U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #78, 98-06-29
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
833
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, June 29, 1998
Briefer: Lee Mcclenny
ANNOUNCEMENT
1 US to provide $3.55 million for humanitarian needs related
to Kosovo crisis.
KOSOVO
2 US calls on Belgrade to allow access for aid workers,
diplomats, journalists.
2,7 KLA and UCK are facts of life in the region, and should be
part of negotiations.
3 US is working closely with Kosovar Albanian leaders to
bring UCK into the process.
4,5,7-8 Ambassador Gelbard spoke with senior leaders of the UCK.
5-6,8 Holbrooke meeting with UCK fighters last week apparently
was unplanned.
6-7 US has not declared the UCK to be a terrorist organization.
7-9 US supports the territorial integrity of the Serbian -
Montenegrin political system.
9 Diplomacy has not failed in Kosovo; the diplomatic effort
continues.
9 Reports of intensified fighting in coal mines area west of
Pristina concern the US.
10 Details of observer missions still are being worked on.
10 US believes the situation can’t be resolved militarily.
11 Acting Secretary Talbott met with Macedonian officials
today.
11-12 US supports autonomy, not independence, for Kosovo.
20-21 US has not put forward a position on an agenda for
negotiations.
21 Next Contact Group meeting is scheduled for July 8.
PAKISTAN
12 US sanctions do not affect humanitarian needs loans.
12 Pakistani Foreign Minister met constructively with Acting
Secretary Talbott today.
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
13-15 US believes UN Security Council action on Jerusalem would
be counterproductive.
14 US has opposed enhanced status for the PLO in the UN
General Assembly.
IRAN
16-19 First-time visiting Iranians undergo fingerprinting, as do
other nationalities.
IRAQ
18 Press reports of an office opening for the PKK in Baghdad
are not surprising.
CUBA
19 Meetings with US on migration issues are periodic.
TURKEY
21-22 Earthquake near Adana apparently caused 23 Americans minor
injuries.
22 President Clinton has offered assistance to the Turkish
government.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OFF-CAMERA PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #78
MONDAY, JUNE 29, 1998 1:45 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. MCCLENNY: I apologize about the lateness. It’s basically my fault.
We were trying to schedule something for after Bryan Atwood’s meeting, and
then I was also waiting at the last minute for a final clearance on my
first order of business. But you were going to say something? Go
ahead.
QUESTION: No, I said there might be another briefing.
MR. MCCLENNY: I hope not.
QUESTION: But not by you.
MR. MCCLENNY: Okay. We’ll post this right after the briefing, but I was
asked if I could say a little bit about this. We’re posting a statement
announcing that in response to urgent appeals from the United Nations and
the international community, Red Cross, the US will be providing $3.55
million to international organizations addressing the humanitarian needs
related to the Kosovo crisis -- $2.6 million to the UN High Commissioner
for Refugees; $700,000 for the ICRC; and $250,000 to the United Nations
Children’s Fund.
These funds will address the needs of internally displaced persons in
Kosovo and Montenegro, the needs of refugees and the local host population
in Albania, and further planning and preparedness for the entire region.
We commend the response of the international community and NGOs for their
quick action to humanitarian needs in their region. There’s more where
that came from.
QUESTION: What was the total?
MR. MCCLENNY: The total amount was $3.55 million.
QUESTION: This is the largest fund, with other countries putting in money,
too?
MR. MCCLENNY: I believe that is correct, but I’m not absolutely
certain.
QUESTION: Do you know proportionally how much the US is contributing?
MR. MCCLENNY: I don’t, as a matter of fact. As I said, I was just
handed this before I came in. I don’t see any more in the notice there.
We have provided some assistance in the past, and I can get more details on
it if you’d like. I’d be happy to bring something out.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- to Kosovo now?
MR. MCCLENNY: No, not as much access as we’d like, as a matter of fact.
This is one of the things we complain about consistently. Aid workers
aren’t getting as much access as they should; diplomats aren’t getting the
access they should; journalists aren’t getting the access they should.
That’s a situation that persists today, as a matter of fact. We continue
to call on the government in Belgrade to provide the access that the
Contact Group and other countries have called on them to permit that’s
critical.
QUESTION: Is that it for that?
MR. MCCLENNY: Sure, happy to start wherever you’d like to go?
QUESTION: Well, let’s stay on Kosovo if we could. What brought the US or
the Administration around to the proposition that the rebels, the
independence-minded people should have a place at the table? And how would
you expect Milosevic to negotiate with them?
MR. MCCLENNY: Well, sort of a two-part answer, if I could. One, I think
Ambassador Holbrooke dealt with this in some depth from Europe in the last
couple of days. But the point he made basically is that this is a
recognition of a reality -- a situation on the ground. The UCK, the KLA --
whichever acronym you prefer -- has influence on the ground in Kosovo. By
talking to them and by bringing them into the process, we think that
improves the chances that the process of diplomacy and negotiation will be
successful.
In response to the second question -- why would Milosevic agree to deal
with them --whether he will is a question you should address to him. We
think he should because there are facts on the ground in Kosovo that need
to be dealt with.
QUESTION: Do you think he should be dealing both with the pacifist leader
who says he’s against it and there are people who are killing civilians
because they should be in defense.
MR. MCCLENNY: No, I’m sorry; I wasn’t clear about that. Apparently I
wasn’t clear about that.
QUESTION: Okay, I’m sorry.
