U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #135, 98-12-09
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
912
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, December 9, 1998
Briefer: James B. Foley
IRAQ
1 Difficulties UNSCOM Encountered with Inspections / Butler's
Announcement onInspections / Violations by Iraq
2 Awaiting Chairman Butler's Assessment / Issue of Military
Force
2-3 Resolutions / President's Remarks on Force / Authorization
for Use of Force / Berger's Remarks at Stanford on Iraq
3 US Policy on Keeping Troops in the Gulf / Sanctions /
Turning Point in Attitudes in Neighboring States of
Hussein / GCC Statement / Issue of Use of Force
4-5 Support for Opposition Groups / Albright's Communication
with Other Senior-Level Government Officials / Remarks by
Secretary General Annan
5-6 Suggests of Need for Further Security Council Authorization
Before Using Force / Comprehensive Review / Criteria of
What Butler May Report
CHILE
6 Jack Straw's Decision on Extradition / Legal Proceedings of
the UK / Judicial Reviews / Albright's Remarks on the
Declassifying of Documents
7 Request From Spanish Judge of Documents / Spanish Judge's
Request to Interview Michael Townley-Principles of
Accountability, Rule of Law, and Pursuant of Justice /
Respect for Chile's Democracy
8 When Will U.S. Take a Position on the Extradition / Issue
of Setting Precedents / Appeals / Reviewing and
Declassifying Documents
9 Moffitt & Letelier's Case and Relatives Calls for Justice /
FBI Still Pursuing Case
CANADA
9 Faulder's Execution Case / Albright's Request to Bush for
30-Day Reprieve / Bush's Limited Authority on Clemency
10 Bush's Decision to Decline the Reprieve / No Further
Appeals from Secretary Albright / ExactlyWhat Secretary
Asked for in Letter / No Release of Letter / When Did
Governor Respond to Secretary
PARAGUAY
10 Lino Oviedo
MEPP
10-11 Hunger Strikes and Riots Due to the Issue of Palestinian
Prisoner Releases
11 Anwar Mohammed (American Citizen) Allegedly Tortured by
Israelis / Consular Access
11-12 Issue of Violence and the Wye Agreement / Dennis Ross'
Whereabouts / Wye Accord Doesn't Mention Release of
Prisoners / Issue of Side Agreements / Issue of Types of
Prisoners
EGYPT
12 Release of Hafez Abu Se'da and Human Rights / How and When
Did U.S. Speak to Egyptian Government
LEBANON
13 Accusations that the U.S. Was Behind the Forced Resignation
of Prime Minister Hariri
CYPRUS
13 Ambassador Miller & Richard Holbrooke's Trip to Cyprus
NATO
13-14 Ocalan Case / Issue of Terrorism and NATO
RUSSIA
14 Alleged Reliability Test of a Nuclear Weapon / Issue of
Movement of START II Ratification / Albright's
Announcement That She Will Travel to Moscow / START II
and START III
BOSNIA
14-15 Reports of American Soldiers Detained / U.S. Says Soldiers
Were Not "Detained"
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #135 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1998, 1:35 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department. I don't have any announcements
for you today, so I'd be happy to turn to George Gedda for the first
question.
QUESTION: Any comment on the experiences of UNSCOM in Iraq today?
MR. FOLEY: Yes. Of course we've just received reports that you equally
have seen in the press about difficulties UNSCOM has encountered this
morning in Iraq. As we, the United States Government, have repeatedly made
clear, we expect Iraq to cooperate fully with UNSCOM; and that, indeed, is
what they said they would do.
UNSCOM inspectors must be able to do their work unfettered. UNSCOM Chairman
Richard Butler has announced that UNSCOM is undertaking a series of
inspections to test Iraqi cooperation. UNSCOM has a variety of activities
underway, and we expect Iraqi cooperation across the full spectrum - from
documents to inspections to interviews with relevant officials and whatever
else UNSCOM feels it needs in order to pursue and complete its mandate.
We will want to hear from Chairman Butler about the results of these
activities and his assessment of Iraqi cooperation. At that point, as we've
indicated earlier in this week, we will make a judgment.
QUESTION: Are you saying that today's intended raid on - I guess it was
the -- (inaudible) -- party headquarters was intended only as a test of
cooperation, or was there evidence - do you have evidence that something
incriminating might be there?
