U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #100, 98-08-21
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1050
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Friday, August 21, 1998
Briefer: James B. Foley
AFGHANISTAN / SUDAN: AIR STRIKES
1-2 Under Secretary Pickering's Statement on US Air Strikes
Against Terrorist Targets
2-5 Evaluation of Success of Operations / US is Bull's Eye for
Attacks / Tightening Security / Pakistani Claim of
Casualties in Pakistan / US Commitment to War on
Terrorism / Executive Order re US Policy on Assassination
/ International Reaction / Osama bin Laden Earlier
Attacks / Russian Reaction
VENEZUELA
5 Financial Situation
12 US Visa Denied to Hugo Chavez
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
5-6 Negotiating Efforts Continue / Secretary's Contacts
INDIA / PAKISTAN
6 Dep Secy Talbott's Upcoming Meetings & Meeting with Punjab
Official Sharif
AFGHANISTAN / SUDAN: AIRSTRIKES
7 Assessment
12-13 US Evidence to Launch Air Strikes
13 Sudan Govt Responsibility for Allowing Terrorists to Stay /
Bin Laden Links
EMBASSIES
7-8 Security Heightened / Increased Threats / Status of US
Embassy in Albania / Status of Embassies Elsewhere
AEGEAN
8 Amb Miller's Visit to Turkey
8 Pesence of 6th Fleet
15 1975 Document on Cyprus
TERRORISM
7-9 Osama bin Laden: Not Specific Target / Whereabouts /
Funding Organization /
13 Other Countries' Cut Funding
8 Obstructing Work of Terrorist Organizations
14 Distinction Between Political Views and Terrorism
15 Terrorist Camps in Philippines
16 Concern for Retaliatory Actions in US
AFGHANISTAN
9-12 Taliban Human Rights Record / Other Issues of Contention
With US / Sanctuary for Terrorists / US Contacts with
Taliban & Their Response / US Contacts With Other Groups
PAKISTAN
11 US Embassy Assistance to Private AmCits to Depart
JAPAN
11 Dep Secy Talbott's Meeting Today
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE
15-16 Decision on Hughes Application
OAS
16 Candidate for Secretary General
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #100
FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 1998, 12:00 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department. I am pleased to introduce
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Thomas Pickering, who will
have a brief statement and will take questions for ten minutes, fifteen at
the very tops because he has a meeting to go to on the US action yesterday,
the strikes against terrorist targets. I will then continue with the normal
State Department briefing; but I must signal to you that those of you who
are single-mindedly focused on our action yesterday might want to turn your
channels, because at 1:15 p.m. the National Security Advisor is briefing
at the White House again on this subject.
Ambassador Pickering.
UNDER SECRETARY PICKERING: Thank you, Jim, very much. The bombing of our
two embassies in Africa painfully reminded Americans that international
terrorism is a prevalent and pernicious threat to our national security. We
have fought this threat for many years and in many ways, including
diplomacy, the rule of law and serious actions such as we have taken
yesterday.
We have also had several successes -- some are published, some are not --
apprehending terrorists wherever possible and putting them on trial,
thwarting planned attacks and isolating state sponsors of terrorism. But as
the President said yesterday, there are times when law enforcement and
diplomatic tools are simply not enough.
Our strikes against terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan yesterday
represent an intensification in our battle against terror. They reflect our
determination to use whatever means we have to protect Americans and others
from the threat. The main purpose of the strikes was to prevent further
terrorist attacks against American targets, not a retaliation. However, as
Sandy Berger explained, we took this action yesterday because we had
information that a meeting of terrorists was to be held at the training
camp on that day. We also knew that more attacks were being planned.
During the past two weeks, the United States received numerous threats to
our citizens and facilities around the world -- some made furtively in
telephone calls, other trumpeted loudly in public statements. We could not
simply batten down the hatches and wait for the next attack to hit us. We
had to act decisively.
We do not expect that these strikes will, in themselves, end the threat;
but they are important because they clearly show that we are in this for
the long haul. There may be more such strikes. We will act unilaterally
when we must in order to protect our citizens. But we invite other nations
of the world to stand with us in this battle because all nations are
vulnerable to the threat of terrorism, as the history of this particular
event makes clear.
We call on the international community to renew its commitment to this
battle and to demonstrate that attacks like the recent embassy bombings
will not be tolerated. I know that we are all united in our resolve, and I
believe that we will prevail.
Thank you.
QUESTION: Are you in a position to evaluate the success of the attacks
yet?
UNDER SECRETARY PICKERING: I'm only, George, in a very preliminary
position. We have had some very preliminary information indicating that
there was moderate to heavy damage to each of the targets. Not all of the
target information is in; and I would really want to defer to my friends
over at the Pentagon to give you their official and careful and studied
reaction.
QUESTION: You said that the attacks yesterday were not meant to provoke
retaliation. However, wouldn't you say now that US embassies and facilities
abroad are now going to become the bull's eye for possible terrorist
attacks? And what can the US really do from preventing another fanatic from
throwing themselves in front of an embassy?