MR. MCCLENNY: We’re working in close consultation with the Kosovar
Albanian leadership, which is headed by Dr. Rugova, to bring the UCK into
that process. We don’t think it’s an either/or prospect. What has been
true from the beginning and what continues to be true now is that the
government in Belgrade should be dealing with the people on the ground in
Albania -- excuse me -- in Kosovo. Boy, there’s a faux pas -- in Kosovo --
we can fix that in the transcript, though -- in Kosovo to deal --
QUESTION: That’s what I mean -- they didn’t get that one wrong.
MR. MCCLENNY: -- to deal with the just concerns of the people on the
ground there and it is the militarist and highly militarized reaction from
the Belgrade Government to the circumstances there that’s lead to the rise
of the UCK. At some point in time, Mr. Milosevic is going to have to
recognize that he’s at root responsible for these problems and he can put
everything back.
QUESTION: I’m sorry. You’re still dealing with the -- what’s his
name?
MR. MCCLENNY: Rugova -- absolutely. Yes. We met with Rugova yesterday.
QUESTION: Doesn’t it vitiate the position of the people you’re dealing
with? In other words, you project yourself to the world as dealing -- the
guy’s supposed to be a pacifist -- with dealing with people who simply want
autonomy back, just recognition of the cultural separateness or something.
And the other group, of course, is fighting -- apparently doing quite well
lately on the ground -- to rip southern Serbia away from Serbia to create
an independent state and give very little sign that they’re particularly
pacifist-minded. Does this situation mess up your policy? You don’t look
so much in favor of stability this way, do you?
MR. MCCLENNY: We are in favor of stability -- however it appears to
anyone -- one way or the other. The situation on the ground is more
complicated than the sketch you’ve just drawn, in fairness. What we’re
trying to do is get all the people who’ve got some influence together to
try to address this. We can’t walk away, and ought not to walk away; that
would lead to the instability you made reference to, that could pour over
the borders into neighboring countries and spread the problem. We’re
trying to recognize the facts on the ground.
Dr. Rugova represents a trend, if you will, a school of thought, in the
Albanian Kosovo population. The UCK, obviously, represents -- or it’s
leaders represent -- one or more trends of thought in that population, as
well. And we’re trying to involve all the people who’ve got something to
say and have got some influence in these talks.
The other party, of course -- one of the other parties anyway -- is the
government in Belgrade and what influence it has on the ground; and we’re
working on them at the same time. Ambassador Hill was in Belgrade earlier
today talking with senior leaders; he’s in Pristina later today also --
earlier and then later -- working with Albanian Kosovars. We’re working
this as hard as we can.
QUESTION: Who was it I heard was in London?
MR. MCCLENNY: I’ve heard that Holbrooke is in London -- I believe he’s
there on private business.
QUESTION: He still wears a civilian hat, I guess.
MR. MCCLENNY: He does. It’s cheering to me to know that even senior
people have to earn a living.
QUESTION: But when he comes back to the federal government, will he get
involved in these negotiations again? Because he sounded pretty much like
it was the end of the road as far as --
MR. MCCLENNY: Not clear to me; I haven’t talked with him, -- I have to
confess. Jamie Rubin on Friday or Thursday, the last time he briefed --
seemed to be suggesting that he wouldn’t be as deeply involved in these
issues as he has been in the past.
QUESTION: Who is Ambassador Hill talking to in Pristina?
QUESTION: I mean Rugova --
MR. MCCLENNY: I don’t know that he’s having contacts with the UCK, for
example, but --
QUESTION: You said the leadership of the UCK --
MR. MCCLENNY: It’s multiple persons --
QUESTION: Have you found them?
MR. MCCLENNY: Sure. Oh, the UCK leadership? I’m sorry, I said
leadership of the Kosovar Albanians. And there are people, clearly -- some
of them have been here in this building before; we’ve had some photo ops
and some other things in the past -- Rugova and others.
QUESTION: Is he meeting with UCK or --
MR. MCCLENNY: He was meeting with Rugova and others, I believe. I’m not
absolutely certain he had a meeting with Rugova since I haven’t actually
heard.
QUESTION: No meetings as far as you know with the UCK?
MR. MCCLENNY: Not as far as I know. We broke the ice on that issue last
week. Ambassador Gelbard did speak with senior leaders of the UCK.
QUESTION: There is a fair degree of ambiguity about what actually
happened the last few days of last week regarding contacts with the UCK,
what happened when and what was said here at the podium. Could you address
what Holbrooke’s meeting represented to you? And when Gelbard -- what time
of day Gelbard met in Switzerland, I believe it was?
MR. MCCLENNY: I confess, I don’t have that level of detail; I don’t know
it myself, and I don’t have it in the notes here.
QUESTION: Okay, because there were some statements made here that would
indicate that the meeting might have already happened when you all were
denying that it had not yet happened. And also, can you clear up what
actually happened with Holbrooke? What was that? Was that planned; was it
not planned? Did Holbrooke do it on his own; did the Secretary of State
authorize it? How did that work? Was it, in fact, a chance meeting as you
all say it was, or was it a whole planned thing, as the reporters who were
with Holbrooke reported?
MR. MCCLENNY: Based on the information that’s come to me -- taking your
two questions in reverse order -- my understanding is that the meeting
between Ambassador Holbrooke and these two or a small number of UCK
fighters was unplanned. I think it happened in the course of his walking
through a village in Kosovo.
QUESTION: No advance work?
