U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #56, 98-05-07
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
835
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Thursday, May 7, 1998
Briefer: James B. Foley
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
1,3 Secretary Albright's telephone conversation today with PM
Netanyahu
1 Ambassador Ross to leave for Israel today
2 Secretary Albright's telephone conversation with leaders of
Jewish organizations
3 Current US Administration a great friend of Israel
4 Details of Ambassador Ross' itinerary remain to be
determined
5 US ideas constitute an integrated package
5 Purpose of meeting in Washington next week
5 US believes breakthrough is very close
6 Israel's security cannot be compromised
6-7,9 First Lady's comments on Palestinian state
IRAN
6 State Department report details support for terrorism
6 US hopeful for change in international policies
IRAQ
8 Amb. Butler's letter on Iraqi cooperation
8 UN Security Council action necessary to change sanctions
GREECE
9 No PKK office in Greece: before, now or ever
KOSOVO
9-11 President's comments on Kosovo belonging to Serbia
10 Status to be determined through negotiations among the
parties
11 Russian Deputy Prime Minister in Belgrade yesterday
12 No real progress seen yet as May 9 deadline approaches
12 G-8 Foreign Ministers to meet in London on May 9
CHINA
11 President Clinton's upcoming trip/ visit of Chinese Deputy
Foreign Minister
PAKISTAN
11 Death of Catholic bishop
11 US condemns death sentences for peaceful expression of
beliefs
COLOMBIA
13 Arrest of major drug trafficker May 6 with help from DEA
13 Killings by paramilitary groups condemned by US
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #56
THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1998, 1:25 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Good afternoon. I apologize for keeping you through the lunch
hour, but it's been a busy day. I don't have any announcements, so I'd be
happy to go right to your questions.
QUESTION: What can you tell us about the return visit of Dennis Ross to
the region? And also, I understand the Secretary spoke by phone with Prime
Minister Netanyahu. Anything on that?
MR. FOLEY: Well, yes, they did speak by phone. Secretary Albright spoke
with Prime Minister Netanyahu from London this morning, and the Prime
Minister requested that she agree to send Ambassador Ross to Israel now,
immediately, in order to see whether it were possible to bridge the
remaining gaps and to hold a successful meeting next week in London to
launch permanent status negotiations.
The Secretary decided to respond positively, and hopes that these final
days before next week will see progress that can make it possible to hold
the meeting in Washington, based on acceptance of the US ideas that we
presented in London last week.
So we remain, as I said yesterday, hopeful that it will be possible to
achieve a breakthrough and to launch historic permanent status negotiations,
which as you know are supposed to be completed by May 4 of next year. So
time is urgent. We regard this as a strategic opportunity not to be missed
because the clock is ticking, and we're less than one year from the agreed
date of the conclusion of the permanent status negotiations.
QUESTION: Is Ross going today?
MR. FOLEY: He's going today, yes.
QUESTION: What are his marching orders? Can he negotiate, or just
explain?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as the Secretary indicated, I believe there was a
statement put out in London by Spokesman Rubin this morning that we're
hoping to achieve agreement based on acceptance of the American ideas that
were presented in London -- which, I might add, are merely refinements of
the ideas that we've had on the table.
We have really tried to work very creatively in this refinement process to
take account of both sides' views, both sides' needs. We believe that we
have come up with a compromise that ought to be acceptable to both sides.
But Ambassador Ross, within that framework though, will continue to explore
any refinements that might help us to hold the meeting next week and, as I
said, to launch permanent status negotiations.
QUESTION: Just a logistical question. Ross won't get there until Friday,
and then it's Jewish Sabbath, and the Israeli Cabinet meets on Sunday,
which is when you're likely to get a decision on what Netanyahu will or
will not do. Does the lateness of the timing make Monday still a possibility,
or would you be willing to put it off for a week until the President gets
back, but still have the ceremonial opening.
MR. FOLEY: We regard it still as a real possibility, provided that
agreement can be achieved prior to next week.
QUESTION: But is it possible that it might be put off a week if need
be?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we're still focused on our offer of a meeting in
Washington next Monday.