UNDER SECRETARY PICKERING: Well, first, when two embassies are blown up
and 250 people killed and thousands wounded, that is the bull's eye. We are
the bull's eye; We have been the bull's eye. Failure to take steps to deal
with this in all areas means, in fact, that we are opening ourselves up to
be a bigger target and a bigger bull's eye. Clearly, it is important for us
to act forcefully, when that is necessary, to deter future attacks
against Americans wherever they may be, whether they are in embassies
or travelers abroad.
The second point you have made is one that we have discussed and others
have discussed from this podium at great length over the past weeks. We
have, over the years, taken an enormous number of steps to tighten our
security, to build secure embassies, to hire more people to be specialists
in the security area, to purchase armored cars, to build barriers, to
increase set-backs. We are continuing to do that and, as you know, a
supplemental appropriation is being considered further to carry forward
these kinds of steps. The truth is, obviously, that in life there is no
perfect security; but it is incumbent upon the State Department and this
government, working with the Congress, to do everything it can to
provide the best we can for our employees and citizens who work in
and use our facilities abroad. That is what we intend to continue
to do, as we have over the years.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, have there been any complaints from Pakistan
directly? We have had somewhat confusing reports of some Pakistani
casualties. Do you know anything about that?
UNDER SECRETARY PICKERING: Yes, I understand that Pakistan at one point
approached us and said that they believed there were Pakistani casualties
in a village in Pakistan. Since then, I believe that they have retracted
that particular point.
There may have been Pakistani casualties. One of the terrorist organizations,
one of the organizations on our terrorist list, called The Harakat ul-Ansar,
I believe issued a press statement early today saying five of their people
were killed in a location near Khost in Afghanistan. We believe, in fact,
that the Pakistani retraction of their claim that these casualties may have
take place in a Pakistan village may well relate to this other claim
of people being killed. So I believe that there is no damage that I know of
up to this point inside Pakistan.
There clearly is, as I have said when I was asked the previous question,
damage to targets, a number of camps inside Afghanistan. There may well
have been members of a Pakistan terrorist organization on our terror list
that appears to operate in Kashmir among them.
QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, there are some who say that when President
Clinton and Secretary Albright said yesterday that they are declaring a war
against terrorism, that this is, in effect, a change in US policy; that the
United States is acting much more aggressively in comparison with the way
it has acted in recent years.
UNDER SECRETARY PICKERING: I believe, Andrea, that we have seen in recent
weeks the stepping up of really murderous attacks against Americans --
particularly official Americans -- in the course of this broad-scale murder
committed against the citizens of the countries where we are located. I
cannot but believe that this step-up in wanton destruction and killing
represents a step-up in a conflict launched against the United States, a
conflict that we have never sought; but a conflict that we will fight back
against and that what Secretary Albright and the President said yesterday,
represents an increased commitment of the United States. In that regard, we
have always been committed in the war on terrorism, but there are reasons
now why we must be increasingly committed.
I don't believe that's a change in the basic policy, but it is clearly a
very, very serious stepping-up of our commitment to deal with people who
would use terror -- that is wanton killing anywhere around the world -- to
attempt to achieve one or a number of political or other objectives.
QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, given your response to that question, do you
think it's time for us also to possibly change our law that says we can not
go after and assassinate certain people? I mean, are we now in such a
conflict that that policy should be changed?
UNDER SECRETARY PICKERING: I believe it's an Executive Order, in any
event, but I'm not a legal specialist so forgive me if I have made the
wrong approach. I believe that what we did in clear and careful daylight in
good conscience on the question of assassination is, in my view, correct.
It is our policy. Many have asked that it be reexamined. I am never against
a reexamination of policy, but I believe at the moment it serves our
national purpose as well. It distinguishes us from those who adopt
assassination and terror as a weapon, and I distinguish that from our
ability to use our military and other forces to protect our people
against imminent attack and in self-defense wherever we are. I think
those distinctions are clear. They are part, in fact, of the policy
and the way we have acted over recent days.
MR. FOLEY: He just has time, unfortunately -- the Under Secretary has a
meeting - for two quick questions.
QUESTION: There have been a number of groups of diplomats in the building
over the last few days, I think, from the Arab diplomatic corps and perhaps
today from the African diplomatic corps that have been meeting with
officials here. What are they telling you about the reaction on a
government level and also perhaps on the street level to the US actions?
UNDER SECRETARY PICKERING: I think on the whole, all around the world --
particularly the Secretary told me in her calls yesterday, she found wide
understanding and support for the efforts we had to take. After all, many
of the people she spoke with came from places that either recently or in
the recent past had themselves been victims of terrorism; unfortunately,
that's a wide net.