MR. MCCLENNY: Not as far as I know.
QUESTION: A UN representative went into a war zone and just met a couple
of people you all have called terrorists.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- war crimes.
MR. MCCLENNY: No, actually you couldn’t have, Barry. The lines are
blurred -- who’s in charge of what. It varies from village to village to
village. He traveled with a security detail; they passed through various
checkpoints of various groups and they fetched up in one of these other
towns. I don’t know if there was any advance work; I would doubt it, quite
frankly. It appeared to me, from everything I saw here, to be genuinely
spontaneous.
In regard to your first question about timing; again, I said I don’t know
exactly what time x, y or z meetings occurred or how they occurred. There
was a nuance in your question, though; I’m sorry if I forgot.
QUESTION: No -- it’s just it was said here at the briefing that -- I
think it was on Friday -- we plan very soon to meet with the leadership of
the KLA.
MR. MCCLENNY: Sure.
QUESTION: This would have been, I guess, at hand at the meeting on
Friday; and I would just like to know when the meeting took place in
relation to that comment.
MR. MCCLENNY: Sure. I don’t know what the relationship was, but I would
reject the notion that anyone was trying to intentionally mislead
you.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. MCCLENNY: Well, if you’ve got some evidence that there was some
reason or some rationale for that then….
QUESTION: I wouldn’t ask, and I would hope not, but I wouldn’t ask if it
wasn’t clear to me. And secondarily, can you clear up once and for all
what Bob Gelbard meant when he called this group a terrorist organization,
and why are you meeting secretly with them?
MR. MCCLENNY: We’ve been down this road a whole bunch of times. We meet
in private with lots of people at lots of times at lots of events and lots
of organizations. I think what Ambassador Gelbard meant when he referred
to acts by this group was that they have committed terrorist acts.
QUESTION: He called them a terrorist organization. When you say
terrorist acts, as you all keep repeating, incorrectly, what he said. He
said "terrorist organization."
MR. MCCLENNY: I don’t have the transcript in front of me. Our view is
that the KLA has committed terrorist acts, and we’ve defined those on a
couple of occasions here. We’ve been back over this ground any number of
times, and I don’t think there’s, frankly, a great deal of utility in
beating this to death.
QUESTION: There is quite a bit of utility because you all have a policy --
I mean, not to make a big deal or hold your feet to the fire, but --
MR. MCCLENNY: Then why make a big deal?
QUESTION: Well, because you all are being so -- it’s so difficult to
understand what you all are doing and saying with these people, that’s why.
The United States Government used to have a policy of not meeting with
terrorist groups. If that policy has sort of gone the way of -- (inaudible)
-- politics, then well that’s your decision.
MR. MCCLENNY: Do you have any evidence of that?
QUESTION: Any evidence of what?
MR. MCCLENNY: That that policy’s gone by the wayside.
QUESTION: Well, you met secretly with the KLA in Switzerland at a very
senior level on your part -- very secret, leaked it to a few newspapers
afterwards. That’s evidence of a group that you referred to as a terrorist
organization.
MR. MCCLENNY: I thought we had dealt with this days ago, or I would
have brought more -- some notes on it one way or the other. The Secretary
of State declares, through a particular legal process, whether an
organization is a "Terrorist Organization," with a capital "T" and a
capital "O." Such a determination has not been made in the case of the KLA,
and that’s really where it ends.
QUESTION: Is the US in favor of autonomy or independence for Kosovo?
MR. MCCLENNY: We’ve made it clear that we support the territorial
integrity of the Serbia-Montenegro political unit.
QUESTION: Has US policy changed, by your overtures to these --
MR. MCCLENNY: Not as far as I know, no.
QUESTION: --whatever they are -- the acronym group?
MR. MCCLENNY: The UCK, KLA?
QUESTION: Well, it’s different in Serbo-Croatian, but, yes, to them. It
hasn’t changed? You’re meeting with them because you deal with reality.
MR. MCCLENNY: Because we deal with reality on the ground, yes.
QUESTION: Andrew Young lost his job as Ambassador at the UN just by
happening to bump into a PLO official and this is a whole campaign to bring
a group which has been described as a terrorist group into negotiations.
Without getting into whether this helps bring about negotiations or not,
you say this is no policy shift?
MR. MCCLENNY: No, it’s not a policy shift.
QUESTION: Let me just talk about what happened at the Gelbard-UCK
meeting. What details do you have?
MR. MCCLENNY: I don’t really have any details. He met with two senior
representatives of the political side of the KLA last week. This was the
first high-level exchange between US officials and the UCK.
QUESTION: Friday or Saturday?
MR. MCCLENNY: I haven’t given any detail more than that, quite
frankly.
QUESTION: These are two different things? I’m a little bit confused.
There was something in Geneva, and then there were fighters in the
village?
MR. MCCLENNY: Yes, those are two separate items.
QUESTION: Oh, you’re not saying it’s Holbrooke; there were two separate
meetings.
MR. MCCLENNY: Holbrooke met with some people in Kosovo, and there are
pictures of that, yes.
QUESTION: Forces, you mean.
QUESTION: Well, you’ve got pictures to identify the guy.
MR. MCCLENNY: Gelbard met with two senior UCK or KLA people in a
separate location; but I don’t know that it was Geneva, frankly.
QUESTION: Oh, I see, but not in Kosovo?
MR. MCCLENNY: Not in Kosovo.