QUESTION: I say a week because after Monday, the President is gone.
MR. FOLEY: That's right.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary have a phone call last night with the leaders
of major Jewish organizations?
MR. FOLEY: I believe she had a phone conversation with the conference
group; that's my understanding. I don't have a read-out of that discussion
that she had, though.
QUESTION: Well, how much heat is the Administration feeling from Jewish
groups and other politicians - politicians in the United States - over this
issue?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I couldn't address the private conversation that she had
with some of the leaders that you mentioned yesterday. I'm not privy to
that conversation; it was a private one. But I'm certain that the Secretary
took the opportunity to explain clearly what the United States is trying to
achieve here and our view that our goals are intended to help promote the
peace upon which Israel's security ultimately depends. I'm sure she
also took the opportunity to reiterate the fact that, as President
Clinton very categorically stated yesterday, this is not about putting
pressure on Israel. This is about peace. This is about the United States
trying to play a helpful role to bring two parties that are far apart
together on common ground that can permit them to launch permanent status
negotiations.
QUESTION: Did the Administration give Congress a heads-up, or any members
of Congress a heads-up, on its strategy before the Secretary made her
statement in London?
MR. FOLEY: I believe Secretary Albright has been in touch with congressional
leaders. I can't tell you whether she had detailed phone calls prior to the
meetings in London. I'd have to check that to see if I could get that for
you. But in regard to your question about some of the criticisms that we've
seen -- especially yesterday -- of that nature, specifically referring to
some of the correspondence that came the Administration's way from
the Hill, I would like to point out that we believe it would be very
difficult to suggest that this Administration has not been a good friend of
Israel.
I think that it's very doubtful that many in Israel would believe such a
claim. Opinion polls in Israel demonstrate that this Administration is
viewed as perhaps the friendliest Administration to Israel over the last 50
years. Certainly every Administration, both Republican and Democrat, over
the past 50 years, since the time of President Truman, has believed that
peace in the Middle East is in the interest of the United States, is a
transcendent interest of the United States. So that's what we're pursuing.
Of course the Madrid Conference which brought the parties to the same table
- not only the Israelis and the Palestinians, but all the regional
neighbors of Israel to the table for the first time - was the work of the
Bush Administration. This Administration is continuing in that bipartisan
spirit to attempt to carry forward the Oslo process launched in 1993,
agreed to by the parties. I think that letter in particular ignored the
fact that we have been engaged in, really, the most intense diplomatic
efforts to take these wide gaps separating the parties and try to find
common ground that will permit them to achieve that which they agreed
- which is to make a final peace between them.
So, as I said yesterday, we remain hopeful. I think the very fact that
Prime Minister Netanyahu has asked Ambassador Ross to return is a hopeful
sign. We believe that our ideas are solid ones that will advance the cause
of peace, and that if there's a will, there's a way. We remain hopeful that
a way will be found to launch historic permanent status negotiations next
week in Washington.
QUESTION: After the Secretary spoke with the Prime Minister and decided
to send Ross to the region, would you say that she got strong signs from
him that Monday looks like it's going to come off, it's a good prognosis?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have a specific read-out of their telephone call,
which will remain a private call. I'm not aware that they achieved a
breakthrough during that conversation. The very purpose of the Prime
Minister asking Ambassador Ross to return is to try to achieve such a
breakthrough.
QUESTION: But would you say the signs that she got from him during that
conversation were indicative that Monday would come off; that the
likelihood of Monday happening was a strong one?
MR. FOLEY: We remain hopeful.
QUESTION: Netanyahu Spokesman Bar Ilan has said it's unlikely that
Netanyahu would be here. It sounds sort of ominous.
MR. FOLEY: But at the same time, his boss, Prime Minister Netanyahu, has
asked Ambassador Ross to go to the region, specifically to try to bridge
the remaining gaps so that an historic meeting can take place in Washington
next week.
QUESTION: You're confident that the Israeli mind is still open on
this?