MR. FOLEY: You'd have to ask UNSCOM that question. I think they're the
relevant authority; they're the ones pursuing the inspections. They can, if
they so wish, address what it was specifically they were looking for. But
we presume that UNSCOM indeed knows what it's doing, knows what it's
looking for, and that its activities are wholly legitimate inside
Iraq.
QUESTION: Jim, how serious does the Administration see this violation?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as I've indicated, we're going to await Chairman
Butler's assessment before we arrive at our own conclusions, along with the
other members of the Security Council. He as well as the IAEA are going to
report to the Security Council on the status of Iraqi cooperation.
Certainly any incident, whether it involves the lack of cooperation on the
provision of documents, whether it involves lack of cooperation on
providing access to sites does not bode well for Iraqi compliance with
Iraqi obligations under the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. We're
withholding judgment, clearly, until we officially receive Chairman
Butler's report. Such problems and such blockages as we have seen from Iraq
- both in recent times and over the years - certainly doesn't bode well for
Iraqi hopes to receive favorable treatment in the Security Council. I don't
want to get ahead of what assessment Chairman Butler's going to make;
I'm just giving you sort of a preliminary reaction to events as they
unfold.
QUESTION: Can you say whether you think this opens the door wider for a
military resolution to this problem?
MR. FOLEY: We've made clear - and I refer to you previous remarks of the
President - that if Iraq does not comply with its obligations and if UNSCOM,
indeed, is unable to do its job, the United States has the forces in the
region necessary to respond. I can't be more specific than that for obvious
reasons.
QUESTION: Is it still your point of view that the United States needs no
further authorization from the Security Council?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, I think we've made that crystal clear.
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to Jack Straw's announcement in
England?
MR. FOLEY: I think we're still on Iraq.
QUESTION: I wanted, if you can, to get into the inspection problems today
in Lake's - excuse me - Sandy Berger's speech last night at Stanford. I
trust you've seen that - a fairly comprehensive statement on our policy
towards Iraq, apparently some changes in it as far as our opinion about how
sustainable it is, economically, on our part; whether the US is willing to
sustain it as it is, and whether the allies will support it in an ongoing
way. Can you comment on the current policy now towards keeping troops
in the Gulf, towards weapons inspections, whether that's going to
go away, maintaining the sanctions --
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think it's not appropriate for me here in the State
Department to comment at length on the National Security Adviser's speech,
and I'd refer you to the White House for follow up questions on his speech.
Broadly speaking, I think it's fair to say that his speech did not, in any
way, indicate any lessening of US vigilance vis-a-vis Iraq, of US support
for UNSCOM, and our belief that sanctions need to be and will be continued
on Iraq for so long as Iraq has not met the terms of the relevant Security
Council resolutions and complied fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA.
I think it's a truism, though, that as time goes on there is an evident
danger of a slacking of international support. I'm not talking about US
vigilance, but of international support for continuing with the robust
sanctions regime. I think any observer in 1991 would have been hard pressed
to predict that we would have been able to maintain broad international
support for our policy of containing Iraq and maintaining sanctions over
the seven-year period that ensued. In fact, I think this is testament to
the ability and the force and the credibility of American diplomacy
- that we've, through thick and thin, through ups and downs, have been able
to maintain international consensus on our Iraq policy, as was evidenced in
the latest crisis with Iraq in November, when Saddam Hussein found himself
totally isolated internationally.
But I think, though, if you go back to the President's remarks at the time
when the President announced that we were not going to be pursuing military
action in view of Saddam Hussein's turn-around and resumption of cooperation
with UNSCOM, the President discussed, I think, openly for the first time,
our interest in seeing a post-Saddam Iraq and working with the Iraqi
opposition. So the National Security Advisor's speech has to be seen in
that line. I don't see that it broke new ground.
But I think we discovered in that crisis in November - and this continues
to be the case today - that there had been a kind of turning point in
Middle Eastern attitudes towards Saddam Hussein; a growing realization that
his attempts to blame the United States for the problems of his country
really were no longer credible. I'm talking about the opinion in neighboring
states that he bore responsibility for the suffering of his people; he bore
responsibility for this constant recurrence of crises between Iraq and the
international community. Indeed, we saw that in the GCC statement, which
assigned responsibility to Saddam Hussein for any consequences that
would ensue from his failure to cooperate with the international community.