I think that it is important to continue, obviously, to build a sense of
solidarity and common commitment in this. Many have wondered about the Arab
world. Bin Ladin is an Arab; he has been very carefully deprived of his
Saudi citizenship. Nevertheless, if you look at the history of Bin Ladin,
you will find the preponderance of his attacks, the large number of his
attacks have been against Arabs and Muslims. In effect, they have a primary
reason to join us in the battle because perhaps they have suffered more
than others -- for example, his cooperation in the assassination attempt
against President Sadat [Mubarak], an attack on the Egyptian Embassy in
Pakistan, an attack on the Saudi National Guard training component which
included both Americans and Saudis, and so on. We go over a long list. An
attack on international peace-keepers or efforts to attack international
peace-keepers in Somalia, all represent actions that he apparently has
initiated or organizations that work for him have initiated.
QUESTION: One quick question. Given your call for international
solidarity against terrorism, how would you respond to --
UNDER SECRETARY PICKERING: I'm sorry, I want to correct it. I was
thinking Mubarak; I said Sadat. It is obviously Mubarak. I hope you will
correct the record.
QUESTION: On your call to the world to stand with the US against terror,
how would you respond to President Yeltsin's reaction to the US strikes?
UNDER SECRETARY PICKERING: Well, I think President Yeltsin's reaction,
which I haven't seen in writing but have only heard reported in the press,
needs to be looked at carefully. The Russians themselves, as we know, have
been victims of terror from all sides in recent years and have spoken out
against it and fought hard against it. We would hope that after President
Yeltsin has had a chance to look at all the details of this attack, which
obviously haven't reached him yet, he would take a different view. We
were quite encouraged by the view that I heard reported this morning
in the world press of his foreign ministry, which seemed to be at slight
variance with what he had to say and, I think, somewhat more deeply
concerned by terrorism and events in that region.
MR. FOLEY: Thank you very much.
All right, before you turn your dials we have about seven minutes but I
will keep going because, as you know better than I, it's been a number of
days since we've had an opportunity to brief on different subjects, which I
hope you are interested in equally.
QUESTION: The press is full this morning of what's going on in Venezuela -
- an economic crisis having aided Asiatic countries and Russia. Does the
United States propose to do anything about Venezuela?
MR. FOLEY: Well, to be perfectly honest, I am not aware that there has
been a major development in Venezuela over the last 24 hours. Certainly,
the United States is very deeply and actively engaged in trying to contain
the fallout of the Asian financial crisis. This is across the board,
because we've seen a contagion affect elsewhere. But that certainly applies
to South America and to Venezuela, in particular.
But insofar as your question relates to financial matters, I would have to
refer you to the Treasury Department.
QUESTION: Do you have anything today on the Middle East peace? There was
a wire story today that the Israelis have submitted a proposal to the
Palestinians that includes a 13 percent territorial turnover.
MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, we've never - and I would urge you to check
the record - I think we've been extremely consistent in not talking about
the behind-the-scenes details of our negotiating effort and, indeed, what
we know of Israeli and Palestinian negotiating efforts either with us, with
each other or all together.
I think it is obvious that the United States continues to believe that it
is yet possible to close the remaining gaps on the basis of American
proposals that will enable the transition to accelerated permanent status
negotiations. I'm not here today to signal optimism or pessimism; but it is
inherent in our current stance that we continue to believe that it's
possible to reach that agreement because we have not made a determination --
either private or public - that our efforts have reached the end of the
road and that we'll have to draw the necessary conclusions. On the contrary,
we remain in touch with both parties.
Secretary Albright spoke to both Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman
Arafat yesterday to inform them, among many other foreign leaders, about
the US military action. Without going into any details, they touched also
on the Middle East peace process. Our negotiators have been in touch with
both parties. I cannot give you any kind of detailed read-out of where we
stand, but we are continuing to urge both parties to make every effort to
close the final gaps. They are bridgeable, in our view, and they are
not too distant from each other on outstanding points. Often the final inch
is the hardest to cover in a negotiating effort like this.
Again, I'm not signaling optimism or pessimism, but continued determination
on the part of the United States to see this through to success.
QUESTION: This is related to yesterday's events. The Pakistanis are
expressing outrage over the bombings, and as I understand it, Strobe
Talbott and Rick Inderfurth are due to meet with the Pakistani Foreign
Minister on nuclear matters in London in a few days. I just want to make
sure that meeting was still on. I don't know - maybe a decision was made to
put it off until the situation calmed down a bit; because the Pakistani
reaction was very strident yesterday and today. Do you have any comment?
MR. FOLEY: On the contrary, the issues that the United States has to
discuss with both Pakistan and India are of paramount importance to the
ability of the entire world community to get a handle on the problem of the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These meetings - Deputy
Secretary Talbott is scheduled to meet with Mr. Singh - Mr. Jaswant Singh --
here in the Department on Monday, and to travel to London to meet with the
Pakistani Foreign Secretary, Mr. Shamshad Ahmad on Tuesday. These were
meetings that were scheduled at the time of Deputy Secretary Talbott's
visit to India and Pakistan around a month ago.
