcements over these past months, so
why, if that information is already out there, why did you feel the need to
update this Consular Information Sheet?
MR. FOLEY: Well, the Consular Information Sheet is the sort of omnibus
document that encompasses all of that information. As you rightly point out,
it includes various periodic announcements, Public Announcements, Travel
Warnings, things of that nature, and we need to update the Consular
Information Sheet itself, which encompasses all of these facts from time to
time. As I said, they are kept under constant review.
But the particular reason for re-issuing the Consular Information Sheet now
has to do with the fact of some material changes having to do especially
with dual citizenship. For example, the Mexicans passed a new law on dual
citizenship which can affect American travelers who are dual citizens
there. It also reflects recent developments in Chiapas. I would be happy to
check the record to see whether we have issued something in this period on
Chiapas, because the fact that foreign tourists have been expelled
from the country in recent months is something that we felt needed
to be reflected in the sheet. I'm not aware that we had issued something on
that in a discrete format during this period.
QUESTION: Two issues in the western Pacific. The one that the Secretary
of State brought up today in Seoul regarding the possibility, the danger at
least, of North Korea breaking the KEDO agreement because they were not
getting paid -
MR. FOLEY: I want to save your breath on this. With the Secretary in
Korea, South Korea now, I am not going to comment on issues involving her
current travel.
QUESTION: Okay. Then I don't know if it's also an issue. The Chinese and
the Japanese are feuding over some possibly petroleum-rich islands. Is that
something that she is taking up, too?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that particular issue, but I would be happy
to check the record and see if we have something for you on it.
QUESTION: Can I just ask on Iran -
MR. FOLEY: Let's hold on that. We're in Asia. We'll come to you
next.
QUESTION: My question relates to a historical question. Nowadays in --
(inaudible) -- in this country, -- (inaudible) -- one of the best seller
book which title is, Rape of Nanking, which describes a Japanese army's
brutality during the World War II in Nanjing. The other day, the Japanese
ambassador criticized this book -- the Japanese army committed the
brutality, but this book has a lot of mistakes. For example, the Japanese
government has never apologized yet for Japanese -- (inaudible) -- this
brutality. He said that it's totally incorrect, and Japanese government
issued a statement to apologize -- (inaudible) -- Japanese -- (inaudible)
-- this incident. So do you have any comment on this?
MR. FOLEY: I haven't read the book, but I think as a general matter that
we would think that transparency is important in order to turn the page
about horrible things that have happened in the past all over the world. It
is important to have shed full light on things that happened in order to
avoid similar occurrences in the future. I think as a general rule I
wouldn't comment on the book or the issue. In terms of my role here from
the State Department podium commenting on a range of current issues, I
would hesitate to comment on a historical issue.
QUESTION: But the Japanese people and the Japanese Government are worried
about some reaction because of these kinds of books, which has a lot of
mistakes, might cause a very, very serious misunderstanding in this country
in collective reaction among the American people. So it might have
influence on US-Japan relationship?
MR. FOLEY: I think, as I said, the transparency is important and we have
a very open marketplace for ideas in the United States and we believe that
the truth will prevail in such an open forum.
QUESTION: Have you seen Iran's response to the terrorism report?
MR. FOLEY: I have not, no.
QUESTION: They said that the report would - (inaudible) -
MR. FOLEY: They said, I'm sorry -
QUESTION: They said that the assessment in the report concerning Iran
would build up the wall of mistrust between the two countries.
MR. FOLEY: I think we have to be able to hold in our minds two separate
and not necessarily complementary issues. On the one hand, the United
States has an obligation -- the State Department under statute -- to report
the facts as we're able to see them and to compile them. And again, I was
asked a question a few minutes ago about consular warnings and Consular
Information Sheets - we cannot adjust information on issues of this
magnitude of importance to the American people - I'm talking about
terrorism - and of importance to our foreign policy, of importance to the
kind of world that we would like to shape moving into the next century.
We have offered the hand of dialogue, if you will, to the authorities in
Iran. We have made very clear that we have no quarrel with their people; we
don't want to change their government and that we seek an official
authorized dialogue so that we can sit down and discuss issues of concern
that each of us has on its own side. Certainly terrorism is one of the
leading areas of concern that we have.