So we saw that kind of changing, shifting attitudes that indeed the plight
of the Iraqi people was the responsibility of Saddam Hussein. We see
growing conviction throughout the region that a post-Saddam Iraq would be
in the interest certainly of the people of Iraq but also of the peoples of
the region. National Security Advisor Berger spoke, I think, to some of
those shifting attitudes. So I can restate for you what he said yesterday
about our support for the Iraqi opposition, but you've heard it many times;
I don't see I need to go over it once again.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - and may be reading to much into it, but he seemed
to be saying that - and this would be the first time you all have said this
- that the United States would be willing to use force to - pick a word -
unseat, help replace, whatever word you'd like to use, Saddam Hussein.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'd really want to have the text before me. I read the
section you mentioned, but I think it was a little more nuanced than that.
The word "force" was used, but I really rather have that before me. Again,
I refer you to the White House for the explicit commentary on what he
said.
But he talked about -- I think you're getting at the fact that he talked
about a couple of stages: one, we're working with them and helping them to
unite and to agree on a common platform and a common strategy for producing
change inside Iraq; and that we'll be willing to help them down the road as
they grow in unity and grow in cohesiveness and grow in effectiveness. I
wouldn't want to specify further. I'd refer you to the White House.
QUESTION: I'm sorry, but is the policy - policy is policy, whether it's
you or Joe Lockhart or the President. Is the policy to use - over time - to
use force to help the opposition?
MR. FOLEY: Well, that's not something that I'm in a position to lay out,
specifically, in a public forum. We have received authority from the
Congress - draw-down authority - to provide military equipment to the Iraqi
opposition if we're able to identify groups deserving of the aid that meet
certain criteria, and we intend to do so. Congress gave us 90 days, I
believe, to go through this process. We intend to abide by the congressional
mandate. To complete that process, I believe we're looking towards
some time in, perhaps, mid-January to have completed that process.
QUESTION: That's a far cry from using force.
MR. FOLEY: Well, if you're asking me to lay out in specificity something
that, frankly, is too sensitive to talk about in a public forum, I'm not
going to do it.
QUESTION: A follow up to Sid's question in the last bit, Jim, can you
tell us whether any of that draw-down authority has been exercised, either
on the military equipment side or on the other side? I don't know what you
call it - the political - getting groups, meeting with people.
MR. FOLEY: I don't believe so. We're currently engaged in identifying
those groups, which meet the Iraq Liberation Act's criteria for support. We
will present our findings to Congress, as I said, within the specified time
frame.
QUESTION: Jim, can you tell us if Albright has had conversations today
with Shelton and the President and Cohen about the situation in Iraq?
MR. FOLEY: I can't speak to her telephone activities today. I think her
spokesman is traveling with her, and is perhaps addressing this as she
travels -- she's currently in France -- but I'm not privy to that.
QUESTION: Two things, Jim, you said the United States doesn't believe
that it needs any further action by the Security Council in order to take
military action if it deems it necessary. Apparently, if I read the copy
right, Iraq has seen some remarks by the Secretary General that they're
interpreting in a different way. I'm curious of your assessment of what he
has said. And the other thing was, you said -
MR. FOLEY: I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific, because I truly
don't know what you're referring to.
QUESTION: I believe it was a speech by the Secretary General. Annan was
suggesting that there would need to be further action by the Security
Council before there would be military strike on Iraq.
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of what he said, but the United States' view
that I state today is certainly not new and is not news to anyone that we
believe - and we've said it all along - that there is sufficient authority
to act and that we are prepared to act. We don't believe there's need for
further Security Council debate or authorization. We made that clear. The
Security Council itself is on record in resolutions going back to earlier
this year - is on record warning Iraq of the severest consequences
in the event of a failure to comply with its obligations.
QUESTION: And just one other thing - you said earlier that once you
talked to Butler that you will make a judgment. Can you be just a little
bit clearer on what you're talking about - a judgment on what? Is this a
judgment on whether Iraq is cooperating; a judgment as to whether to begin
the use of military force? Can you clarify it?
MR. FOLEY: As you know, Security Council Resolution 1194 envisages the
possibility of a comprehensive review of Iraqi compliance and of sanctions.
