U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #141, 98-12-21
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
953
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, December 21, 1998
Briefer: James B. Foley
CHINA
1 US Deplores the Sentencing of Human Rights Activists/US
Recognizes Some
1 Improvement in Human Rights/Lack of Due Process
2 Human Rights Have Been a Constant Source of Friction
Between US and China
IRAQ
2-3 Reports of Troop Movement/No Fly Zone
3 Issue of Bringing Down Sadaam Hussein/Plight of the Iraqi
People
3 US Believes Sadaam Hussein Has Been Weakened/Deposing of
Sadaam Hussein
3-4 US Continues to Support UNSCOM
4 Condition for Lifting Sanctions and the Role of UNSCOM
4 Degrade Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction -vs- Saddaam
Hussein
4 Long Range Goal to Work With Opposition Forces
4-5 Pickering's Meeting with Security Council
5 Next Steps of Security Council/Security Council to Maintain
Pressure/Arab Support
5 Iraq's Failure to Cooperate with UNSCOM
6 Criticism of US Air Strikes Against Iraq
6 Renewed Threats to American Citizens/Osama bin
Laden/WorldWide Public Announcement
6,7-8 Protests Around the World/Syria Demonstrations/US Holds
Syria Responsible/Embassy Security
8 Issue of Future Military Strikes/Conditions that Would
Bring About Military Strikes
9 Would US Use Force if UNSCOM Not Allowed Back/How Will US
Know if UNSCOM is Not on the Ground/Damage to Targets
10 International Consensus Issue/Back Lash Against the
Military Operation/US Comfortable with Level of
Support/Few Opposed the Actions/US Tried Diplomacy but it
Failed
10 Reports of a Russian Proposal to Set up a Strategic
Triangle with India and China
11 Reports that Missile Hit a Rice Factory
12 Authorization for the Use of Force/Resolution 678
12 Economic Sanctions and Absence of UNSCOM/Conditions for
Lifting Sanctions
12-13 Is US Concerned with Russia Making Unilateral Decisions re
Trade
EMBASSY STATUS
10-11 Status of Embassies in Africa
11 Embassy Alerts/Embassies Reopening
DEPARTMENT
11 Holbrooke's Nomination to UN
12 Secretary of State on Leave/Contacts with Foreign
Officials/Talbott's Contacts
IRAN
11 Stray Missile
PAKISTAN
11-12 Pakistan has Condemned Attacks in Iraq
GERMANY
13,15 Extradition of Suspect in E. Africa Bombings
MEPP
13-14 Position of US on Wye Implementation
LIBYA
14-15 10-Year Anniversary of Bombing of Pan Am 103/Scottish Trial
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #141
MONDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1998, 1:30 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department. I don't have any announcements.
QUESTION: The Chinese have handed down long prison sentences to pro-
democracy activists; and I was wondering if you had any comment?
MR. FOLEY: Yes. The United States deeply deplores the sentencing of
prominent Chinese human rights activists Xu Wenli, Wang Youcai, and Qin
Yongmin to 13 years, 11 years and 13 years respectively, allegedly for
subversion and threatening state security. We call upon the Chinese
Government to release all three.
These three men appear to have been involved in nothing more than efforts
to form a new political party, which is, after all, a form of peaceful
political expression. We are deeply disturbed by the long sentences imposed
and the lack of due process. China's obligations under the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the obligations it will assume when it
ratifies the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which
it's already signed, require it to protect peaceful political expression
and association.
The United States considers its relationship with China important to global
and regional peace and stability and to other important American interests.
We will, however, continue to speak out about serious human rights abuses
of this kind and continue to make the strengthening of human rights in
China a key element of our policy.
QUESTION: You talk about the absence of due process. Do you have anything
in particular they want to refer to?
MR. FOLEY: I believe that concerns were raised about a lack of adequate
legal representation in connection with the trials.
QUESTION: Has the US protested this or entered an objection before
this?
MR. FOLEY: Well, of course, this is a public statement on behalf of the
United States Government, so this is a formal and public position. We're
also going to be conveying these views to Chinese officials through
diplomatic channels both here and in Beijing.
QUESTION: And have you done so in the past?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, certainly; we've done so on a regular basis.
