U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #55, 98-05-06
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
552
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, May 6, 1998
Briefer: James B. Foley
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 Statements to be Released on 1998 US-Oman Bilateral
Consulations and US Concerns Regarding Freedom of the
Press in Niger
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
1-3,4 Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's Comments re Washington
Talks Invitation and Israeli Troop Withdrawal
3,4 Reported Meeting Between Assistant Secretary Indyk and
Ariel Sharon
3-4 Whereabouts of Ambassador Dennis Ross/Meetings
CYPRUS
4-5 Results of Ambassador Holbrooke's Trip/Meetings
5 US Policy re Cyprus
5-6 Next Steps for Cyprus Talks
TURKEY
6 Turkey and European Union (EU) Membership
INDONESIA
6 Student Demonstrations in Indonesia
CUBA
7 Business Proposal to Work with Cuban Researchers to Develop
Meningitis Vaccine
PAKISTAN
7 Reported Complaints From Pakistani Officials re US Imposed
Sanctions on Pakistani Company
CHINA
7 Reported Accusation US Violating Bilateral Textiles
Agreement
7-8 Non-Proliferation Issues/Stability in the Region
GREECE
8 Reported Opening of New PKK Office in Athens
PERSIAN GULF
8 US Force Presence in the Gulf
8-9 Reported Congressional Criticism of Countries in the Region
and Burdensharing
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #55
WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1998, 1:05 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department. I going to post a couple of
announcements; one on our consultations here in the State Department with
Oman, in particular, with the minister responsible for foreign affairs,
Minister Yusuf bin Alawi; and also a statement on some recent troubling
developments in Niger, concerning attempts to stifle freedom of the press
through arrests of journalists.
Lastly, I would note that we're expecting the President will be holding his
joint press conference with Prime Minister Prodi of Italy about 1:30 p.m. I
don't want to constrict the briefing, but I would like to be able to end
when that begins. We'll try to monitor that in the press office and if that
slips then we'll be able to continue a little bit longer.
QUESTION: Prime Minister Netanyahu says he'll reject the invitation to
the Washington talks on Monday if the US tries to dictate the scope of an
Israeli troop withdrawal. Do you have any response to that?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think there is little or no danger of that prospect,
because I can certainly assure you today that the US has no intention of
issuing any kind of dictates or ultimatums to a good friend such as
Israel.
But I would like to emphasize the fact that we see the invitation for a
meeting on Monday at the White House as a strategic opportunity to put the
peace process - which is in the interest of Israel, the Palestinians, the
United States and all the peoples of the Middle East - back on track. There
is an enormous amount at stake in this process, and we've seen a peace
process that has been imperiled over the last year to year and a half, and
now we have a glimmer of hope that we are close to the possibility of
restarting the peace process. So we are urging all the parties to seize
this unique opportunity.
Indeed, we are hopeful that the parties will be able to come to agreement
on the basis of the US ideas, which would permit the launching of permanent
status negotiations. This aim -- to launch on an accelerated basis and
permanent status negotiations -- has always been Prime Minister Netanyahu's
desire. But again, we're not talking in any way about an ultimatum. It is,
instead, an opportunity President Clinton and Secretary Albright see as
a way to come to an agreement on some of the issues we have been
discussing since last August.
Again, the goal is to launch permanent status negotiations, which is an
objective we share with both of the parties.
QUESTION: Can we try a different verb, then? If you reject "dictate,"
what verb would you use? I'm a little confused.
MR. FOLEY: An invitation.
QUESTION: What?
MR. FOLEY: I'd use a noun; it's an invitation.
QUESTION: Well, but on the one hand, you and the Secretary yesterday said
the Washington talks will take place, the invitations will go out - as I
understood it - if the parties agree to the terms based on the US ideas. I
mean, that sounds like, "This is it, guys." I mean, you might not want to
say ultimatum, but how else do we characterize it?
MR. FOLEY: I think that the word -- and I would hesitate to frame it
formally -- but the word "deadline" has been used. And insofar as that is a
term that I could accept, it really has mostly to do with the United States
and the fact that we are coming to the end of the road in which the
United States has the ability to continue in the mode that we have
been in. Namely, to try to bridge the wide gaps that have separated
the parties and prevented them from coming to the table to achieve
agreement both on the interim issues; and to agree to accelerated permanent
status negotiations.
You've heard us use all kinds of colorful formulations over the past many
months, having to do with strings and ropes and coming to the end of roads.
There has been skepticism sometimes because we haven't finally come to the
end of this rope. What I'm saying here today is that that is what really is
at stake here - the current mode that the United States has been in. We
have said -- and the Secretary said yesterday in London -- that we
would have to re-examine our approach to the Middle East peace process
if we're not able to achieve success next week. So it's in that sense that
I would embrace that term.