So we see no reason and we don't see any evidence that the Indians and
Pakistanis see any reason to postpone those meetings. We have important
national security issues to discuss and a range of bilateral issues to
discuss with them. These are critical meetings, and as we indicated at the
time of Deputy Secretary Talbott's meeting, we hope that in the interim
period between the meetings in the region and the meetings next week that
both India and Pakistan would consider and be prepared to make forward
steps in the direction of the international community's agenda for
diffusing the situation caused by the nuclear explosions in South Asia in
recent months. So those will continue.
It's also worth noting that the Deputy Secretary met yesterday here in the
Department with Mr. Shabhaz Sharif, who is the chief minister of Pakistan's
Punjab province, also the brother of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. They were
meeting to discuss a number of issues, including Pakistan's economic
difficulties and our continuing dialogue on nuclear non-proliferation.
I believe that President Clinton intended to be in contact today with Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif, and I believe when Mr. Berger begins his briefing, a
little over a minute from now, that he might be able to shed some light on
whether that conversation has taken place yet.
QUESTION: What can you say about the whereabouts or condition of Osama
Bin Ladin? And there are reports that a number of American Embassies have
been threatened or there's fear of more attacks. What are you doing in that
regard as well?
MR. FOLEY: Well, first of all, I think that the senior Administration
officials - Secretary of State Albright, National Security Advisor Berger,
General Shelton, Secretary Cohen - all made clear yesterday that in the
wake of the strikes that it would take some time to assess the real and on-
the-ground impact of those strikes. I don't believe that we're in a
position to describe that - at least I'm not from this podium. I believe
it's still premature today to shed much light on that; but again, I'd
refer you to Mr. Berger's forthcoming briefing.
The second part of your question?
QUESTION: Well, there was a report today that the US Embassy in Tirana
was - there was hard evidence that it was about to be targeted, and it was
preempted. Is there a concern that this may be repeated elsewhere; and if
so, what are you doing about Americans overseas?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, our diplomatic missions have been operating
at a heightened state of alert since the beginning of the situation we
faced following the terrorist attacks against our missions in Nairobi and
Dar Es Salaam. They certainly continue to operate at this level.
I could give you some kind of a run-down of the status of our embassy
operations around the world if you're interested. Certainly, I am not in a
position to talk about any specific threats that we receive on a day-to-day
basis. We've made clear that in the wake of the bombings, there has been a
significant up-tick in threats to our installations around the world. Some
of this is, if you will, normal in the wake of terrorist incidents, but
some of it was tantamount to credible information we have been receiving
of direct and explicit threats to our installations. We have take
precautionary measures as appropriate around the world.
In terms of the situation in Tirana, I would have to get that for you in a
minute.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- the earlier question regarding the whereabouts
of Bin Ladin, are you saying that you don't know because you haven't
assessed the situation there? You don't know where he is?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think the senior Administration officials made clear
yesterday that that gentleman was not a specific target of the attacks
launched yesterday. The target was the terrorist infrastructure and the
camps that he runs and controls in Afghanistan.
We had no specific information that I am aware of concerning his whereabouts.
This operation cannot be - its success cannot be measured on the basis of
that gentleman's particular fate. We believe we have sent a powerful
message that the United States cannot have its embassies bombed with
impunity, and that there is a price to pay for conducting terrorist
operations against US facilities and US personnel. That message will have,
we believe, a long-term effect; and we stand prepared, as was indicated
yesterday, to act in the future as appropriate in the face of similar
threats and terrorist actions.
In terms of your question about the status of our embassy in Albania, we
temporarily suspended public operations last week, you will recall, at our
embassy in Tirana because of recent declaration by Islamic extremists
against the United States and its citizens, and because of the possibility
that the US embassies facilities in Tirana, Albania, could be among the
targets of a terrorist attack.
As Mr. Berger noted yesterday, we had specific information about specific
threats. I can't, of course, discuss any details of those specific threats.
But around the world, you are aware, that we closed our embassy in Kinshasa
within the last ten days, I believe. That was in response to a deteriorating
security situation there. We moved to what we call ordered departure in
Pakistan - again, in response to specific threats; although our embassy and
consulates remain open in that country. As we have briefed you, I think,
ever since the bombings, our embassies have made tactical adjustments from
one day to the next in response to either threats or in order to reassess
the security needs of the embassy. In some cases we have had reduced staff
or reduced hours; and in many of those cases, we were back up and operating
on a full-time basis around the world. So that changes every day in
connection with specific assessments of threats and dangers
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- on a grand tour by Thomas Miller to Turkey,
since he gave up on the moratorium issue, due to the Turkish rejection?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have any information that I can share with you
concerning Mr. Miller's visit to Turkey. It was a series of private
diplomatic conversations, and I don't have a read-out of his meetings. I
think the characterization that appeared in some press quarters about the
results of this visit were erroneous. But I don't have a specific read-out
for you.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - The Washington Post last Sunday that the 6th
Fleet will intervene in volatile areas as Albania and Cyprus preparing for
intervention in hoping the presence of US cruisers and destroyers will be
sufficient to deter - (inaudible). We basically tell these people that we
are watching you and we will know who is responsible for starting any
conflict. It can have a very certain effect, just to have the U.S. standing
on by the scene as a neutral - (inaudible) - to prevent a situation
from spinning out of control. He also said in the Aegean, Turkey and Greece
are fighting over the sovereignty of several islands, including Cyprus. Do
these statements represent the US policy vis-a-vis to Cyprus and the
Aegean?