QUESTION: So, in effect, they ignored your previous protestations.
MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know Jim, the issue of human rights has been a
constant source of friction in our bilateral relationship. As encouraging
as President Clinton's trip to China was this past summer in terms of
signifying our engagement with China on a broad front and also shedding, I
think, a world spotlight on some of the dramatic and positive changes that
are occurring in China. The fact of the matter is that we have disagreed on
this issue, and this disagreement was open and clear to the world during
President Clinton's joint press conference with President Jiang in
China. We disagree and the President - again, as much as he emphasized
how much potential the relationship had, indeed how far the relationship
had traveled, nevertheless noted that there were always going to be limits
in terms of the qualitative improvement of the relationship, as long as we
felt that China was not engaged in the direction that most of the world is
going in these days in terms of the rule of law and further democratization.
QUESTION: Does the Administration feel that this latest action in the
courtroom in China is a step backwards from President Clinton's trip in
June?
MR. FOLEY: We had noted that over the course of the last year or so there
had been improvements in the human rights situation in China - modest
improvements. We regard these latest trials, the latest arrests not just of
these three persons, but there have been other arrests also, as steps
backward in relationship to what had been an improved human rights
performance over the last year or two.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. FOLEY: What's your question?
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction that they are getting a hard time from
the Chinese Government?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think I'd want to refer you to the US Trade Representative
for a specific comment on that. As you know, there are issues involved with
China's accession to the WTO which continue to be addressed that have to do
principally with the issue of market access and trade liberalization.
QUESTION: Can I ask you, on another subject - Iraq - we've been getting
reports that there's some apparently large troop movements of Iraqi troops
in the southern part of Iran. Is it still - does the US Government know
anything about such movements?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have any up-to-date information on that. I know,
because I saw Prime Minister Blair was asked that question about a couple
of hours ago in a television interview and he, too, declined to comment,
not knowing the current details of that.
Obviously, we're watching the situation in Iraq very closely. I don't have
any up-to-date information, though, on what may or may not be happening in
Southern Iraq. Of course, we will continue to enforce the no-fly zone and
the no-drive zones in that area.
QUESTION: The US is not interested in toppling or bringing down Saddam
Hussein, because what he's saying really is that US presidents will come
and go but I will be here.
MR. FOLEY: Certainly, the issue of Saddam Hussein's future is one that's
important not only to the United States, but to the region, the Middle East
region and, above all, to the people of Iraq. What we believe is that there
really has been a sea change in attitudes throughout the Middle East region
about Saddam Hussein. I think there has been a growing realization that the
plight of the Iraqi people, which everyone bemoans, which everyone
wishes were better, can be laid entirely at Saddam Hussein's doorstep.
I think there's an increasing consciousness and realization that he is the
one who is responsible for the suffering of his people because of his
repeated failure to abide by the commitments he undertook at the end of the
Gulf War. He's put his people through the situation where they've been
subjected to sanctions, where they've been subjected to periodic military
action. So we believe that the future will see an Iraq that is not governed
by Saddam Hussein and that future will draw closer as this realization
grows and grows - that he alone is responsible for what's going on
inside his country.
We have never said, and of course we made clear in terms of this latest
military action, that deposing him was not an object of the action. But we
believe that he has been weakened, and we believe that it's only a matter
of time until he does depart power. But we've also said that this is not
something that's going to happen overnight. It's going to require support
for the opposition forces working outside of Iraq; and that's what we're
endeavoring to provide, and have been doing for the last few months on an
accelerated basis.
But I think we've also made clear that ultimately the forces for change
will have to emerge from inside Iraq. This is not an effort that will be
the United States' effort imposed from the outside. We're willing to assist
groups. But change is going to have to come from inside Iraq. This
consciousness that I spoke of in the region, there's reason to believe, is
growing inside Iraq as well. The people are really fed up with him and they
know that a better future for Iraq, a better future for the people of Iraq
lies in an Iraq governed by democratic forces and not by Saddam Hussein.
QUESTION: If Saddam does not allow UNSCOM back in - and he said that he
won't - what is the United States prepared to do to force him to allow
UNSCOM back in? Is the United States prepared to use military force in
order to bring about UNSCOM's re-entry into Iraq?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we have made clear that we continue to support UNSCOM.