It's part of that resolution that a comprehensive review will be considered
by the Security Council in the event that UNSCOM and the IAEA report to the
Security Council that Iraq has resumed full cooperation. That's the report
we await.
QUESTION: Can you tell us how quickly you expect to get the details from
UNSCOM of what happened today so that you can make this judgment? Is it
something that will happen within hours or does it require a meeting of the
Security Council or what?
MR. FOLEY: I think there's a misimpression I need to correct on this
score. There were inspections today. There appears to have been some kind
of an incident involving one inspection. I would expect -- I believe
Chairman Butler reports regularly - I'm not sure if it's weekly or bi-
weekly - on the status of inspections. I expect he will report on the most
recent inspections and perhaps on this incident. But that's a separate item
from the report that he and the head of the IAEA will give the Security
Council on across-the-board compliance, or lack thereof, that will
enable the Security Council to judge whether or not to go forward
with the comprehensive review.
QUESTION: Yes, but presumably you're interested in the first report that
he --
MR. FOLEY: But when you asked a question about our judgment --maybe it
was you or a colleague - our judgment on going forward with the comprehensive
review will be based on those reports.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - on whether this incident today amounts to a
violation of the agreement which Iraq made back last month?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we'll await Chairman Butler's report on that. I can't
tell you specifically when he's going to report.
QUESTION: So are you referring to the final report, then, Jim, or to sort
of the interim?
MR. FOLEY: You'll have to ask your fellow questioner. I'm referring to
both, in effect. Certainly if he reports on sort of an interim basis on a
given set of inspections or an incident, we'll study that report; and if we
have something to say, we will. But we're also expecting Chairman Butler
and the IAEA to report on the overall level of compliance.
Insofar as that is concerned as I indicated, that involves - I think
President Clinton spoke about many different areas - five different areas
of benchmarks he described. But certainly as far as UNSCOM is concerned,
we're talking about access to documents; we're talking about access to
sites for inspections; we're talking about interviews with officials. In
other words, there's a panoply of criteria upon which Chairman Butler is
going to report to the Security Council.
QUESTION: What's your response to the Jack Straw decision on the
extradition process --
MR. FOLEY: Well, first of all - and this is important - we have not
received or, indeed, reviewed the text of the home secretary's decision. We
understand from press reports that he ruled that the crimes were extraditable,
that the extradition request was properly authenticated, and that there
were not sufficient compassionate circumstances to deny authority to
proceed with consideration of Spain's extradition requests.
Now, under British law, this matter may be subject to further judicial
review, and we certainly respect the British legal process.
As our statements have made clear, the United States values both the
principles of accountability and justice, as well as those of democracy and
the rule of law in Chile.
QUESTION: Do you think this decision could be accelerated in some way the
declassification of documents by the United States?
MR. FOLEY: I think it's important to understand that in effect this
decision is in many senses merely the start of what's going to be a
continuing legal process on this issue in the United Kingdom. I'd refer you
to UK authorities, who might be able to tell you just how long this
possibly could be drawn out. But my understanding is there are many stages
to come.
As I said, the home secretary's decision is subject to judicial review. In
any event, the case is now going to be going to the courts for extradition
proceedings. There are multiple rights of appeal at every stage of the
extradition process. At the end of that process, if he's found extraditeable,
the home secretary would have a final decision as whether to actually send
him to Spain or not. That decision by the home secretary also is subject,
potentially, to judicial review.
So this is a potentially lengthy process that has only begun, in effect,
today. It doesn't, to answer your question specifically, therefore,
influence directly the speed at which we're able to proceed with our review
of documents in this area. Let me just reiterate what Secretary Albright
said recently - that the State Department will continue declassifying and
making available documents in this area; and we will do so as rapidly as
possible as part of an Administration-wide coordinated effort. That effort
is underway, although we do not yet know how long it is going to take.
QUESTION: Last week you said that the Spanish judge hasn't requested any
documents. Has he requested any documents - have you received a new call
requesting more documents from him?
MR. FOLEY: The Spanish judge requested documents in the past and we have
furnished those. I'm not aware that there's been a new request.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - December 4 via Interpol on the Foreign Affairs
Ministry has submitted you all a request for further information about --
MR. FOLEY: Well, that's news to me, and I'll look into it for you to see
if I have any information for you. But we will treat that as seriously as
we've treated previous requests from the Spanish judicial authorities.