MR. FOLEY: We believe the Israeli mind is still open, certainly. I don't
think we've heard the final word on that. That reported statement is belied
by the invitation to Ambassador Ross to go to the region.
QUESTION: Would you say they may be playing to two different audiences?
MR. FOLEY: I couldn't comment on that. The fact of the matter is Dennis
Ross is going, and he's going to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu. We are
hopeful that we can help achieve that which Prime Minister Netanyahu has
urged us.
As the President stated so clearly yesterday, the parties are at loggerheads.
They made agreements in Oslo; each side accuses the other of not faithfully
implementing those agreements. The United States has tried, as a faithful
and friendly and neutral facilitator, to try to find common ground
here.
I would note, also in reference to some of the criticisms that were leveled
yesterday, that our ideas offer a real compromise. Compromise means that
the sides give up some maximalist gains. I don't think that anyone can
argue with the fact that the Palestinians themselves found it difficult to
agree or to accept the American ideas. I think it's generally known that
our ideas do not come close to what the Palestinians actually wanted or
felt that they were entitled to.
So we have gone the extra mile to try to find common ground; and Ambassador
Ross is literally going to go the extra mile, starting this evening, on his
trip to Israel.
QUESTION: Jim, is he planning to meet with Palestinians, as well, on his
trip?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that that is specifically planned. I believe,
since this was a decision that was just made this morning, that details of
his itinerary remain to be determined. Certainly, he's going to see Prime
Minister Netanyahu; that's the purpose of his visit. My understanding is
that Chairman Arafat is not in the PA areas at the moment.
QUESTION: Just for the record, what in the American ideas did the
Palestinians find difficult to accept?
MR. FOLEY: Well, you're not going to draw me out, Judd, as cleverly as
you may have asked the question, coming at it from a different angle today.
But we have not discussed publicly the nature of our private diplomatic
proposals.
QUESTION: Well, we're not getting into specifics --
MR. FOLEY: I can't get into specifics.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, in a general area, did they find it difficult to
accept the American -
(Laughter.)
-- no, well, there are several aspects to this. There's not only the
question of how much territory; there's a question of going --
MR. FOLEY: Right, and that is an important point - that there are several
aspects, there are many elements of our package. We've always found it
erroneous to single out a single aspect when, in fact, this is an
integrated package. We're talking about, as you know, parallel steps to be
implemented simultaneously by both sides so that each side's requirements
can be met and they can go forward together in implementing their
commitments to each other.
QUESTION: Aside from the fact that I did try to trick you and you didn't
bite, the other part of the question is beginning permanent status talks,
which the Palestinians had objected to until interim - all that was out of
the way, whereas the Israelis had been talking about going to it. Did the
Palestinians have difficulty accepting that part of it?
MR. FOLEY: Well, the purpose of a meeting in Washington next week is
three-fold. We would look to that meeting to first acknowledge that
agreement has been reached on the parallel implementation of further
redeployment and security obligations. We would most notably expect such a
meeting to herald the launching of permanent status negotiations.
But thirdly, in addressing your point specifically, we would hope that that
meeting would also mark an attempt -- and hopefully a successful closure --
on the outstanding interim issues, which include, as you know, the airport,
the seaport, safe passage and a Gaza industrialist state. There is
remaining work on these issues. But we believe that if we can achieve this
breakthrough - and we're really not far from achieving it; we're very close,
actually -we can settle the interim issues and we can make tangible
for the Palestinian people themselves some demonstrable improvements
in their own lives and in their ability to be responsible for their own
affairs. We can address specific Israeli security needs and requirements,
and we can move forward together to address what are going to be the tough
permanent status issues that we have a little less than a year now to
resolve.
QUESTION: Regarding the terrorist threat to Israel, it was revealed this
morning by Iranian resistance sources that upwards to $50 million was being
disbursed by Iran to the Mullah Akhtari, the Ambassador from Iran to
Damascus. This money was then being disbursed to terrorist groups in Syria,
Lebanon, Jordan and in Palestine. Does this Administration see that this,
in fact - that Iran is the principal source of funds, instigator, and that
this matter has to be dealt with for there to be true peace?