We believe that an UNSCOM that is able to work effectively is the best
possible means to monitor Iraq's weapons programs. We would welcome
UNSCOM's return to Iraq, but we want to see affirmative, concrete
demonstration from Saddam Hussein that he's prepared to cooperate fully
with UNSCOM. Now, of course, we're seeing the opposite - a declaration on
the part of Iraqi leaders, including Mr. Tariq Aziz today, that UNSCOM
cannot return.
It's yet another example of the Iraqi penchant for inflicting damage on
themselves; because the Security Council resolutions are crystal-clear.
Iraq wants sanctions lifted; Tariq Aziz made that clear again today. If
Iraq is ever going to see the prospect of sanctions lifting, Security
Council resolutions stipulate that UNSCOM has to give them a clean bill of
health. UNSCOM cannot do that unless they are there on the ground, working
effectively and without hindrance. So yet again I think the Iraqis are
damaging their own case.
QUESTION: You've said that deposing Saddam Hussein was not the object of
the military campaign that's just ended. I seem to recall the Secretary of
State in here saying that the long-range goal was to degrade the political
situation of Saddam Hussein.
MR. FOLEY: I don't see the contradiction. When we talked about this 70-
hour military campaign, we made clear that the objectives were to degrade
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and related delivery systems and
Iraq's ability to threaten its neighbors. The object was not to depose
Saddam Hussein. Obviously, that cannot be accomplished in an air campaign
of that nature.
If the campaign succeeded in damaging infrastructure, military assets that
are important to him and therefore undermined the strength of his rule, if
it sent a powerful signal to forces inside Iraq that his days are numbered
and that a better future lies in an Iraq without Saddam Hussein, so much to
the better. That was not the object of this campaign.
What Secretary Albright said the other day is that it is a long-range goal
of the United States to work with opposition forces inside and outside Iraq
to help promote and hasten the day when Iraqis are given a democratic
alternative to Saddam Hussein.
QUESTION: This question of the inspection regime seems to be coming up in
discussion in the Security Council today and I'm told that Mr. Pickering is
in New York. Can you tell us what he's doing there, what you're telling the
other members of the Council? And also, how do you react to Chirac's
reference to the need for a new organization with new methods?
MR. FOLEY: Well, at this stage I think it's not clear what the French
have in mind. We'll be certainly consulting with them and discussing any
ideas they may have. Our view is as I stated, which is that number one,
Security Council resolutions require that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
programs be disclosed and eliminated. Secondly, UNSCOM and the IAEA are the
vehicle established by the UN Security Council for ensuring the destruction,
removal or rendering harmless of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
programs. Iraq is required to cooperate with them.
In terms of Ambassador Pickering, he was in New York. I believe he's
returned now. He was there this morning for consultations, I believe, with
our mission and I do believe he met with Secretary General Annan, but I
don't have a read out of that meeting. In terms of what's going on in the
Security Council today, the Security Council is discussing events in Iraq,
stressing the need to get the humanitarian program back up to full speed.
The Council is in full agreement on the central issue, which is that Iraq
must meet all of its obligations under the resolutions.
Over the past year, the Council has unanimously passed a series of
important resolutions in the face of irresponsible actions by the
government of Iraq. We will be working with our partners in the Council to
maintain that consensus on the Iraq issue. We expect the Council to
continue to be a focus of concerted international action to maintain
pressure on the Iraqi regime for compliance to support UNSCOM and the IAEA
in their vital work under the Council's mandate and to ensure, as I said
earlier, that the basic humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people are being
met.
QUESTION: You said a couple of minutes ago that there's been a sea change
in attitudes. Are you talking about in the Arab world?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, in the Arab world.
QUESTION: And can you document that? Can you cite statements?
MR. FOLEY: Well, it's largely anecdotal, but I think for a time there was
some sense of sympathy with and solidarity with Saddam Hussein, perhaps, in
the middle 90s, as this situation dragged on. We saw beginning earlier this
year -- especially in November and it continued into this month - as I said,
anecdotally through media, through contacts in the Middle East, a
feeling on the part of many people that they were simply fed up with
Saddam Hussein's game of cheat and retreat, his cat and mouse actions
with the Security Council.