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen those comments; I'd refer you to the Pentagon.
QUESTION: Jim, do you have anything on reports that the US is seeking to
cut off funds that Bin Ladin - investments that he may have in this
country? And are we encouraging other countries to also cut off investments
that may exist in their country?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have specific information about your question.
But as you know, within the last year Secretary of State Albright made a
series of specific determinations, identification of terrorist organizations.
Those determinations by Secretary Albright enables federal authorities to
do a number of things to hamper and obstruct the work of terrorist
organizations here in the United States, notably in the area of financial
efforts to obtain funding for terrorist organizations.
So insofar as Bin Ladin is a known terrorist, supporter of terrorism,
financier of terrorism, certainly any activities that his organization is
conducting, however indirectly, in the United States would be a matter of
high priority scrutiny by federal authorities.
QUESTION: But this would also be investments that he might have - part
ownership of a bank, of a company of - I mean, I'm not saying that they
exist, but there are also those kinds of investments rather than the fund-
raising kind.
MR. FOLEY: I'm afraid that's not an area of expertise that certainly I
have. I would have to refer you to law enforcement. It's obviously a
complicated issue insofar as financial transactions can be hidden and
obscured and operate in indirect ways. I would refer you to the Justice
Department.
QUESTION: Could I ask you, though - part of my question was whether this
building is asking other countries to also seek to cut off funds that may
be existent of his in their country.
MR. FOLEY: We maintain very vigorous cooperation with like-minded
governments around the world on the terrorism issue. Secretary Albright, I
think, has stated very forcefully in the last 24 hours that a new era, in
effect, is upon us; and that on the one hand it's imperative that the
American people understand and prepare themselves for facing this kind of a
threat into the 21st century for as long as it's necessary to face the
threat. But it also requires that government agencies, in cooperation with
foreign governments, work together to stand down and defeat this menace.
The terrorists themselves tend to be multinational. They have networks that
span nations and span the globe. So democratic governments who support the
rule of law need to cooperate likewise.
QUESTION: The Administration has been engaged in efforts for some time to
try to persuade the Taliban to restrain Bin Ladin. Ambassador Richardson
said he raised this when he was there in, I think, April. What is
yesterday's action going to do to this? Will it make such cooperation more
or less likely, if indeed there ever was any such cooperation or any
prospect of it?
MR. FOLEY: That's very hard to judge. Certainly, the Taliban has a very
sorry human rights record. I think Secretary Albright termed it abominable
in some respects - especially their treatment of women. We have a number of
areas of profound disagreement with them on the issues also of narcotics
and, obviously, of terrorism. Frankly, we've not seen any evidence of a
willingness on their side to deal with the problem of terrorists who find
refuge - and not only refuge, but a sanctuary for the infrastructure
of terrorism -- on their territory.
It is true, as you point out, that Ambassador Richardson was there in April
and placed this issue squarely on the agenda. The Taliban, I believe, would
like to be considered in a better light by the international community.
Secretary Albright stated very clearly in Africa on Tuesday that they have
zero chance of entering the world community of civilized nations unless
they do improve their human rights record and unless they do cease to
harbor terrorists.
We also have firm views on the nature of the political conflict and the
civil conflict in Afghanistan. We believe very strongly that the only route
to stability and good governance in Afghanistan is via the creation of a
broad-based government. As you know, we support UN efforts in this
regard.
QUESTION: Have you raised this issue with the Taliban since Richardson's
visit?
MR. FOLEY: I could say that we've raised it with them in a very public
way. In both Dar Es Salaam and in Nairobi, Secretary Albright, in response
to questions, stated very clearly that if the Taliban wanted to begin the
process of international acceptance - and again, I'm not referring to the
political set-up, but merely to their aspirations to be viewed differently -
then they had to cease harboring terrorists. We obviously saw no positive
response to that.
QUESTION: No, I'm aware of that; but have there been any contacts
privately with Taliban --
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of such.
QUESTION: But it happens sometimes, though, right?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we in the past have had diplomatic visitors who traveled
to Afghanistan, to Kabul, and were able to communicate from time to time
with authorities there. So I can't rule out that there haven't been
contacts of that nature since April. Obviously, Ambassador Richardson's
visit was a high-profile visit.
QUESTION: One more question. Can you help us - can you tell us anything
about what the Taliban's response has been when this issue has been
raised?