In the meantime, we are beginning to proceed with our own review of
documents with a view toward seeing which documents we'll be able to
release in the interest of shedding light on the human rights abuses that
occurred in Chile.
QUESTION: The Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon apparently reported that he's
also requested to interview Michael Townley, former agent of the Dina. Is
that something that the State Department would be open to?
MR. FOLEY: I didn't hear - who is he?
QUESTION: Michael Townley -- he was a former agent of the secret police
under Pinochet. He reportedly has requested an interview with him as well.
Is that something you --
MR. FOLEY: I have no information on that.
QUESTION: I don't understand the statement that you made that the United
States values justice - I'm paraphrasing - the United States values justice
and as well as democracy and the rule of law. Are you saying that there's a
possible contradiction between those values - justice and democracy?
MR. FOLEY: No, I think Spokesman Rubin has addressed this issue at length
in the last few weeks. We believe there are different - and not necessarily
conflicting - principles at stake in this whole case. They involve the
principle of accountability and the rule of law and the pursuit of justice,
and they involve respect for the Chilean political process, which produced
a transition from authoritarian rule - a rule characterized by serious
human rights abuses -- to democracy. We respect all of those principles,
and we respect Chile's decisions in this area.
QUESTION: When do you think the US is going to be willing to take a
position on the extradition - when in this process?
MR. FOLEY: Well, first of all, I indicated, we have not seen the
decision; we have not studied the decision. I'm not aware of official
reactions yet from the governments of Chile or commentary from the
governments of the United Kingdom and Spain. So certainly it's very
premature for the United States to comment at length.
As I said, this is just the start of a continuing legal process that could
take some time; and really nothing, in effect, in terms of the making of
law, making of international law, potentially has been decided at this
stage. So it's really not relevant for the United States to comment at this
stage on the case.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - no precedent has been set in terms of international
law. Are you saying that because of the appeals process?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Okay, so you're not saying that this decision in and of itself
doesn't set a precedent?
MR. FOLEY: I'm saying that the question of whether under the Spanish
extradition request, Mr. Pinochet is extradited by the United Kingdom to
Spain, is not a settled matter. This is going to be a lengthy process as I
understand it.
QUESTION: And what would be your concerns - or should I say, what
precedent is it you would be concerned about being set in this case?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not in a position to comment on the possible implications
of the case when, as I indicated, we're not at a point yet where anything
definitively has been decided.
QUESTION: I'm confused now. You said the State Department will continue
declassifying and making available documents - how does this square with
the back-track last week on releasing documents and just reviewing them
rather than releasing them? Will you release them, or will you just review
them, or are you --
MR. FOLEY: Well, the Spokesman certainly drew a distinction between
conducting the review and making the declassification decision; but by past
practice, we certainly have done both. We have reviewed documents and we've
declassified and released them. I don't want to predict -- and he was
careful, therefore, to draw the distinction what the specific decisions may
be. We're talking about potentially thousands and perhaps many more
documents. So, it's just hypothetical at this point. Our record is such
that we have reviewed and we have declassified and we have released
documents in this area previously, and we're hoping to be able to do so
again in furtherance of the Secretary's commitment.
QUESTION: How seriously are you taking the request that the American
citizens -- members of these families - people were killed - Americans
killed in Chile, asking the United States Government to initiate a judicial
process, I guess, against Pinochet?
MR. FOLEY: Well, you're talking about a particular case - the Letelier
and Moffitt case. We sympathize with the pain and anguish of the victims
relatives, who were on Capitol Hill this week. While the Pinochet case
raises many complex issues, the Administration has taken steps to play a
constructive role, as I've indicated, in terms of our commitment, to review
documents with a view towards declassifying and releasing them.
With respect to the Letelier and Moffitt murders in Washington, we believe
that, as a violent, criminal act on US soil against victims that include US
citizens, that that bombing merits special attention by the United States.
The FBI and the Department of Justice have pursued this case vigorously
over many years to bring to justice those responsible. We support those
efforts fully.