MR. FOLEY: Well, if you were present last week for our briefings on and
introduction of the annual report on the Patterns of Global Terrorism, that
report made clear the fact that Iran continues activity in support of
terrorist groups.
We've taken note favorably of President Khatemi's recent commitment to
combat terrorism, his denunciation of terrorism against men, women and
children. We hope that we will see a change in specific Iranian activities
in that regard.
On the issue of security, though, you'll recall that we have called
security the sine qua non of the peace process; that there cannot be peace
without security. And Israel, in particular, has to feel confident of its
own security in going forward and making the hard decisions in terms of
what is required for a final, comprehensive peace settlement. Security is
an element that cannot be compromised, and our concerns on that issue are
unabated. In the context of the American ideas that we put on the table,
hoping to launch permanent status negotiations, is included specific steps
on the security front that would be part of the parallel implementation
process that I spoke about.
QUESTION: It was alleged - Jim, just let me follow this briefly -- that
Khatemi was spending more on terrorism and the increased levels of
terrorist activities in Iran. That was alleged this morning; are you aware
of that?
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen that report. I think that we are hopeful that
the change that President Khatemi indisputably represents inside Iran will
represent, indeed, a change in Iranian policies on the international front.
We look forward to the day when Iran rejoins the community of nations on
that basis. We look forward to a different kind of relationship with Iran
on that basis.
QUESTION: Mrs. Clinton said that the US favors the establishment of a
Palestinian state. Has our policy changed in this regard; and if not, could
you restate it for us, please?
MR. FOLEY: My understanding is she said no such thing at all. I believe
she made some personal comments, and I think the White House issued a
statement in that regard. But there's been no change in US policy towards
that issue.
QUESTION: What do you think the impact might be of the First Lady of the
United States making that kind of a comment during a period of shall we say
great sensitivity and certainly a critical point in the negotiations?
MR. FOLEY: I couldn't speculate on the impact.
QUESTION: Is it a mistake, though? I mean, did she - was she not thinking
when she said that? I mean, I can only believe that in this context, she
was certainly aware of what was going on and that if she made a comment in
this regard, it was intended for some purpose.
MR. FOLEY: Well, the First Lady, I think, is universally respected -- not
only in this country, but around the world -- for her humanitarian work and
for what she represents on behalf of people - of women and children -- in
this country, as I said, and around the world. She can only make positive
contributions to peace and mutual understanding around the world. You're
not going to hear any criticism from me on that front.
QUESTION: But I wasn't - I mean, that was not the question. The question
was, given the fact that she's a person of stature and a person of
awareness --
MR. FOLEY: Well, Carol, I see what you're getting at. She's an eminent
personality, respected around the world, and she's certainly entitled to
her views.
QUESTION: Was the Administration sending a message with this comment?
MR. FOLEY: I think, as I indicated in my response to Betsy Steuart's
comment, which I think did not accurately reflect what the First Lady said,
that they were comments made in a personal capacity. The White House has
issued a statement indicating such and that Administration policy has not
changed.
QUESTION: That's two different things. She did or did not refer to a
Palestinian state, or it was a personal remark. Which is it?
MR. FOLEY: The question had to do with setting Administration policy.
QUESTION: She was not expressing Administration policy.
MR. FOLEY: That's right.
QUESTION: But she did talk about the creation of a Palestinian state.
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen her transcript of her remarks. But I understand
that she did make comments on the status of a Palestinian state.
QUESTION: But Carol's question - I mean, if I could follow up on Carol's
question, do you think it's understood all over the world that she does not
speak for US policy? I mean, it's the First Lady. That's the question of
the impact.
MR. FOLEY: Well, the First Lady certainly has a moral voice that does, we
hope, have a profound impact around the world. To the extent that she
expressed the solidarity of the American people with people all around the
world, I think that's only to be praised; it's not unusual.
In terms of specific Administration policy, though, on the issue of the
final status of the Palestinian entity, that's not something that has even
been determined. We're very earnestly hoping that our ideas will bear fruit
in the coming days; that we will be able to launch permanent status
negotiations. Certainly, the specific, legal disposition of the Palestinian
entity will be decided in the permanent status negotiations.