MR. FOLEY: As I understand it, their response was essentially - I'm
talking about the April visit of Ambassador Richardson - was essentially
non-committal. I believe in a press conference following the visit, the US
officials who participated in the visit indicated that the Afghans spoke
about their traditions of hospitality that were important to them, but that
the tolerance of terrorist activities were outside the bounds of those
traditions.
Our officials pointed out to them that our information indicated that
indeed those traditions were being violated, and that it behooved them to
look into the matter and ensure that terrorists were no longer able to
operate from their territory.
As I said, essentially, though, it was a non-committal response which had
no apparent follow-up either.
QUESTION: They didn't deny that there were terrorists there?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that they made a specific denial, but I think it
was implied in their response.
QUESTION: Have you talked to the Taliban since the attacks yesterday?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that. We certainly don't have any US
Government personnel able to talk to them in Afghanistan today.
QUESTION: No, but there is a representative in New York.
MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, the United States participates under the UN
aegis of talks - I believe it's a six-nation group in New York that meets
periodically to discuss the UN's efforts to promote broad-based dialogue
and information of a broad-based government. I'm not aware that group has
met in recent days.
QUESTION: Is the US Embassy in Pakistan making any additional efforts now,
since the attack, to help private Americans in Pakistan leave or are things
basically just that you issued your warning and do what you want?
MR. FOLEY: Well, whenever the United States urges Americans to avoid
travel or to consider departing a country, we try to ensure by every way
possible that message is carried to American citizens in any country to
help facilitate departures as well. As you know, we facilitated the
departure of a large number of American dependents and official personnel
from Pakistan, as well, as I mentioned, from Kinshasa in the Democratic
Republic of Congo, and from Albania in recent weeks.
QUESTION: Private Americans - are you also facilitating their departure?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, I believe that has been an ongoing matter ever since we
issued that caution.
QUESTION: Do you have any comments or could you give any details of
Deputy Secretary Talbott's meeting with the Japanese Deputy Foreign
Minister Tamba?
MR. FOLEY: I understand that the reason that Under Secretary Pickering
could not linger longer here was, indeed, to meet with the Deputy Foreign
Minister of Japan. I haven't spoken to Deputy Secretary Talbott, so I don't
have a read-out yet. Perhaps we'll be in a position to shed some light on
their meeting following the meeting or on Monday.
QUESTION: Has the United States been nurturing a relationship with the
anti-Taliban forces? Did they give any response yesterday to the bombing in
Afghanistan?
MR. FOLEY: Well, the United States does not support any faction in
Afghanistan as the government of Afghanistan. As I stated somewhat ad
nauseam, we believe there needs to be a broad-based government that
encompasses all relevant factions and groups within Afghanistan. That,
indeed, is the only route to stability and a better life for the impoverished
and beleaguered people of Afghanistan.
I'm not aware that we've been in direct contact with other Afghan groups
since yesterday's strikes. As you know and as I mentioned, we don't have
diplomatic personnel in Afghanistan. So I'm not certainly aware of any
contacts. It's only been 24 hours since the strikes, in any event.
QUESTION: I'd like to ask another question about Venezuela. Commander
Hugo Chavez, who's getting an ever-greater lead in the presidential polls
down there, has been denied a visa by the United States. He's been making
some friendly comments of late. I just wondered whether there's any change
in attitude about that.
MR. FOLEY: No, that was in the news three or four days ago. We did look
into that question, and I have an answer for you. I'll be glad to get it
for you after the briefing.
QUESTION: On the missile attack in Sudan, what proof do you have that
plant actually was manufacturing precursors to the VX nerve gas? What proof
do you have that the plant was financially connected to Bin Ladin?
MR. FOLEY: Well, that's something that I cannot answer from this podium
because it involves intelligence matters, and we never comment publicly on
intelligence matters. I think you can be certain that if the United States
acted as it did in this instance, that we had very convincing evidence both
of the nature of the terrorist infrastructure, camps, meetings that were
taking place in Afghanistan, and also the nature of that so-called
pharmaceutical plant. To the extent possible, we will be sharing information
with interested governments.
The United States would not take such a significant step lightly; we very
carefully weighed the evidence. As you know, there is legitimate frustration
on the part of people around the world, including the American people, at
the fact that it often takes a very long time to get to the bottom of
terrorist attacks, and that the chain of evidence, as Mr. Berger said
yesterday, can sometimes lead in different and even conflicting directions.
There was a case this year, I believe, of a rendering to justice of
a terrorist involved in the bombing of an airliner in the Pacific that took
place - an attempted bombing - that took place in 1982. That was 16 years
of painstaking effort, investigative and diplomatic, in order to achieve
that result.
When we were confronted with intelligence information that was convincing
to us, that pointed first to Mr. Bin Ladin's involvement in the horrendous
attacks in our embassies in Dar Es Salaam and in Nairobi, when we were
confronted with convincing evidence that further attacks were planned - and
I might add parenthetically that while we have intelligence information to
this effect, the whole world has the public proclamations of Bin Ladin and
his organization both taking responsibilities for the bombings and
threatening imminent new attacks - we had no choice but to act.