It became crystal clear that he wanted to keep hold of his weapons of mass
destruction, that he was cynically using the plight of his people to try to
manipulate pubic opinion in his region and throughout the world behind an
effort to get sanctions lifted without disarming. We believe increasingly
people are seeing through this rhetoric and seeing that he has it in his
power to put Iraq back among the family of nations; that if he were willing
to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf War - a war which
he started by invading a neighbor - that if he simply fulfilled the
promises that he made in terms of disarming, of getting rid of his weapons
of mass destruction, then the sanctions could eventually be lifted and Iraq
could rejoin its place in the international community.
We believe that - everyone recognizes that he, alone, stands in the way of
Iraq's rejoining the international community.
QUESTION: What seems to, at least militarily, have been a outstanding
success by the United States and Britain has been panned critically - the
US has been ridiculed by a number of Middle East newspapers. This operation
also has been panned by the Russians, and also by some in Israel who say
that they'll no longer be inspectors there. They're concerned about
that.
Can you speak to any of the -- basically what they're saying is Clinton
used the pretext, the excuse, of Iraq to initiate the four days of
bombardment and that it was not a war; it was simply - there was no
military conflict, no two-way conflict there - so it was just a pounding.
MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure that you have a question.
QUESTION: My question is can you respond to the criticisms of the
President of the United States through these newspaper articles?
MR. FOLEY: Which question, Bill? Why don't you - I'll come back to you if
you formulate a specific question.
QUESTION: In connection with a US attack on Iraq, many Islamic organizations
in the Middle East, including bin Laden, have another call attacking US
authorities and Americans in and outside the US. Any comment?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have anything specific to address. Especially
since August, following the bombings of our embassies in Dar-Es-Salaam and
Nairobi, we've been extraordinarily vigilant. And, of course, from time to
time we've shared information with you, involving threats and involving
changes in the posture of our embassies around the world because we have
received a marked increase in the number of threats to our installations
since August.
I have nothing specific to report; but certainly in connection with our
military action last week against Iraq, we issued a worldwide public
announcement or caution advising American citizens to take all necessary
security precautions because of the dangers that are out there and that may
be increased. All of our embassies are in a heightened mode of security,
awareness, and alert.
QUESTION: So would you attribute threats that have come in recent week to
the embassy bombing threats or to the fact that the US bombed Iraq?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as I said, of course, security is a constant preoccupation
of the State Department and the United States Government. This was an
extraordinarily heightened awareness on our part, following the bombings of
our embassies, and that has not continued. Whether or not we had engaged in
a military action against Iraq last week, we would still be in a heightened
security awareness mode. Also in connection with the attack, we issued a
public announcement urging Americans to remain vigilant in regard to t heir
personal security.
QUESTION: Following up on the US image question, the reports last week
were the protests in say, Syria, even Iran, all over the Middle East, the
Arab countries, there were hundreds and thousands of people protesting.
Does the United States view those protests as the view of the governments?
And have you spoken directly to Syria, to Iran, and different countries to
see if the protests reflect the countries' views and if any of those
countries have sort of signed on board to sort of back the United
States?
MR. FOLEY: Well, certainly, if you're talking about the countries of the
region, Secretary Albright has made it very clear that she was satisfied
with the level of support that we had. There was nearly a unanimous view in
the Middle East that Saddam Hussein alone was responsible for this attack
because of his failure to abide by his obligations under Security Council
resolutions, because of his shocking failure to abide by a promise that
he'd made in mid-November to allow UNSCOM to do its work and to cooperate
with the work of UNSCOM.
I think that he helped to build support for the action that we took by the
very timing of his failure to comply with his promise in mid-November. So
we've been very comfortable with the level of support we've had in the
Middle East.
In terms of demonstrations, yes, there were demonstrations. I think by and
large they were not terribly significant; but we had a particular problem
in Damascus on Saturday, December 19. A demonstration was held in front of
the US Embassy in Damascus. It turned violent and individuals threw rocks
and forced their way into the compound. Several individuals scaled the
embassy wall and ripped down the flag. Some individuals caused limited
damage to the front entrance and the consular sections. The demonstration
at the embassy was terminated after security personnel fired tear gas and
the crowd dispersed.