QUESTION: But the invitation is contingent on the Israelis accepting the
American ideas as the basis for this conference, as the Palestinians have
already done; is that right?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, it is.
QUESTION: That puts the oneness on Israel, right?
MR. FOLEY: Well, insofar as it involves our ability to host that meeting
and our ability to continue with the approach we've had these many months
and beyond, we believe that the ideas that we have offered form a real
basis for moving towards permanent status talks.
Again, I would want to emphasize the fact that we believe that it is up to
Israel to determine its security interests. We would never second-guess
Israel on this account; but we believe that our ideas are fair and balanced
and take both sides' interests into account. We also believe that peace and
security are inextricably interlinked and that it is on the basis of our
ideas that negotiations for a comprehensive peace can be put back on track.
We believe that negotiating permanent status with the Palestinians can
produce and secure and lasting peace, which ultimately is the best
guarantee for security for Israel.
QUESTION: Netanyahu used the word "dictates" this morning. I think it was
on Israeli radio. We do not accept dictates, so he's putting a somewhat
different spin on it than you have. I don't have a question, I was just
making that observation.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not sure that we would be in disagreement about
that. He won't accept dictates, and we're not trying to impose dictates. We
are offering ideas that we believe can bridge the gap between the parties;
the significant gaps that have existed. This is based on our honest
assessment of what it would take to get negotiations going again.
The parties have been far apart. Our role has been to talk to both sides,
to offer creative ideas that can allow them to move to the phase that Prime
Minister Netanyahu himself has advocated, which is moving to accelerated
permanent status negotiations. We believe that there's a lot at stake for
the Middle East, and there's a lot in Israel's interest as well as the
interests of all of the other involved parties to moving toward accelerated
permanent status negotiations.
I would say, additionally, as Secretary Albright indicated yesterday, that
those were largely positive meetings in London, in which Prime Minister
Netanyahu indeed responded positively in some areas. And he was very
constructive and helpful throughout, and has been fully engaged in what we
believe is a creative process. I'd like to emphasize what I said at the
outset - that we are hopeful that it will be possible in the coming days to
reach agreement on the basis of the American ideas, and to meet in
Washington next week to launch historic permanent status negotiations.
QUESTION: Jim, you mentioned earlier, you talked about a glimmer of hope,
I guess, again, as you pointed out, because you view these meetings
yesterday as being positive. The Secretary might have heard --
MR. FOLEY: Largely positive, in the sense that we made some progress, and
we see the possibility of agreement that could permit a meeting in
Washington next week.
QUESTION: Jim, what can you tell us about this afternoon's meeting
between Martin Indyck and Ariel Sharon?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have any information on that; I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Can you confirm it's taking place?
MR. FOLEY: No, I can't. I'd be happy to look into it for you.
QUESTION: Where is Dennis Ross?
MR. FOLEY: He's en route back to Washington.
QUESTION: And Martin Indyck?
MR. FOLEY: He's here in the building.
QUESTION: The meetings after the Secretary gave her briefing yesterday
that occurred at a lower level, what did they, if anything, achieve?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have a specific read-out of those results. They
met, I think, for about five hours after the Secretary's press conference.
Subsequent to that, Ambassador Ross has returned, or is in the process, I
think, even as we speak, of returning home to the United States.
I think if a breakthrough had been achieved in that forum in those meetings,
I would probably be here reporting that to you today. So I can't tell you
specifically what ground was covered and what was achieved.
QUESTION: I'm kind of fishing here. Can you tell us anything about
reports that some of the ideas that have been floated around in London
involve reclassifying the status of land from - in other words, it's now A,
B and C and that the parties have been looking for new categories that
would help assuage Israeli concerns and satisfy, on the other hand, the
Palestinians?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we certainly have been engaged in a lot of different
efforts over the last 48-72 hours to break the impasse. Secretary Albright
has been intimately involved in those efforts to try to find creative ways
to bridge the gaps. However, I can't break from the practice of not
publicly getting into the specifics of the negotiating process. We have not
done that, and I won't be able to do that today.
QUESTION: Ambassador Holbrooke, in his press conference in Cyprus, said
that the Greek-Cypriot Government does not represent Turkish Cypriots.