QUESTION: Jim, on Iraq, have you seen the reports of Ambassador Butler's
report to the Security Council, which I'm paraphrasing - but essentially,
that Iraq has cooperated in the inspections of all sites?
MR. FOLEY: It is up to UNSCOM to assess whether Iraq is providing
sufficient information, as established under United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1137. We, the United States, have acknowledged Iraq's
cooperation with regard to the inspection at the eight presidential sites --
the one-time inspection only.
But as Chairman Butler's letter that you refer to makes clear, there remain
some areas of access and cooperation that are either unsatisfactory or
untested. We will support UNSCOM in demanding full cooperation in all of
these areas. We also note that providing access to UNSCOM does not meet the
fundamental task before Iraq on weapons of mass destruction. That task
involves disclosure of its weapons programs and disarmament. It remains
Iraq's responsibility to disclose fully its weapons of mass destruction and
missile programs to UNSCOM. The debate over access to sites and to
people in Iraq has arisen only because Iraq has refused to offer such
disclosure willingly.
In terms of your specific question, Chairman Butler has just made this
letter available. It's something we're going to study with our colleagues
in the Security Council.
QUESTION: In light of that letter, will the United States go along with a
partial lifting of some sanctions - for example, free movement of Iraqi
officials?
MR. FOLEY: Well, you are raising the very issue I said we are going to
study in light of his letter. We haven't' made any determination; this just
came out this morning.
QUESTION: And procedurally, would the United States have a veto over even
a partial lifting of sanctions?
MR. FOLEY: Well, my understanding is those sanctions are all governed by
Security Council resolutions. The Security Council would have to act with
unanimity to change its resolutions.
QUESTION: Is it your understanding that the travel ban has not been
lifted, then, despite this --
MR. FOLEY: My understanding is that this was passed last fall under a
Security Council resolution. It would take Security Council action to
reverse it. But I'd be happy to check the record to see whether there's any
flexibility involved in the original Security Council resolution.
QUESTION: Back to the First Lady's comments, briefly. She actually said
that the Palestinians should have the right to live in a Palestinian state
eventually. You don't think at all that this could aggravate the Israelis -
in fact, incite them and antagonize them in any way, at a time when they're
being asked by the US to come to Washington and make a decision before
Monday?
MR. FOLEY: Well, a lot of people have an opinion about that issue that
they evince privately. If you read our newspapers, you see commentators
speaking out on that issue -- and certainly in Israel and throughout the
world, so that's not unusual. I can only speak to what the US Government
position is, and it remains unchanged.
QUESTION: But you said he is a high-profile figure. She's the First Lady
of the United States, and she's saying that the Palestinians have a right
to statehood, to a state. And at a time when the Israelis are backing off
of giving up more West Bank land, you don't think that this is at all
coming at a bad time or could antagonize them or aggravate them?
MR. FOLEY: Look, the question has been asked five, six, seven times
already. I've stated the Administration policy.
QUESTION: So it's no aggravation to this at all. This is fine for her to
make these comments. It adds to the process at hand.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I've rarely seen such a demonstration of a loaded
question that sort of attempts to put words in my mouth. I've answered the
question: the First Lady is entitled to speak her mind, and we're not going
to challenge that.
QUESTION: On the issue of the Kurdish office in Athens and your
consultations with the Greek Government, do you have anything new to report
on that?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, the Greek Foreign Ministry has told our Embassy in Athens
that there has never been, is not and never will be an office of the PKK in
Greece, despite the announcement by a self-proclaimed PKK representative in
Athens last week that such an opening is imminent. We welcome this pledge,
which is in keeping with Greece's international commitments on counter-
terrorism.
QUESTION: Speaking of possible misstatements, President Clinton said
yesterday --
MR. FOLEY: I challenge that categorization.
QUESTION: President Clinton said yesterday that Serbia is legally -
excuse me, Kosovo is legally part of Serbia, and that the solution there is
for the Serbs to give the Kosovar Albanians some measure of self-government
and decision-making within the framework of Serbia. Until now, the US
position has been quite clear that this should be done within the framework
of Yugoslavia. But you've avoided saying it should be done within the
framework of Serbia.