At the same time, a mob attacked and entered the ambassador's residence,
causing extensive damage. Fortunately no Americans were injured in either
instance. Ambassador Crocker has lodged a very strong protest with the
government of Syria. The Syrian Ambassador in Washington was also summoned
to the State Department to hear a protest in the strongest possible terms
from Under Secretary Pickering.
Syrian Foreign Minister Sharaa apologized fully to Ambassador Crocker, and
the Syrian Foreign Ministry has publicly expressed regret over the damages
caused. The US Government holds the government of Syria fully responsible
for protecting official and non-official US personnel and facilities. We
are deeply concerned about their failure to provide adequate security in
accordance with international legal obligations, including the failure to
bring the demonstrators under immediate control when they began to attack
and damage US property and threaten the safety of Americans. We also hold
the government of Syria fully responsible for the damages caused.
On December 19 we issued a travel warning for Syria, calling for Americans
to defer non-essential travel to Syria, and for US citizens in Syria to
limit their movements, maintain a low profile and increase their security
posture.
The embassy has now reopened and is operating on a limited basis. The
consular section sustained damage, and non-immigrant visa operations have
been suspended indefinitely. However, the embassy continues to provide
emergency American citizen services.
This incident is another reminder that during times of international crisis,
embassy personnel are on the front lines, where their safety, and indeed
their lives, are at risk. The State Department wishes to express its deep
pride in the actions of all the employees of Embassy Damascus.
QUESTION: Was there a 911 call, or the equivalent of that, that was not
heeded right away? Was there a delay in reinforcements coming in to help
out?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as I indicated, there was a failure, we believe, on the
part of Syrian security officials to bring the demonstrators under
immediate control. Certainly, we believe that this was something in their
capacity that they failed to do.
QUESTION: You don't have a time frame there as to how long it took?
MR. FOLEY: I don't. But what we do know is they, in some cases,
penetrated the embassy compound, got into the consular section and then
went into the Ambassador's residence and did significant damage. So
whatever the time line, the response was woefully inadequate.
QUESTION: Jim, now that UNSCOM is not in Iraq, what criteria will the
United States use as a trigger for future military strikes?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we have made very clear that we will use force again if
Saddam Hussein threatens Iraq's neighbors, reconstitutes or attempts to
reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction, or moves against the Kurds.
We couldn't be clear about that.
QUESTION: But before you were able to do that because you had inspectors
on the ground who were being refused access. What is your premise now, and
how will you know if in fact he's reconstituting his weapons of mass
destruction?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we are very confident in national means of verification.
Certainly we believe that an effective, functioning UNSCOM on the ground is
the best way to find out what Iraq had, to find out what it destroyed, what
it didn't destroy in the area of weapons of mass destruction, to find out
what it still may be hiding and still may be working on. Inspectors on the
ground who are working and are not being hindered is the best way
to go; but we haven't had that for eight out of the last 12 months.
UNSCOM has not been able to do its job. So, absent that capability, we have
taken action to degrade Saddam's capabilities in the weapons of mass
destruction field.
If, as I said earlier, Iraq were to demonstrate affirmatively that an
effective UNSCOM could go back in and do its job, if that could overcome
our skepticism on that score, we would welcome that. Short of that, we're
going to keep an extraordinarily close eye on the situation there. We have
national means of observing. We will act again if Saddam is taking any of
those actions in those three areas that I outlined.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that? Am I to understand that the
United States is not prepared to use military force to force UNSCOM back
into Iraq?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not in a position to signal in any specificity from
a public forum when we're going to use force, when we won't. I've outlined
several areas, red lines, that he shouldn't cross.
Again, we would welcome an effective UNSCOM back in Iraq and doing its job.
But right now, the Iraqi leadership has indicated very explicitly that
they're not going to allow UNSCOM back in there. We have no - given that
mindset and that frame of mind on the part of the Iraqis, given the
experience we've had over the last year, we have no interest in going back
to that game of a thwarted UNSCOM trying to do its job and be met with the
Iraqi tactic of cheat and retreat. We find that counter-productive.