Doesn't this create a rather new point of view, since the Administration
has always believed that there was always one government in Cyprus - the
Greek-Cypriot Government - and it represents both Greek and Turks on the
island? Or is there a retraction already on that statement?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I couldn't comment specifically on Ambassador Holbrooke's
alleged comments. I haven't seen those, so I would hesitate to do that. The
fact of the matter is that the island of Cyprus is divided, alas; we're
working in the best way we can, and supporting the UN additionally, in
efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution of the conflict separating the
island of Cyprus. We only recognize, of course, the government of Cyprus in
Nicosia; that is a fact. But it is also a fact that the two peoples
on the island are isolated from each other, alienated from each other,
and the whole purpose of our diplomatic efforts is to achieve the kind of
reconciliation that is necessary to achieve a political settlement.
As you know, we favor and have endorsed the idea of a bi-communal, bi-zonal
federation. That continues to be our position.
QUESTION: Jim, I don't want to put you on the spot or anything.
MR. FOLEY: Thank you.
QUESTION: But this was a very important statement made by President
Clinton's senior representative, and he represents the Administration --
Ambassador Holbrooke. And for the first time, on the record, he said that
the Greek-Cypriot Government does not represent Turkish Cypriots. So is
that possible that you could take this question, perhaps? This is something
we have to pursue, because it's a very important statement.
MR. FOLEY: I'd be happy to look into it for you. The fact of the matter
is that we recognize one government on Cyprus. It is also a fact, though,
that not all the people on Cyprus see themselves reflected in that
government. What we're trying to achieve is a bi-zonal, bi-communal
federation in which all the citizens, without exception, in Cyprus will
feel at home as part of a single unified island.
QUESTION: The White House spokesman stated yesterday in case of a Turkish
attack against Cyprus, with the excuse of the so-called Russian missiles
issue, that it would be something that - to take up and deliberate within
the confines of the North Atlantic Council. Could you please elaborate more,
since that constitutes a new US policy towards Cyprus?
MR. FOLEY: It constitutes what, Mr. Lambros?
QUESTION: It's a new US policy toward Cyprus. He said that it would be
something that we have to take up and deliberate within the confines of the
North Atlantic Council.
MR. FOLEY: I haven't seen his comments, and I will not comment on remarks
that I haven't reviewed myself. But what I can say, though, is that first
of all, that is a speculative scenario, and we don't talk about speculative
scenarios from the podium. So I'm not going to answer your question.
What I can say, though, is that we certainly strongly advise all parties in
the Eastern Aegean to avoid threats and hostile rhetoric, let alone actions
which can disturb stability in that region and undermine efforts to achieve
a peaceful settlement.
QUESTION: After the - (inaudible) - under the auspices of Mr. Holbrooke,
what will be the next step of the State Department to proceed with the
talks on Cyprus?
MR. FOLEY: Well, the next step, specifically, is that Ambassador Miller
will be returning to Cyprus later this month to continue US engagement.
However - and I believe Ambassador Holbrooke did underline in his press
conference, I'm told - that the United States is prepared to continue its
efforts to facilitate a settlement. But he emphasized that this was
conditional upon the political will on both sides to negotiate seriously.
The United States cannot impose a solution on Cyprus. It cannot want a
solution on Cyprus more than the two parties involved. That remains a
fundamental fact. But we're willing to keep at it; and, as I said,
Ambassador Miller will be returning there.
QUESTION: On the same subject, does the US Government believe that the
European Union bears responsibility for the impasse for its failure to
invite Turkey to become a member?
MR. FOLEY: No, we do not. We believe that primary responsibility lies
with the parties most directly involved. That said, we have never disguised
our views concerning the importance of Turkey's relationship to the
European Union. But the European Union is an institution of which we are
not a member. We can offer friendly advice, but we can't substitute our
judgment for theirs.
We believe that Turkey has a European vocation. We've encouraged both
Turkey and the EU to work constructively with each other. We believe that a
perspective on Turkey's involvement in Europe and economic integration in
Europe is vital, given Turkey's strategic importance to NATO, to the United
States and our long-time friendly relations with Turkey.
QUESTION: Does the State Department see any approximate cause between
that failure to invite Turkey and this impasse?
MR. FOLEY: No.
QUESTION: Jim, do you have any comment on the latest disturbances in
Indonesia?
MR. FOLEY: Yes. Student demonstrations continued at several campuses in
various parts of Indonesia today. Separately, unrest and rioting by non-
students, which appeared to be related to price increases, continued in the
city of Medan. However, there have been no reports of similar rioting
elsewhere in Indonesia.
Although the police response to many of the student demonstrations in
recent months has been restrained, we are concerned by reports of the use
of rubber bullets and physical force at some of the demonstrations. We have
urged the Indonesian Government to continue to allow peaceful demonstrations.