We note that several people have been convicted in connection with that
murder, including two Chilean intelligence officers, who are currently
serving sentences in Chile. We have made clear for years our condemnation
of human rights abuses by the Pinochet regime, both within and outside
Chile. We understand that the Letelier-Moffitt investigation is open. We
fully support efforts that may be made by the Justice Department to pursue
the case further. We would be supportive of any decision by the Justice
Department, as I said, with respect to further investigation and, if
appropriate, prosecution. I would refer you, however, to the Justice
Department for further comments on this ongoing investigation.
QUESTION: On another international judicial matter, whereas the one we've
just been talking about apparently has some ways to go, the one in Texas -
the case of Mr. Faulder -- is apparently nearing an end. Today the clemency
board voted to reject the appeal. I wonder if the State Department has any
news or any update on the position taken in the request of Secretary
Albright to Governor Bush. Has there been any further correspondence, or
can you give us an update?
MR. FOLEY: Yes. As has been reported in the press, Secretary Albright
asked Governor Bush to give serious consideration to the Canadian Foreign
Minister's request for a 30-day reprieve to ensure that the board -- and
the board is the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles - to ensure that the
board has adequate time to consider the issues.
Faulder is seeking commutation of a sentence to life imprisonment. The
Canadian Government has supported the petition, and was concerned that the
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles would not have sufficient time to
consider it.
Now, it's our understanding that Governor Bush has limited authority with
respect to clemency, but he does have the ability to grant a 30-day
reprieve if he thinks that the board needs additional time. Now, in the
event Governor Bush has declined, in this case, to grant the reprieve
because he believes the board has had sufficient time to consider the
case.
QUESTION: Will there be any further appeals by the Secretary?
MR. FOLEY: No, no; I think there's been some misunderstanding. In the
press it's been reported that the Secretary asked the Governor for a 30-day
reprieve. But what she did was ask that he ensure that the board had enough
time to consider the complex issues in the case. She, in this light, asked
the Governor to consider granting a 30-day reprieve if he felt, as I said
before, that the board needed extra time.
The Governor has assured us that the board has had ample time to consider
the issues at stake in this case, and we defer to his judgment. We have no
reason to think that the board did not give adequate and serious consideration
to Mr. Faulder's case.
QUESTION: Are you going to release the Secretary's letter?
MR. FOLEY: We don't normally release her private correspondence.
QUESTION: When did the Governor respond to you? How did he respond?
MR. FOLEY: He wrote to the Secretary.
QUESTION: When did he do - when was that letter received?
MR. FOLEY: I believe it was within the last few days; I don't have the
exact date. If we can get that, I will but --
QUESTION: Okay, what was the time difference between her letter and his
letter?
MR. FOLEY: Oh, I believe it was a matter of perhaps five or six
days.
QUESTION: On Paraguay, what is the US position in the case of Paraguay's
former army chief and coup leader? Should he go back to prison, as the
country's supreme court has directed? The President is refusing.
MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the issue that you raise.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. FOLEY: What is the name of the gentleman?
QUESTION: Lino Oviedo. You don't have anything on that?
MR. FOLEY: No, I don't. I'll check to see, if you want to come up
afterwards.
QUESTION: Could I ask a related humanitarian - in fact, a double one on
prisoners. Sheik Yassin has gone on hunger strike now in the Palestinian
area, while there are hundreds if not a large majority of the 3,800
Palestinian prisoners inside Israel in hunger strike. There are difficult
riots on the West Bank, which the Department of State knows is related to
the release of prisoners -- criminals versus political prisoners in
Israel. Is the Department at all considering trying to dampen this
issue down before the arrival of the President? That's the first question.
The second question has to do with an American citizen prisoner, Anwar
Muhammed, from Miami, who was arrested five days after the Wye River
Conference was signed. He was tortured for 30 days and was finally released
without any charges being filed on Monday. Is the Department inquiring
about Anwar Muhammed's ability to leave Israel and come back to the United
States? I understand one organization is asking the President to pick him
up and bring him back, similar to the Pollard request. Does the Department
have any comment on that?
MR. FOLEY: Well, it's interesting, you raise the case of an American
citizen arrested overseas because, indeed, in relation to the previous
question about the Canadian in Texas, that highlights the fact that we
attach utmost importance to consular access, and we believe that's a
principle that ought to be respected in this country and that we expect
other governments to respect around the world. We've undertaken significant
outreach efforts to the American states - the 50 states - and law
enforcement community throughout the country to apprise them of American
obligations to provide consular access. So I can give you some of those
details, if you're interested, in a later round of questioning.