QUESTION: Holbrooke’s meeting you’re not considering the first senior-
level contact.
MR. MCCLENNY: We didn’t see those people as senior, and it wasn’t
something, as far as I can tell, that was arranged in advance.
QUESTION: Okay, so as far as you’re concerned, the opening, so to speak,
of this dialogue was in Switzerland with Gelbard?
MR. MCCLENNY: I didn’t confirm a location, but with Gelbard, yes.
QUESTION: Or wherever it happened.
MR. MCCLENNY: Let’s finish here; I think they’ve got some more they want
to --
QUESTION: Can you give us the names?
MR. MCCLENNY: I don’t have any more names.
QUESTION: Now, if the UCK were to enter into a dialogue, would there be
conditions?
MR. MCCLENNY: I’m not aware that they’ve set any preconditions but we’re
not there yet. We’re still talking with them.
QUESTION: I’m still doing the numbers. You want Belgrade to, without any
preconditions, stop the fighting and withdraw the troops.
MR. MCCLENNY: Yes.
QUESTION: Even if these folks gain ground, even as you negotiate with
these folks --
MR. MCCLENNY: The fighting continues on the ground; there’s no doubt
about that.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. MCCLENNY: I’m not here to confirm that, quite frankly. There
continues to be fighting, but I don’t know that they’ve made great gains
over a week or a month ago.
QUESTION: But you still want Milosevic to, without precondition, to stop
the fighting and withdraw the troops to whatever you call it -- the
barracks.
MR. MCCLENNY: All his troops back out, the police should return to the
barracks if possible. It was the militarization of the conflict, the
cultural conflict, the political conflict, if you will, that’s led to
exacerbation of the situation there.
QUESTION: And when Holbrooke spoke so despairingly over the weekend,
where does that leave US diplomacy at this point? I know Hill’s in
action.
MR. MCCLENNY: I read the articles, too, and was a little surprised at
the negative spin, because the quotes were not dire sounding. But we’re
not at the end of the string, the window isn’t all the way closed. They
were, Holbrooke, Ambassador Gelbard and the Secretary of State herself, to
point out that we’re still several steps away from diplomacy having failed.
We’ll continue to work it eagerly and aggressively. Chris Hill’s on the
ground.
QUESTION: Where does the gathering together of these observer missions
stand? I think Ambassador Hill was working on that. Has there been any
progress?
MR. MCCLENNY: There’s progress on hammering out the administrative
details. I don’t have much to report to you one way or the other, but it’s
one of the projects that we’re working on -- and another sign, if I could
say so, that we don’t think the diplomatic string has run out yet.
QUESTION: But you don’t have any idea when these missions might
begin?
MR. MCCLENNY: Exactly when they’ll be up and running, I don’t know. I
think it’s sooner rather than later. There are some administrative things
that need to be worked out -- where to put them; how to communicate with
them; how to move them around; making arrangements with local authorities
so that they can have the kind of access they need to do their job.
That’s all very much in train and has been in train now for some time.
QUESTION: What do you know about the situation on the ground -- reports
of a Serb offensive, heavy weapons --
MR. MCCLENNY: I haven’t seen reports of a Serb offensive. I have seen
press reports, but I haven’t seen reports here. What I have received
reports this morning are that there’s intensified fighting just west of
Pristina, apparently in the area of the Belacevac’s coal mines. I know
that our defense attache was turned back when he attempted to visit the
region earlier today. Journalists are also generally being prevented from
gaining access there. I’d note that this is of some grave concern to us
because it’s reminiscent of the circumstances that surrounded the
atrocities that occurred in Decani -- keeping people out. But I can’t
confirm that there’s a big offensive underway.
QUESTION: Can I go back to the two meetings?
MR. MCCLENNY: I think we’ve beaten the subject to death.
QUESTION: No, you didn’t, because you didn’t --
MR. MCCLENNY: Well, it’s my stance that I have.
QUESTION: -- get asked this question. Did the two officials who met with
these independent leaders or fighters or mixture thereof ask them to lay
down their arms and agree to a cease-fire?
MR. MCCLENNY: I’m sorry, the two leaders who met with --
QUESTION: Yes, at your meeting -- I know what you’re asking Milosevic --
stop fighting. In the meetings last week, those two meetings we’ve been
talking about, was the same request made to the --
MR. MCCLENNY: Well, it’s been our public position, and I’m sure it’s our
private position as well that the situation in Kosovo can’t be solved
through military means. We think everybody should set their weapons down,
and back off and try to talk this out.
QUESTION: But you don’t happen to know if they were told that?
MR. MCCLENNY: It was a private conversation, Barry. I’ve tried very
hard not to disclose what we discussed.
QUESTION: A private conversation? The guy’s on the payroll -- both of
them are government employees. They’re meeting with people who are leaders
in a war. And your policy is private in dealing with them, and public when
dealing with Belgrade, right?
MR. MCCLENNY: Not always, no. We have quite a few private conversations
with Belgrade as well.
QUESTION: A question on Dr. Rugova’s position -- as far as I know, he’s
always said that he’s for independence -- or at least for the past several
months, he’s said he’s for independence not autonomy, right?
MR. MCCLENNY: My actual recollection is different from that. I’d have
to check to be absolutely sure, but my recollection is different from
that.
QUESTION: He said autonomy wasn’t enough.
MR. MCCLENNY: Autonomy covers a wealth of possibilities.
QUESTION: And on that score, you said you still support the territorial
integrity of Serbia-Montenegro. Do you support a possible third public
alternative?