So we're very comfortable with the idea that we're going to maintain a
robust force in the region; we're going to keep a hawk eye on the situation
there; and that we're going to be prepared to act again as we just did last
week if necessary. If, in the meantime, it becomes possible for an
effective UNSCOM to go in and actually do its job without hindrance, we
would welcome that; but we're not banking on it.
QUESTION: A follow-up to that? If I could -- I won't take you down the
road of the first question if they pardon me for that - but Jim, what can -
can you quantify - has the Administration quantified the success of
stemming the ability of Saddam to threaten his neighbors or to deliver
weapons of mass destruction? Just how far set back has he been in terms of
time or any other measure?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I believe you saw the President's national security team
on television yesterday addressing that. Secretary Albright, Mr. Berger and,
I believe, General Shelton and Secretary Cohen were rather specific and
explicit on that score.
I can repeat for you our assessment of the effects of the military mission.
Our specific targets were Iraq's ballistic missile systems, the command and
control network that oversees the weapons of mass destruction program and
the security apparatus that supports Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. We
also targeted Republican Guard command and control facilities and
infrastructure, in order to diminish Iraq's ability to threaten its
neighbors.
We believe that substantial damage has been done to targets in each
category. Our assessment is that we have set back Saddam's ability to
reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction and his delivery systems by at
least one year. We have also severely degraded his capacity to threaten his
neighbors. Therefore, we consider the operation a success.
As Secretary Albright said yesterday, Saddam Hussein is weaker; the region
is safer; and the strategic box that Saddam has been contained in over
these last seven years is stronger. This was achieved notably with limited
civilian casualties and limited international fall-out.
QUESTION: Without any casualty at all to the United States or Britain?
MR. FOLEY: Certainly.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - international consensus issue, you spoke about
how the consensus was so strong earlier in the year. Yet it seems in the
last week that in fact the consensus has been much weaker - people are
calling for changes to UNSCOM, some people are calling for removing
sanctions. Are you kind of taken by surprise by this backlash against the
military operation? And are you just going to sit it out? What's your
strategy for kind of getting these people back on board?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I just don't share the premise of your question. I think
we're very comfortable with the support we had internationally. Secretary
Albright outlined that in some detail on Friday of last week. Those who one
could have predicted would oppose the operation did oppose the operation.
They weren't great in number. As Secretary Albright stated, some of those
who opposed it didn't have another idea, another solution.
It was said by some that this should have been approached diplomatically.
Well, we tried diplomacy; we tried it and tried it again. The President
called off air strikes at the very last minute in mid-November, on receipt
of Saddam Hussein's solemn promise this time to comply and to fulfill his
obligations and to allow UNSCOM to do its job.
We, as I said, are very comfortable with the support we had. Who could
possible defend and who has defended Iraq for its failure to cooperate with
UNSCOM when it just promised in mid-November that it would? I have to say,
I think many people around the world, including the United States, were
surprised that he so quickly failed to cooperate. One could have expected
that, with the prospect of a comprehensive review of sanctions that he
wanted, that at least he would go through the motions of cooperating in the
initial period; and he did not. So I don't see anybody defending Iraq's
record here.
There were some who opposed the use of force who always oppose the use of
force. They didn't have other ideas, though, for dealing with the problem.
And we believe we had, really, significant international support for what
we did.
QUESTION: As a related matter, I assume, the Russian proposal to set up a
strategic triangle with India and China seems to be a kind of anti-US move.
It seems to reflect Russian --
MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry, I'm not aware of the idea or the proposal.
QUESTION: Last week we were told that nearly all the sub-Sahara U.S.
embassies in Africa were closed, as was Amman Jordan for one day. Can you
just give us an update on that?
MR. FOLEY: Amman is reopened and fully functioning. I believe that most
of our African embassies but three were closed for a couple days last week.
My understanding is that, except for a few posts that had been closed for
quite some time - well predating this latest military action - that all our
African posts are reopened today.
QUESTION: Are any embassies on alert? Have any been placed on alert?
MR. FOLEY: Well, each embassy around the world must maintain security
vigilance and take into account changing threat assessments. I'm not aware
of any particular embassy that has a particular alert in response to
particular circumstances. That's a lot of particulars for you - a long way
of saying I'm not aware of any. That doesn't mean that there aren't any,
but we're not necessarily in the habit of talking publicly about those
situations.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - Holbrooke's nomination at the UN? It seems that
in certain UN documents that we were informed of, that Peter Burleigh is
now considered the official US representative.