MR. FOLEY: The second part of the quote I have seen - framework of
Serbia. The first part about legally within that nation, I'm not sure he
said. I'd have to check the record on that.
QUESTION: He said, "The Serbs don't want to give up a big part of their
country, which they believe and is legally part of their country."
MR. FOLEY: The province of Kosovo has, of course, changed status several
times. It was an autonomous republic within the FRY, former Yugoslavia
actually, before the Balkan wars that broke up the country. Milosevic then
shifted its status and attached it to Serbia.
Our view, as has been stated, is that we believe a solution to the problems
of Kosovo must be found within existing international borders and through
unconditional dialogue to develop enhanced self-administration for Kosovo
that respects the rights of all, regardless of ethnicity. The President
spoke to that yesterday.
The ultimate responsibility for reaching accommodation lies with authorities
in Belgrade and the Kosovar Albanian leadership in Pristina. But the
international community also has an important role to play in facilitating
negotiations.
I think the important point is that a wide range of possible arrangements
exists within these parameters which the United States could support. It is
up to the parties to decide through negotiation on the details of Kosovo
autonomy. I believe the President did not mean to foreclose any options on
this. In fact, what we have struggled to make clear is that no option
should be foreclosed.
We regard this as a matter for the parties to decide themselves. President
Milosevic has tried to close this off. We, in response, have not suggested,
for example, that the ultimate disposition must be within the framework of
the FRY. We've simply stated we believe this is a matter that should be
negotiated, that should not be prejudged in advance of the negotiations, as
President Milosevic has attempted to do thus far.
QUESTION: Excuse me, this is not the First Lady, this is the President.
And the Serbs have already --
MR. FOLEY: It's not the first - what, I'm sorry?
QUESTION: This is not the First Lady, this is the President speaking. The
Serbs have already jumped on this statement as saying that he is precisely
expressing their position, which is that Kosovo is and always will be part
of Serbia and that the only solution is in the framework of Serbia. So was
the President expressing the US position or not?
MR. FOLEY: Well, our view, as I said, is that there is a wide range of
possible arrangements within the parameters I discussed that the US could
support. We believe it is up to the parties to decide through negotiation
on the details of Kosovo autonomy. I'd refer you to the White House if
you're looking for further clarification.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) announcement about preparations for President
Clinton's visit to China in general terms.
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: And also, I heard that the Deputy Chinese Foreign Minister was
here in the last few days, and he met with some American officials in
preparation for this visit. Could you please give us something more about
his meetings?
MR. FOLEY: I'd have to take the question; I don't have information for
you right now.
QUESTION: On Pakistan, do you have a position on their blasphemy law,
which has been in the spotlight lately because of the death sentence handed
down to one individual and the death of a Roman Catholic priest, who was a
stalwart opponent of the law, just yesterday?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, we very much regret the needless death of Bishop Joseph.
We've only received preliminary reports of his death from our Consulate in
Lahore, and we're seeking more information. In recent days Bishop Joseph
has spoken publicly against Pakistan's blasphemy law and against the recent
death sentence imposed on a Christian, Mr. Ayub Masih, under that
law.
We deplore and condemn the imposition of a sentence of death on an
individual for the peaceful expression of his beliefs. In the past, we have
repeatedly called upon the Government of Pakistan to repeal the blasphemy
law, which contributes to a climate of religious intolerance. We take this
opportunity to do so once again.
QUESTION: Back on Kosovo, is Felipe Gonzalez - does the United States
believe that Milosevic is prepared to now accept Felipe Gonzalez as a
mediator on Kosovo?
MR. FOLEY: Well, you saw that the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister was in
Belgrade, I believe, yesterday, Minister Ivanov. I believe he made some
comments to the press, following his meetings in Belgrade, that indicated
that he saw signs of possible flexibility in this regard. That would be,
certainly, a welcome development if it's true. We'll want to see if it's
borne out by the facts. That is one of several elements that the Contact
Group has called for, including a de-escalation of the crisis, a pull-back
of the forces of repression, an unconditional dialogue and, as you indicate,
international participation in negotiations between the Serb authorities in
Belgrade and the Kosovar Albanians.