The facts speak for themselves, however. Last year Iran was, indeed, the
most active state sponsor of terrorism as was indicated in the report
yesterday. The Iranian security services conducted at least 13 assassinations
of dissidents abroad in 1997 and continued to support some of the world's
deadliest terrorist groups. Unfortunately, despite statements of President
Khatami and others in the Iranian Government condemning terrorism,
terrorist activity directed from Iran has continued into 1998.
As you well know, Iran's support for terrorism, as I said, is of great
concern to the United States. We hope that Iran's policies with regard to
support for terrorism will come into line with some of the recent
statements we have seen from Iranian officials eschewing terrorism. There
has, as I noted, been a change of rhetoric from some Iranian leaders; I
think you're all familiar with President Khatami's CNN interview in which
he categorically condemned terrorism. Moreover, last December, Iran hosted
the OIC Summit, which itself condemned terrorism and Iran associated itself
with that condemnation.
And there is, finally, clearly, a vigorous debate going on inside Iran with
regard to many domestic and foreign policy issues of concern to Iranians.
What we have stated publicly is the idea that President Khatami's push for
change inside Iran has clearly struck a chord with the Iranian people, who
themselves desire a different life, a higher standard of living, a more
normal relationship with the world. We share those concerns and we have
welcomed President Khatami's efforts to realize those aspirations. But what
we have said is that in order for those aspirations to be realized,
this kind of changed attitude and changed policy needs to be reflected
in the sphere of foreign policy and the sphere of Iran's international
relations; otherwise there cannot be a normalization of relations between
the world and a state that is sponsoring terrorism.
So, we think that changes in this area are integral to what President
Khatami is attempting to achieve at home and I can only repeat what I said
at the outset, which is that we cannot in any way, shape or form alter,
amend or modify the facts as we see them in this regard. It is an issue of
serious concern to the United States but, again, we look forward to a
better relationship with Iran and we look forward to an official dialogue
in which we can raise this among other concerns.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment or anything new on Monday's meeting in
London with Albright, Netanyahu and Arafat?
MR. FOLEY: Secretary Albright? We have little to say on that subject in
advance of the meeting. I have resisted really commenting very much on it
this week because our negotiators are in the region and because the meeting
will take place on Monday. Our focus is on that meeting and our hope that
it will be within the reach of the parties to be prepared to move forward
at last and to make the hard decisions necessary to restart the peace
process and to move to permanent status negotiations. I can't handicap that
meeting in advance of the meeting. We are hopeful that the parties will do
what it takes to make that meeting a success.
QUESTION: Can we go to -
QUESTION: Can I just stay on that meeting?
MR. FOLEY: Sure.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) does it not?
MR. FOLEY: Yes. Secretary Albright is meeting separately with the Prime
Minister and with the Palestinian -
QUESTION: And do you know where they are going to occur yet?
MR. FOLEY: In London.
QUESTION: No, I mean -
MR. FOLEY: No, I don't.
QUESTION: If I could go to Iraq.
MR. FOLEY: You want to go to Iraq?
QUESTION: Well, if I could go to the subject, the issue of Iraq, a place
where Madeleine Albright has not visited this trip. What becomes now the
United States policy towards Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass
destruction now that the vote has been clear in the UN? Does the US
continue to wait with the sanctions on and wait and see? With all these
weapons that have been - that exist and so which have been volunteered by
Saddam haven't been verified to have been destroyed, does the US just
now sit and wait? Is that the policy?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure I understand your question, and insofar as you
are implying the possibility of a change in American policy, American
policy has been consistent since the end of the Gulf War pursued by both
the Bush and Clinton Administrations: we aim to keep Saddam within his box
to prevent him from threatening his neighbors, from reconstituting his
weapons of mass destruction capabilities, and the sanctions will remain on
as long as UNSCOM is not able to verify and determine that his weapons of
mass destruction and programs to build them are no more. And that policy is
not going to change.
QUESTION: Okay. Sanctions remain on, no deadlines are imposed, and no
threat of force now is applicable; is that correct?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think the deadline ought to be a self-imposed deadline,
namely that Saddam Hussein and his regime would make a deadline that would
envisage an end to the isolation of his country, to the economic downturn
that his country has faced since he invaded Kuwait. The pathway to
achieving a better life for his people is solely though cooperation with
the UN and through cooperation that allows UNSCOM to give Iraq a clean bill
of health in terms of its weapons of mass destruction.
Thank you.
(The briefing ended at 2:00 P.M.)
|