But certainly in this case, I would have to assume that our consulate in
Jerusalem has had access to this American citizen. I'm not familiar with
the case.
QUESTION: Only after 30 days of torture, which has been confirmed.
MR. FOLEY: Because I'm not familiar with the case, I'd be happy to look
into it after the briefing.
QUESTION: Would you take the question?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
In terms of your larger question, we have spoken previously about the issue
of prisoner releases within the framework of the Wye Memorandum. The Wye
Memorandum is the governing document in this area, and I don't need to
restate our view on this. We believe, whether it's involving prisoner
releases or all the other elements of the Wye agreement, that the agreement
needs to be respected and implemented by both sides, according to the time
table.
We've made clear that our view is that the Israelis have done in the first
stage what they said they would do at Wye. So we're not going to revisit
that issue or reopen that issue. We recognize that the Palestinians have
serious concerns about the issue of prisoner release. There are channels of
communication; there are channels of discussion that were established by
Wye. We urge the Palestinians to use those channels to raise their concerns
with the Israelis.
Our view on violence is that there is no place for violence in the Middle
East; there's no place for violence between the Israelis and Palestinians.
The two sides have agreed to a process of settling their differences, of
achieving a permanent peace and a solution to the problems that divide
them; and that's at the negotiating table. There is no hope for achieving
anything but backward steps on the streets. So we urge all sides to
exercise restraint; to realize that negotiations offer a legitimate pathway
to peace, to reconciliation, and to the satisfaction of aspirations.
That has been proven recently at Wye, which was a significant step
forward. We now are in the phase of the beginning of accelerated permanent
status negotiations.
That's why it's all the more important to continue implementing Wye as
envisaged. Ambassador Ross has been out there. I believe he's returning
tonight. Aaron Miller is remaining behind to help the parties continue to
deal with the issues that arise concerning Wye implementation. But the only
avenue to success is, indeed, implementation.
QUESTION: I have another question about Middle East human rights. Are you
familiar with the case -
QUESTION: One more on Wye -- does the Wye Accord - well, the Wye Accord --
at least the part you've chosen to release - doesn't say anything about
prisoners. That's a point of fact. The side agreements - can you say what
the side agreements say about the type of prisoners that are to be
released? When you say that -- when the US says Israel has met its
obligations up until now, do you mean that they have met the obligations to
release 250 prisoners, or they've met their obligations on what types
of prisoners to release?
MR. FOLEY: I wasn't at Wye. I've not seen all of the documents you're
referring to, but I had been reliably informed that the Israelis have done
what they said they would do at Wye. My understanding is that covers both
the numbers and the types.
QUESTION: Another questions about - human rights question in the Middle
East. Are you familiar with a group called the Egyptian Organization for
Human Rights, which has-and one of its principle officers has been jailed
by the Egyptian Government on charges of slander, contact with foreigners
and other charges. Are you familiar with that case?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, I am; however, there's been a development, apparently. We
welcome the decision by the Egyptian government to release Hafez Abu Se'da,
head of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights. We urge the government
to close the file on charges against this respected organization, which
reported on police brutality in the village of al Kush and to improve
the regulatory environment for all NGOs so that they can do their
work without harassment.
QUESTION: How and when did you ask the Egyptian Government to respect
these organizations' ability to carry out their -
MR. FOLEY: Well, we're in constant contact with the Egyptian Government
through diplomatic channels.
QUESTION: Can I try one more about the Middle East? In Lebanon, there's
been a lot of ink spilled in newspapers about how the United States was
behind what's called the force resignation of Prime Minister Hariri and the
change of government to Prime Minister Hoss. Has the United States taken
any view on these changes within the Lebanese Government?
MR. FOLEY: None whatsoever. To quote secretary Albright, who's used the
un-diplomatic term "hogwash" in other contexts -- let me repeat it in this
context. We categorically reject any suggestion that the United States
played a role in the recent governmental changes in Lebanon. Such reports
are false and without basis. Political decision, such as the choice of
a new prime minister, are an internal issues for the Lebanese people
to decide themselves. The United States is committed to working with the
institutions of Lebanon as institutions and with those who are heading
them.
Cyprus?