And of course, the facilities in Sudan were something that we've had under
scrutiny for some time. They were connected with Bin Ladin. We believe very
strongly that it was his intention to acquire chemical weapons capability,
and we felt it was imperative to act in this case.
QUESTION: There was an impression, I think, a couple of years ago that
Sudan was actually cooperating in the fight against terrorists - especially
following its cooperation with French authorities in turning up Carlos and
also in the sudden movement of Bin Ladin from the country. Was that a false
impression?
MR. FOLEY: Well, it's premature to speculate on whether the government of
Sudan itself had any link with the bombings that took place in East Africa,
certainly, until our investigation is completed. So we're not making that
accusation. However, we believe that the government of Sudan bears much of
the responsibility for allowing known terrorist organizations to operate on
its territory.
We have on numerous occasions urged Khartoum to cease its support for
terrorists and their activities, and this to no avail. We reiterated that
message in a meeting between Assistant Secretary Rice and the Charge
d'Affaires of Sudan here in the Department yesterday.
It is true, as you state, that the government of Sudan asked Bin Ladin to
leave in 1996. But facts are fact, and it's a fact that Bin Ladin continues
to maintain an extensive network inside Sudan, including links, as I said,
to the targeted chemical weapons facility.
QUESTION: Another question about Bin Ladin. You've mentioned that he's a
known terrorist, a known supporter of terrorism and that there's convincing
evidence that he was involved in the attacks on the US Embassies. But
you're not saying that he was a target yesterday in the US military
strikes; why not?
MR. FOLEY: I think Ambassador Pickering responded to a question earlier
about an Executive Order that governs United States activities in this
regard, which we respect. We do not target individuals. Individuals may
find themselves unlucky in a given circumstance, but I can assure you
categorically, as General Shelton and Secretary Cohen stated yesterday,
that individuals as such were not targeted. That one in particular, we, to
my knowledge, did not have specific information about that gentleman's
whereabouts either.
We were targeting one of the biggest, most important terrorist camps in the
world. We knew where it was; we knew what operated there. We also had
information indicating there was going to be a meeting of a significant
number of terrorists also. We wouldn't shed any tears for terrorists who
would be victims of any such response. I think it's vital to understand and
to underline the fact that there is a fundamental difference between
sponsoring terrorism and fighting terrorism. It's the difference between
lawless and lawful behavior; and you cannot in any way compare the
deliberate and evil determination on the part of terrorists to target
innocent civilians not only in our embassies in East Africa, but given the
magnitude of the explosion, the civilians - the African civilians - in
surrounding buildings. You cannot compare that in any way; it doesn't
belong in the same universe with lawful defensive action to fight
terrorism.
QUESTION: Secretary Cohen did say yesterday that Bin Ladin had declared
war, by his actions, on the United States, and indicated that could make
him a target not for assassination but for a response.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think Secretary Albright would have no quarrel with
what Secretary Cohen said. She has stated very forthrightly in the last 24
hours that we are facing a new kind of threat; that we have crossed a
certain threshold; and that, in some sense, this is a picture of the kinds
of realities that we're going to have to deal with moving into the next
century.
I think she also, though, underscores another important point that's very
important for the American people to understand, which is that the United
States is strong. We are targeted because we are strong and because of what
we stand for in terms of the rule of law and democratic values. We have all
the capability and certainly the will in the world to persevere and to
prevail in this struggle. It's not a struggle that we have chosen. The war
reference is one that was initially made by the terrorists themselves,
who declared war on the United States - both officials and civilians,
without distinction.
I can tell you one thing - that the United States, as it proved yesterday,
is not going to stand around and do nothing when faced with acts of war, if
you will, that follow up upon declarations of war. We will act, when we
have convincing evidence, to respond to such attacks
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - the strike -- declare war against fanatical Islam
- (inaudible) --
MR. FOLEY: No, I think we made very clear, first of all, that the United
States, which is a country of many religions, including many millions of
devout Muslims, is a country which has immense respect for the holy
religion of Islam around the world. We think it is particularly cynical
that terrorists who are murderers would try to cloak themselves in the name
of religion. But we draw a distinction, though, very much - in answer to
your specific question - between what you called, your word not mine,
"extremists" and terrorists.
One can hold any range of political views. Certainly, the United States
would be the first country in the world, given our traditions of political
tolerance and freedom of thought and expression, to acknowledge the right
of peoples all over the world to hold their views. Where the distinction
comes is with terrorists who try to legitimize and justify their actions on
the basis of religion, on the basis of politics. You can't justify murder
of innocent civilians in the name of religion or politics.
QUESTION: What about the Muslim fundamentalists - (inaudible) - by the
President in his message?
MR. FOLEY: As I said, I would draw a distinction between words, thoughts
on the one hand, and actions. What we acted against yesterday was terrorist
action.