MR. MCCLENNY: I think that remains to be seen; that’s something that
will have to be worked out.
QUESTION: But is that an option?
MR. MCCLENNY: Is it an option?
QUESTION: You haven’t ruled that out, have you?
MR. MCCLENNY: No, I don’t think we’ve ruled anything out in terms of all
that. It just depends on what the views and wishes of the people on the
ground are.
QUESTION: Can you bring the Deputy Secretary’s meeting today with the
Macedonians into this picture -- anything to tell us about it?
MR. MCCLENNY: I think they’ve met already, I had some notes on
it.
QUESTION: Yes, 12:15 p.m.
MR. MCCLENNY: Yes, they did meet. I was up there a little while
earlier. We’re going to put out a statement here, if we haven’t already.
They discussed the very good and close relationship we have with the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on a whole wide range of issues. We
discussed Macedonia’s contributions to regional stability both through the
support of the efforts of the international community to diffuse the
violence in Kosovo and through the example they set as a stable democratic
country in the region. They also discussed how we might deepen our
economic relations and how to stimulate a more active business relationship
between the US and Macedonia.
MR. MCCLENNY: Actually the Prime Minister will meet with the Vice
President tomorrow in the afternoon, if I recall correctly. And I think he
has a meeting either today or tomorrow with Secretary Cohen as well.
QUESTION: Can I just go back to -- I’m sorry to go back to the situation
in Rugova because it seems that there --
MR. MCCLENNY: I’m sorry, which?
QUESTION: Rugova. It seems that he has changed over the last couple of
months from originally saying autonomy; and he now seems to be saying
independence. In your meetings with him -- have you sensed a change in his
position?
MR. MCCLENNY: I’m not aware, frankly, of that. I know that what has
been consistent is our position that autonomy is what we’re looking for;
independence is not something we’ve been supporting.
QUESTION: The Foreign Secretary of Pakistan is here at the State
Department, meeting with senior high-level officials. Was he invited by
the US Government and the State Department or on his own or official visit,
number one? Number two, is it a sign of easing tensions and sanctions on
India and Pakistan after President Clinton cleared the way to continue the
sale of US wheat to Pakistan? And also, the World Bank and IMF have
cleared the way to give $500 million to India as a loan.
MR. MCCLENNY: I’m taking your questions in reverse order because my
memory buffer fills up. Sales of wheat would fall into the area of
humanitarian assistance; so that would be already exempted from sanctions
that have been imposed on Pakistan and India. The same could be said of
the World Bank or IMF loan that the US agreed not to block last week.
With regard to the Pakistani Foreign Secretary today, he met earlier with
Acting Secretary Talbott. I believe he’s in lunch upstairs right now with
senior officials from the Department. I don’t frankly have any note on
whether he was invited or whether he came of his own volition; but we’re
certainly happy to receive him one way or the other. We have a strong
interest in keeping our lines of communication open with both India and
Pakistan, particularly in the wake of the nuclear tests. We don’t wish to
isolate either country.
Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmed of Pakistan has or had a luncheon today.
I heard from people on the Acting Secretary’s staff that the discussions
were constructive on both of our countries’ concerns about non-proliferation
and the general situation in South Asia. We continue to talk with Pakistan
and with India to try to lessen tensions in that part of the world.
QUESTION: Are you planning to invite also an Indian official?
MR. MCCLENNY: I don’t know that we invited the Foreign Minister; but
certainly we would like to keep our channels of communication open. I
don’t think it’s necessary that there be an exact reciprocity in these
sorts of things. As long as we’re having good communication, that’s good
enough for us.
QUESTION: Are you trying to bring or in the near future both Secretary-
level meetings here in Washington for India and Pakistan?
MR. MCCLENNY: I’m sorry, in what sort of format?
QUESTION: A high-level Indian official and a high-level Pakistani
officials to meet here in Washington?
MR. MCCLENNY: A three-way meeting? I don’t know that there’s any
initiative underway in that regard. We think that they should be talking
to each other, and we think we should be talking to each of them as
well.
QUESTION: This was not an envoy you all had been expecting?
MR. MCCLENNY: Yes, "expecting" in the sense that it was on the schedule
from sometime last week; but I’m not sure I understand the import of your
question.
QUESTION: I just got the feeling that this was -- my memory may be
failing, but it seemed that there was an envoy from Pakistan who was
scheduled to come this week.
MR. MCCLENNY: That was a legislator; that was some time ago, and he came
and went.
QUESTION: No, but then again this week. I thought there was -- or was it
Indian that was --
MR. MCCLENNY: My memory is blank on that, no. I think this gentleman’s
been expected for some time.
QUESTION: On the Middle East, do you have anything? What’s going on? I
mean, do you have any meetings any --
MR. MCCLENNY: I don’t have anything to report to you one way or the
other. I think that Mr. Ross and Mr. Miller are in the building right now,
but I’m not absolutely certain.
QUESTION: But there’s nothing going on -- no consultations or meetings?
MR. MCCLENNY: We’re continuing to work on the basis that we’ve been
working on for some time now.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- on what Bahrain is trying to pull off?
MR. MCCLENNY: Actually we do have something on that, Barry, thank you
for asking.
QUESTION: And maybe next week, too.
MR. MCCLENNY: There are a couple of issues out there. These have been
very carefully written, and I am not an expert in this area.