We understand and have said this previously, the Indonesian Government's
desire to protect the welfare of its citizens by maintaining law and order,
and we urge the security forces, students and the public to show restraint
and refrain from violence. We certainly support the right of peaceful
assembly and protest. We are continuing to monitor the situation very
closely.
QUESTION: There is an American drug company that is interested in
cooperating with Cuba for the development of a meningitis vaccine and has
even asked for permission to deal with Cuba on this. Do you have anything?
MR. FOLEY: I have very little for you on that today. We are aware of the
proposal by the company to work with Cuban researchers to develop this
vaccine. I can only say that appropriate United States Government agencies
are discussing the issue. I can't provide any additional details. I also
don't have them on this pending matter at this time.
QUESTION: There are complaints on the wires today from Pakistani
officials about the sanctions that I gather the US has imposed against a
Pakistani company for helping with the missile program of another country.
Do you have a response to those complaints?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have before me, David, the facts of the case.
And as you know, anything having to do with counter-proliferation is
complicated. It's important to get the details right, and so I'm not going
to risk commenting on the specifics of the case. But certainly, our laws
are what guide us, and we have to faithfully implement the laws. And where
we see incidences of proliferation which are covered by our laws, we have
to implement them. So we're certainly not going to back off from our
decisions in that regard.
I believe that happened about a week or so ago. I'll check the record to
see if there's anything specific I can say about it.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on Chinese textiles? The Chinese are
accusing the United States of violating a bilateral agreement --
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen that, George.
QUESTION: -- cutting their quotas 300 percent. If you can take the
question --
MR. FOLEY: Sure, I'll take it.
QUESTION: Thank you, Jim. On the matter of the issue that Defense
Minister George Fernandes of India raised about China being the potential
threat, number one, to India; and about China attempting to encircle India,
and giving a number of examples, including Pakistani missile development, a
base in the Coco Islands for listening and air fields along the Tibet
border, and even saying that nuclear warheads were being stockpiled in
Tibet by China. The Chinese have rejected this with resentment, pouring
scorn on Mr. Fernandes. Does the State Department think there's any basis
for India's fear or caution about Chinese intentions?
MR. FOLEY: We are deeply concerned about stability on the Subcontinent,
and we've engaged in concerted efforts over many years to achieve our
nonproliferation objectives on the Subcontinent. We really have an enhanced
dialogue with India that has developed in recent months. I believe that,
through that dialogue, we're coming to a much better understanding of the
elements of stability in the region.
Certainly, our relationship with China is also critical to promoting
stability on the Indian Subcontinent. And the fact that we've been able to
achieve a lot of progress over working with China the last year and two
years on nonproliferation objectives is critical to so many areas around
the world - notably the one you're talking about.
QUESTION: Are any of these things that I mentioned militarily provocative
against India by the Chinese? Would we criticize them?
MR. FOLEY: Really, I'm not familiar with the laundry list that you read,
and I'd have to refer you to the Chinese and Indian spokesmen on that.
QUESTION: Last week when we asked about the opening of the new PKK office
in Athens, Greece, you said you didn't have any information. Since then,
Turkey and Greece have already exchanged a few diplomatic notes on the
issue. Would you have anything new on this?
MR. FOLEY: I'm aware that we've been discussing the issue with the
government in Athens, but I don't have a read-out that I can share with you
on those discussions.
QUESTION: On what?
MR. FOLEY: The question of a PKK office in Athens.
QUESTION: You may have read that there's a withdrawal of one carrier from
the Persian Gulf, at least on a temporary basis. A Senate delegation
returned from the Gulf, reporting that troop morale among the American
troops is very low. What is the Administration thinking on reducing its
military presence in the region?
MR. FOLEY: Well, ultimately, I'll have to refer you to the Pentagon on
the question of troop levels and deployments or redeployments.
Certainly, our force levels have fluctuated over the years and in recent
years and months particularly. But we've nevertheless maintained a robust
force presence throughout the period subsequent to the Gulf War in 1990-91.
So I would not expect any significant alteration in that robust capability.
But again, there is fluctuation, and the Pentagon has to take many things
into consideration having to do with factors such as you raised, having to
do with cost, but while maintaining absolutely our capabilities in the
region and ability to protect our interests.
I, again, would have to refer you to the Pentagon. I believe they're
reviewing the matter, and it would be subject to the President's decision.
But they would be more familiar with the details.
QUESTION: They said it was also said that the US friends in the region -
the Saudis and others - don't show much of a willingness to pick up any of
the burden that the US is carrying, for the most part. Any response to
that?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not familiar with their comments. I believe they're
still in the region. We'd have to see specifically what they said in order
to analyze it.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - this morning here.
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen their comments, George.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. FOLEY: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:29 P.M.)
|