QUESTION: On Cyprus --
MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry, I have to move on to someone else.
QUESTION: Yes, on Cyprus, regarding the 1975 document on Cyprus, saying
that the Turkish forces must remain on the island and the - (inaudible) -
that should be established, I was told by the Department of State source on
condition of anonymity that the so-called document does not exist, it's
fabricated and, obviously, it was planted in the Greek paper Vema. Even the
White House characterized this as alleged. Could you please take a position,
for the record, to clarify this?
MR. FOLEY: I have no information on an alleged document from 1975, as I
indicated to you, I think it was a week or so ago that the question was
first raised.
QUESTION: You said the strikes were against terrorist operations,
specifically in Afghanistan because there was going to be a congregation of
terrorists there. There have been reports that Bin Ladin has terrorist
camps in the Philippines. Why wasn't that struck?
MR. FOLEY: As I think was very clearly indicated yesterday, we had
information indicating the possible imminence of an attack sponsored by Bin
Ladin. Our action yesterday was designed in part to disrupt his terrorist
capabilities. We have cooperative relations with friendly governments
around the world. That is not the case in Afghanistan, where they don't
even have a government that we recognize. The authorities, such as they are,
are unwilling to exercise their responsibilities to crack down on
terrorists who are using their national territory as sanctuary.
In the case of the Philippines and other countries - friendly, democratic
countries - we have excellent cooperation on a range of issues, including
counter-terrorism. I can't respond specifically because I'm not aware of
that report of camps there. But we do know that Bin Ladin has been involved
supporting terrorists in the Philippines and, indeed, in many other
countries around the world. I can tick off a number of names, if you wish.
But that doesn't ipso facto mean that where he's active, governments
are not working to combat him.
QUESTION: On another subject, Jim, has the United States made any
decision regarding Hughes Electronics and its bid for a license to go ahead
with a --
MR. FOLEY: I didn't hear --
QUESTION: Hughes Electronic -- has the US made a decision on an
application by Hughes Electronic to go ahead with a new telecommunications
satellite deal with China?
MR. FOLEY: I have to take the question and look into it. I believe we had
something on that about a week ago. But I have to beg your indulgence; in
light of the bombings of two weeks ago and events of the last 24 hours,
we've sort of - my book here is at least half devoted to those events. I
believe we have something on that from last week that I could get for you
after the briefing.
QUESTION: Are you just as concerned about the threat of terrorist
retaliation domestically as you are about it overseas at this point?
MR. FOLEY: Absolutely. That's not to say that we see a particular threat
domestically, but we take all threats seriously. And certainly in the wake
of the decisive action that the United States took yesterday, it's
something that law enforcement, in cooperation with relevant federal
agencies, needs to keep under the highest watch.
I think Mr. Berger indicated yesterday that the FBI will be - and I'm sure
by now has been - in touch with local law enforcement to apprise them of
the need for whatever precautionary measures might apply. It's not a
Department of State responsibility as such domestically, but I understand
the FBI is fully seized with it.
QUESTION: Are additional attacks possible?
MR. FOLEY: Well, if they were I would be the last person in the world to
answer that question, I can assure you. I believe that Secretary Albright
and others yesterday made clear in her comments to the American people that
we had to steel ourselves for the longer run - impossible to say for how
long. We're confident that we're going to win this battle because we
prevailed against lesser opponents throughout this century.
But she, I believe, specifically indicated that we cannot rule out the
possibility of retaliatory action. I think some people have asked questions
-- and I think legitimate questions - whether we believe that our decisive
action might trigger retaliatory action, as if to question our action in
the first place. I think Under Secretary Pickering made very clear that in
our view, the worst kind of signal that you could send to terrorists was
not to respond, especially on the basis of the evidence that we had.
In any event, we had information that they were planning further attacks
regardless of whether we responded.
The fact that we responded so decisively is a categorical demonstration
that terrorists have no sanctuary, and that we will go after them as
necessary and that we won't be intimidated. I can't signal what might or
might not happen; but certainly we hope that to some degree, the operations
yesterday succeeded in disrupting their capabilities. In answer to an
earlier question, I indicated that it's still too early to be able to
assess the actual impact of the strikes. But we certainly remain prepared
to respond in the future; absolutely.
One more question.
QUESTION: On a different topic, related to the Organization of American
States, the Colombian Government yesterday nominated Caesar Gaviria to run
for a second term of Secretary General of the OAS. Is the US satisfied,
pleased with Mr. Gaviria work for the last four years at the OAS; and would
the US support that candidacy?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we've worked very productively with him, with Mr.
Gaviria in his capacity as Secretary General of the OAS. It certainly would
be very premature, however, to speculate on our part about the succession
at the OAS.
My understanding is that there are no officially declared candidates for
the post at this time, and that there are unlikely to be officially
declared candidates until several months before the election, which will
take place at the OAS General Assembly next June - June of 1999. So as I
said, we regard it as really premature to take a position at this
time.
Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:55 P.M.)
|