QUESTION: You never deal with the Middle East in a sloppy way, I’ll tell
you that.
MR. MCCLENNY: I’d like to think I don’t deal with any issue in a sloppy
way, but you and I know that’s not the entire truth.
QUESTION: -- almost to the point of saying nothing.
MR. MCCLENNY: That’s dangerous, as well. On the question of a possible
Security Council session on an alleged plan to expand the boundaries of
Jerusalem, as we’ve said before, Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive
issues of the peace process. Security Council discussion of this issue,
which the Israelis and Palestinians have already agreed is to be included
in their permanent status negotiations, would be unhelpful to the peace
process. It’s a little complicated in its writing, but I hope the import
gets through.
We therefore think any action in the Security Council on this matter would
be counter-productive. At a time when we’re trying to break a prolonged
impasse in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the last thing we need is
action by the parties or anybody else that raises suspicions and makes it
even more difficult to get the process back on track.
QUESTION: Do you want to make the same statement for next week? What the
heck.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Raising the status of the PLO, would that be something that
would make parties suspicious, not helpful to the peace process?
MR. MCCLENNY: In fact, we oppose enhanced status for the PLO in the
General Assembly. The PLO is not a state, and should not enjoy rights
tantamount to those of a state in the General Assembly. We hope that other
members of the General Assembly will join us in opposing a move that can
only hurt the Middle Eastern peace process while overturning decades of
precedent and practice regarding the status of members and observers in the
General Assembly. I understand, parenthetically, that no Security Council
action is being considered on this issue.
QUESTION: No Security Council -- you’re not going to have a meeting or --
QUESTION: It’s a General Assembly question, though.
MR. MCCLENNY: That’s a General Assembly question.
QUESTION: Wait -- explain something to me on the Jerusalem --
MR. MCCLENNY: I’ll do my very best.
QUESTION: The US opposes Israel’s actions on Jerusalem, but also opposes
the Security Council saying anything about that. Is that a fair interpretation
of your position?
MR. MCCLENNY: There’s a difficult one. I’m stymied by the first half of
your question because I don’t remember what our position was. I will look
into it.
QUESTION: Your position is that you oppose Israel’s action on --
MR. MCCLENNY: That it was unhelpful, yes. It’s flooding back to me
now.
QUESTION: And you oppose the Security Council acting on Israel’s
action.
MR. MCCLENNY: Indeed we do.
QUESTION: You mean Albright can call for a freeze, but no one else
can.
MR. MCCLENNY: These are final status questions, basically. That’s the
bottom line. These are final status questions, and we think they should be
resolved in the final status process.
QUESTION: But the Security Council is saying Israel shouldn’t do this,
right?
QUESTION: Well, they would. Why would that be helpful? That would seem
to support the US position.
MR. MCCLENNY: We don’t think pressure at this point in time, or anything
that would undermine progress -- undermine the fragile sense that these
parties can work together on this process is not helpful. It’s doesn’t
need more pressure.
QUESTION: What’s the difference between the Security Council saying it
and the US saying it?
MR. MCCLENNY: We’ve been invited in by the two parties to help work this
out; that’s why.
QUESTION: At the time you were working on the peace process, this is
unhelpful. But you just told us that there’s (Inaudible).
MR. MCCLENNY: No, that’s not what I said. That’s not what I said.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. MCCLENNY: Are there other issues?
QUESTION: One more thing, please.
MR. MCCLENNY: If it’s a fair question.
QUESTION: There’s an effort to have a presidential statement in the
Security Council -- would you support a presidential statement?
MR. MCCLENNY: No, we wouldn’t support pressure of any kind.
QUESTION: That narrows -- I mean --
MR. MCCLENNY: We’ve been invited to the process.
QUESTION: Your statement says action. I just wondered --
QUESTION: According to several wire reports, the Iraqis leadership gave
their permission several --
MR. MCCLENNY: Do you want to go to the Middle East -- I’m sorry -- all
right. Do you have a Middle Eastern question?
QUESTION: Would the United States use the veto in case there was any
condemnation?
MR. MCCLENNY: That’s a hypothetical question; I’m not going to get into
it. We’ll cross the bridge if we come to it. Is there another Middle
Eastern question?
QUESTION: On Iran, have you heard about these Iranian scholars who
arrived in New York last week and were fingerprinted and photographed at
the airport?
MR. MCCLENNY: I don’t know anything about the specific case, but it’s
been standing practice for some time now that visiting Iranians are
fingerprinted the first time they come into the United States.
QUESTION: But didn’t the Secretary promise to change that?
MR. MCCLENNY: No. We made some changes in the waiting time and the
background check process for first-time applications for visas for Iranians
coming to the United States.
QUESTION: They can still expect to be fingerprinted and photographed when
they arrive?
MR. MCCLENNY: On the first time into the United States, certainly they
can still expect to be fingerprinted.
QUESTION: And why is that?
MR. MCCLENNY: You’d have to ask the INS exactly why they fingerprint and
what they use the photographs and fingerprints for; but I assume it’s to
prove positively their identification. But again, ask the INS why they do
it.
QUESTION: But why Iranians and not --
MR. MCCLENNY: It happens to some individuals of other nationalities as
well.
QUESTION: But when -- I believe -- I don’t know if it was soccer players
or -- it was the wrestlers that came in a couple of months ago and they
were sort of -- they were fingerprinted and it was suggested they were
delayed unnecessarily. And I remember Jamie saying from the podium that
the Secretary was going to indeed look into this process and not make it so
intrusive. And, well, the interpretation was that they were being singled
out. So if the Iranian scholars were treated -- there was some suggestion
they were treated the same way --
MR. MCCLENNY: The assumption behind your question is somewhat false.