QUESTION: Yes, Ambassador Miller and next week, I believe, Mr. Holbrooke
is going to go to Cyprus. What's the purpose of this visit other than to -
do they have any connection with the Russian S-300 missile subject?
MR. FOLEY: Special Cyprus Coordinator Tom Miller will visit Cyprus on
December 10 and 11 as part of a general trip to the region. While in Cyprus,
Ambassador Miller will consult with US Ambassador Brill and with the Deputy
Special Representative, the UN Secretary General Dame Ann Hercus. Mr.
Miller's consultations with Dame Ann underscore the strong US support for
the Hercus shuttle talks and the United States' continuing close coordination
with the United Nations in its efforts to achieve a reduction of tensions
on Cyprus and progress towards a lasting settlement.
Following his discussions in Cyprus, Ambassador Miller will join Special
Presidential Emissary Richard Holbrooke in Istanbul on December 12 and 13,
where they will participate in the meeting of the Bi-Communal Brussels
Business Group. The two of them will then travel to Athens December 14 to
meet with senior Greek officials. Ambassador Holbrooke will return to the
US December 15; Ambassador Miller will return on December 16.
QUESTION: Another subject - yesterday NATO, the ministerial meeting in
the final communique, they promised to fight the terrorism. Do you think
they have any understanding about this terrorist, Ocalan's, case in the
NATO meeting?
MR. FOLEY: I hesitate to comment on the NATO ministerial. I wasn't there;
Spokesman Rubin was with the Secretary, and they're now in France. I
haven't spoken to them directly. I've seen the press reports on the
reporting. But one of the press reports was a text of Secretary Albright's
press statement and question and answer session with journalists, following
the NAC meetings yesterday.
She was asked the question of terrorism. As I recall from the transcript,
she indicated that this is a constant theme; it's something that the
Alliance has agreed to discuss and work on, but that it didn't come up in
the context of discussions yesterday.
QUESTION: Tuesday, Russia carried out a reliability test of a nuclear
weapon. They're calling it a mock nuclear explosion because they're saying
it didn't release radioactive substances. Do you have anything on this; and
do you have anything further if there's been any movement with START
talks?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have any information for you and certainly any comment
on the reported test. I just have nothing for you on that.
In terms of the status of START II ratification, the draft bill of
ratification is currently being reviewed by the heads of the various Duma
factions. They are scheduled to report back to the Duma council next
week.
The government and Duma leadership hope to have a vote on ratification
before the end of the year.
QUESTION: On that point - if you could just clarify a comment - the
Secretary said today that she's going to be going to - that she'd like to
go to Moscow in January, and she'd like to begin negotiations on START III.
It was a little unclear whether she would go to Russia if START II had not
been ratified. Can you clarify that at all?
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen the text of what she said. I just couldn't
comment on it. I'm aware she said something about a possible trip to
Moscow. I can't tell you whether it's something that is scheduled or
not.
I mean, certainly the US looks forward to the ratification of START II so
that we can begin negotiations on START III.
QUESTION: Did you see the report of some American soldiers who were
briefly detained in Bosnia by Serb forces in the last few days?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, I've seen that report. The United States considers force
protection and the security of its soldiers as the highest priority mission
in Bosnia. The US SFOR officer and his assistant were conducting a meeting
with senior Republika Srpska military officials in accordance with their
normal duties at the time of the arrest of General Krstic on December 2.
When their meeting concluded, the American military personnel were
only delayed in their departure for a short period and not detained, as was
reported. The delay was because the Bosnian-Serb general in charge wanted
to ensure that the safety and security of the US soldiers was adequate.
The Bosnian-Serb general in charge acted properly, and his actions were
reasonable under the circumstances. The American soldiers were not
threatened by the RS military and were not treated improperly.
US SFOR officials in Bosnia have followed up in Bosnia on this situation
with the appropriate Republika Srpska civilian and military authorities to
ensure that no threatening activities or untoward actions are taken against
any US or other SFOR personnel as a result of General Krstic arrest.
The US would like to reiterate that SFOR's actions to apprehend persons
indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
are meant for those persons only, and are not directed against any ethnic
community or government in Bosnia or in the region. They are directed only
at bringing indicted war criminals to justice. All Dayton signatories have
an obligation to cooperate with the ICTY in this essential effort.
Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:20 P.M.)
|