QUESTION: So you haven't gotten any concrete word on this?
MR. FOLEY: No, we have not.
QUESTION: Also on Kosovo, there was a deadline on May 9 for additional
sanctions.
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Have you seen any progress or --
MR. FOLEY: Well, it's a similar question; we have not. Minister Ivanov's
visit may have elicited an indication of a willingness to accept the role
of the OSCE and Felipe Gonzalez and, we hope, international participation
in negotiations. We don't have that confirmed in any way. So we've not seen
real progress on that front; we've not seen real progress. On the contrary,
we see an escalation of FRY deployments in Kosovo that bode ill for
future events there. And as I said, we've not seen any move towards
unconditional dialogue between Belgrade and the Kosovar Albanians. So the
signs don't look good.
On the other hand, as you indicate, May 9 was a deadline that the Contact
Group agreed to in Rome. That's just a few days away. Foreign ministers
will be in London in the context of G-8 meetings, and my understanding is
they will convene separately on the Kosovo issue. It's Thursday; it's only
two days, therefore, to the May 9 deadline. I would fully expect that
they're going to be taking the confirming or implementing decision to
impose the investment ban, as they agreed in Rome.
QUESTION: Is there a date for the Contact Group meeting in Rome? I mean
in London?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I believe that the Foreign Ministers will convene on the
margins of the G-8 meeting in London on Saturday.
QUESTION: Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday or --
MR. FOLEY: On Saturday.
QUESTION: Pardon?
MR. FOLEY: On Saturday.
QUESTION: Oh, this Saturday?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, yes.
QUESTION: The same as the deadline?
MR. FOLEY: Same as the deadline, yes.
QUESTION: Okay, sorry.
QUESTION: On Colombia, the Colombian justice increased the sentences for
the Rodriguez-Orejella brothers - the Cali cartel leaders. What is the
message that the United States Government gets from this new action in the
Colombian justice?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not aware - you said they've increased the
sentences.
QUESTION: Increased the sentences, yes.
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that story. I am aware of the fact that the
Colombian Government has arrested yesterday a major drug trafficker, Mr.
Luis Reynaldo Murcia Sierra. We congratulate the Colombian National Police
on the capture of this significant trafficker.
Murcia is the head of a major Bogota-based cocaine trafficking organization
responsible for the shipment of multiple 100-plus kilo loads through the
Caribbean to the United States. He was arrested in the early morning of May
6, yesterday, in a joint operation by the CNP - the Colombian National
Police - and the DEA. This unit of the CNP, which is a special investigative
unit, has received specialized training and support from the United
States. It had identified Murcia as the source of a 476-kilo shipment of
cocaine, which was seized in Puerto Rico on January 15.
After the arrest, the CNP served warrants on and seized 31 properties owned
by Murcia, including a $2 million Bogota apartment, under Colombia's Asset
Forfeiture Law. Three of Murcia's associates were also arrested. His case
will be handled by a prosecutor assigned to the special investigative unit,
who has also received specialized training from the United States.
Again, I'm not familiar with this other sentencing issue, but we'll take
the question and see if we have an answer for you.
QUESTION: Another question about human rights. Is there any comment about
human rights violations for the killing by paramilitary groups of children
and civilians this week in Colombia?
MR. FOLEY: We condemn such killings by paramilitary groups. I don't have
the details; I had those yesterday. Perhaps we can get that for you
afterwards. But this was a horrendous crime that we resolutely condemn. We
call for a full investigation and the prosecution of those responsible.
QUESTION: This is a follow-up to the previous question. When you say this
arrest was the result of a joint operation, the CNP and DEA, did DEA agents
participate in the arrest?
MR. FOLEY: I can't tell you whether they were actually present, but they
had worked together with the CNP.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. FOLEY: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1: 55 P.M.)
|