There have been some changes made in the process, and we’re making efforts
to make it less intrusive, less drawn out, less problematic; but it won’t
all change overnight.
QUESTION: Well I understand that, but I don’t think it was false. I’m
just saying it seems as though you’ve had a couple of months to make the
process go a little smoother. I’m not asking for a change -- I’m not
talking about a change overnight and it doesn’t appear as though that has
occurred. Are you still looking into it?
MR. MCCLENNY: There have been some changes, as I’ve indicated now twice,
at least, and I also said if you wanted more information about it, you
should talk to the INS. They’re in charge of the actual process of
fingerprinting and photographing.
QUESTION: But is it a concern that you want to make it -- not -- you
don’t want the Iranians to be singled out?
MR. MCCLENNY: We’d like -- I’ve said this already, too, Crystal; please
listen carefully. The Iranians haven’t been singled out. There are other
individuals of other nationalities who are also fingerprinted and
photographed when they enter the United States. We would like to encourage
people-to-people exchanges; and to the extent that we can within the
regulations and laws of the United States, we will.
QUESTION: When President Khatemi comes here for the UN meeting in the
fall, will he be fingerprinted?
MR. MCCLENNY: No. Usually diplomats who come to the United Nations go
through a separate procedure for entering New York City.
QUESTION: Can I just clarify though -- I asked you and you said this
procedure will not change -- the fingerprinting and the photographs --
MR. MCCLENNY: It hasn’t changed so far. It’s not the Department of
State’s procedure.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, I thought the Secretary had indicated that she
wanted that procedure changed, but you’re saying all of this --
MR. MCCLENNY: My recollection was that we weren’t very explicit about
that; we wanted in general to make the procedures smoother and nicer and
less bad-feeling, if you will. We’re working on that. Some changes have
already been made.
QUESTION: It might change.
MR. MCCLENNY: It’s possible, certainly. I wouldn’t rule it out. It
would depend a lot on regulations and on US law how that can effectively be
carried out.
QUESTION: According to several wire reports, Iraqi leadership gave the
permission to open offices in Baghdad to several Kurdish groups -- Iraqi
Kurdish groups. But one of them is the Iraqi Kurdish group, which the PKK
is fighting against the Turkish Government and the Turkish security forces.
Also the same report mentioned that the Iraqi army given more sophisticated
weaponry to the PKK also. Do you have anything on the subject?
MR. MCCLENNY: The second question would be an intelligence question, or
an alleged intelligence question, and I don’t have anything on that;
whether the Iraqis are giving more or more sophisticated weaponry to
someone, I don’t honestly know.
The first question on the opening of a PKK office in Baghdad, I have seen
press reporting on that. We consider the PKK a terrorist organization. I
don’t think that will come as any surprise to you. I don’t think anyone is
particularly surprised that a government like the government that’s in
Baghdad would be giving protection, if you will, or a place to rest their
head to an organization like the PKK either. It strikes me as interesting,
but not surprising.
QUESTION: Lee, do you have anything on these migration talks in New
York?
MR. MCCLENNY: I don’t. I had some stuff last week from memory I can tell
you.
QUESTION: No, I mean going on today.
MR. MCCLENNY: Yes, that they met today. No, I don’t think there’ll be
much of a read-out right away. I think they’re probably scheduled for two
or three days; that was the drill in the times when I used to attend
them.
QUESTION: These are regularly scheduled?
MR. MCCLENNY: These indeed were regularly scheduled. They are intermittent
or sporadic; there’s not a set number of months that passes between each
one.
QUESTION: Will anything change in terms of the migration patterns from
Cuba to the United States?
QUESTION: A lot of good baseball players.
MR. MCCLENNY: Yes, a lot of good baseball players, right. No, I mean,
it’s kind of a very vague and general question. The truth is over months
or years, there tend to be small peaks and small valleys in migration out
of Cuba to the United States or other countries. In terms of the
implementation of the bilateral agreement we have, the arrangements we
worked out, no, they seem to be working fairly well. There are always
issues that we’re working on to try to make hem function better. Some of
those issues are the things that will come up in these meetings.
But no, I think in general -- particularly if one compares the present
situation with what was the circumstance several years ago at the peak of
the rafting crisis -- that this has been remarkably effective and a very
useful agreement that we’ve made with the Cuban Government. A lot of
people’s lives have probably been saved, and a lot of people have migrated
now legally in a way that permits them to come to the country where they
want to live.
QUESTION: Belarus? I’m fishing, anything on Belarus? On diplomats?
MR. MCCLENNY: No, I haven’t heard much else on Belarus, I confess. I
should have probably fished myself and seen if I could have gotten
something for you. I’ll ask around and see if there’s something.
QUESTION: Have you got anything on the US-ROK working group meeting in
July?
MR. MCCLENNY: No, I don’t. I asked about that last week. Call me again
later in the day and I may have something, because I did ask about it on
Thursday or Friday.
QUESTION: The Russian Finance Minister is quoted by, I believe, --
(inaudible) -- saying that unless they meet their tax collection goals,
devaluation of the ruble would be inevitable. There are a lot of other
officials saying something different today. I just wondered if you had any
comment.
MR. MCCLENNY: I don’t, actually. I didn’t think to ask for comment, and
I think I, personally, enter those sorts of water at great risk to markets
and other things. I’d rather not inadvertently set off a stampede of some
kind.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- rattle the markets --
MR. MCCLENNY: I’d rather not emulate that.
QUESTION: I’m sorry, can we go back to Kosovo?
MR. MCCLENNY: I’m happy to look into it if you’d like. It’s probably
really a Treasury matter, but I’m willing to look into it if you’d
like.
QUESTION: Here’s where my memory fails. I don’t recall that the State
Department has taken a position on an agenda for the negotiations the US
has been pushing for.
MR. MCCLENNY: No, I don’t believe we have taken a position -- certainly
not a public position -- on an agenda for --
QUESTION: I would ask you if you think independence for Kosovo ought to
be on the agenda.
MR. MCCLENNY: Well, it’s not something we’ve been pushing for. It would
appear not to be something that there’s any interest discussing in
Belgrade. This is something that remains to be worked out; it’s sort of
hypothetical. They’re not at the negotiating table just yet. We’re in the
so-called proximity talks. I don’t believe the issue has come up, but I’m
not absolutely certain.
QUESTION: But as a negotiating document, much like Israel and the PLO,
for example, or the Bosnians and the Serbians, whatever, isn’t is something
that fairly represents the position of one side or the other? You have to
put both their positions in the agenda. So wouldn’t it be inevitable that
that would liberate -- independence for Kosovo would be something that
would be on the table when they met, whether the other side agreed or
not?
MR. MCCLENNY: Whether it’s in the air, people thinking about it in the
backs of their minds or on the table, I don’t honestly know. I can
reiterate for you -- and I certainly wouldn’t want to preclude or in any
way try to be responsible for characterizing the as yet probably undefined
negotiating positions of these two very disparate groups of people. I
could say what our view on the subject is, but I can’t tell you what the
Serbs ultimately will agree to or what they think, nor what the Albanian
Kosovars think.
QUESTION: When do you think you might meet with them again?
MR. MCCLENNY: With whom?
QUESTION: The UCK.
MR. MCCLENNY: I don’t know; I don’t think there’s any particular set
agenda.
QUESTION: Are you having regular contact?
MR. MCCLENNY: One would hope that they would join the discussions on the
side of the other leaders, the Albanian Kosovar community, and that we
would have some contact with them in that form. That’s certainly our
hope.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. MCCLENNY: It’s more complicated than that. We want more. We want a
representation on the Albanian Kosovar side, which represents the full
breadth of Albanian view.
QUESTION: Won’t Rugova be the negotiator?
MR. MCCLENNY: Probably. Whether he’s given the title of negotiator or
whether he’s simply -- he’s clearly a father-like figure for many people in
that country.
QUESTION: If you got to some place like Dayton, you’ve got Milosevic and
Rugova.
MR. MCCLENNY: That’s very hypothetical, I’m sure.
QUESTION: Are you aware of Ambassador Gelbard traveling to the region at
all this week?
MR. MCCLENNY: No, I’m not aware of any travel plans in the next couple
of days. I’m not being dodgy there, but I did talk to some people about it
and I don’t recall anything for the next couple of days. But beyond that,
I’m not certain. Certainly he’s available if there were something.
QUESTION: And what level of representation will there be at the Contact
Group meeting on July 8?
MR. MCCLENNY: July 8 -- I don’t know that we’ve determined that yet. I
think it’s a a political director’s meeting, but I’m not absolutely
positive. It would be Gelbard or someone like that.
Have we exhausted everything? There’s one more.
QUESTION: Do you have any report or did you get any news items from
Turkey about the earthquake. I believe you have a consulate general in
Adana.
MR. MCCLENNY: In Adana, we do have a consulate general.
QUESTION: Any US citizens wounded?
MR. MCCLENNY: There were some US casualties, but they were of a very
relatively light nature. Let me see if I can find that for you. Our
information is that there was an earthquake centered in Adana; that it
measured about 6.3 on the Richter scale; struck southeast Turkey Saturday
at 4:56 p.m. local time. We are told by Turkish authorities that there are
an estimated 120 fatalities, half, reportedly, in Adana, 50 or so in Ceyhan,
and the others scattered around. Are you impressed with my pronunciation
of that name, which is not spelled anything like the way it’s pronounced?
QUESTION: Could you tell us the name of the Greek Defense Minister who’s
coming here next week?
MR. MCCLENNY: I’d mispronounce it, so I just -- no deaths or serious
injuries sustained to Americans at either the Adana consulate or Incirlik
air base. President Clinton has offered assistance to the Turkish
Government through our embassy officials. There’s been no official Turkish
response yet, but it’s a fairly recent offer.
QUESTION: Was any of the equipment, any of the aircraft --
MR. MCCLENNY: No, I don’t think there was any damage done. Incirlik Air
Force Base is providing all kinds of answers to anyone who asks. I did get
a little bit of detail -- 23 Americans were injured in some minor degree;
eight Air Force personnel; three dependents; one retiree; two AmCit private
contractors; and nine Turkish employees of the US Air Force in Turkey.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. MCCLENNY: My pleasure.
QUESTION: Tomorrow again?
MR. MCCLENNY: Probably not. I think nothing tomorrow, but I’ll be
around all day to answer questions.
QUESTION: How about Gelbard coming down here.
(The briefing concluded at 2:30 P.M.)
|