MR. FOLEY: I heard that, and suspected it was not a significant report
relating to Ambassador Holbrooke's status; and I was informed that indeed
it's not. It was simply an administrative requirement to report to the
Security Council -- something apparently should have been done some months
ago. That Ambassador Burleigh is our permanent representative currently is
simply a fact. But Ambassador Holbrooke's nomination remains on the table,
and we hope that once the investigation is complete that we'll be able to
move forward with his nomination.
QUESTION: Going back to your damage assessment, can you confirm a report
that one of the missiles struck a rice warehouse in the city of Tikrit,
destroying it, where a lot of food-for-oil was stored?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that, but I'd refer you to Ken Bacon over at
the Pentagon; he may be able to help you on that.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the apology to Iran for the missile
which allegedly landed in -Khorramshar?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have anything for you. I'll take that question,
though; if I have something for you, I'll come back to you in the
afternoon.
QUESTION: Pakistan's Prime Minister Mr. Sharif was the United States
guest on December 2 at the White House and here in the State Department. He
was -- (inaudible) - friend. But during these talks he condemned the United
States' attack on Iraq and also in an official statement by the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. Any comments?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I gave a very lengthy answer a few minutes ago about the
nature of international reaction. As I said, there were some nations who
opposed our taking military action. Two responses: first, I'm not aware
that anyone has proposed an effective idea for dealing with Saddam
Hussein's lack of cooperation and compliance. Number two, I'm not aware of
anyone defending Saddam Hussein's lack of cooperation and compliance.
QUESTION: In the past few days or so, the Secretary has been speaking
with 30 or so foreign ministers and heads of state. Exactly, who is she
speaking to now?
MR. FOLEY: The Secretary is on leave at the moment. I believe she is
certainly in very close contact. She's on Christmas holiday at the moment.
She would come back to Washington if necessary, certainly, but I think
she's deserved a rest after the year that she's been through. As it happens
on these short breaks, she winds up doing a lot of work. I know she's been
in touch with Acting-Secretary Talbot today, but I'm not aware of other
international calls in recent days.
QUESTION: Is Talbot in contact with certain nation leaders, or who
exactly are we maintaining very close contacts with in light of the
cessation of attacks?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we're meeting in the Security Council today, so we're in
contact with the Security Council members. I have no read-out of particular
phone calls placed by senior Administration officials today.
QUESTION: Jim, how should the international community view this
announcement by the US Government that it's up to the United States to
decide if and when it's time to resume military action again in Iraq?
MR. FOLEY: Well, that goes to the very question of the authorization for
the use of force. We believe that the original resolution - I believe it's
678 - concerning the Gulf War provides continuing authorization to the
United States, in as much as Iraq is failing to comply with its cease fire
obligations -- the obligations it undertook in order to achieve a cessation
of the coalition's military action back in 1991. We believe we have extent
and ongoing authorization if Saddam continues to be in violation of his
cease-fire commitments.
QUESTION: Does the US anticipate opposition - I should phrase it this way
- how long is the United States prepared to keep economic sanctions in
place against Iraq without UNSCOM?
MR. FOLEY: Well, of course, without UNSCOM, it's impossible for sanctions
to be lifted, because UNSCOM is the vehicle established by the Security
Council to verify Iraq's disarmament in the weapons of mass destruction
field. Now, our position is that sanctions cannot be lifted until all
relevant Security Council resolutions, including concerning Iraq's
disarmament, have been fulfilled. In mechanical terms, UNSCOM is the
vehicle to ensure Iraq's disarmament. If the Iraqis aren't going to let
UNSCOM in, if they're not going to allow an effective UNSCOM to work, then
their desire to have sanctions lifted is an empty desire.
QUESTION: Since Russia was so outspoken against the use of force, are you
concerned that Russia might now move unilaterally to begin trade with
Iraq?
MR. FOLEY: I believe the President Yeltsin's statement yesterday
welcoming the end of the US-UK military action noted that Iraq must comply
with it's international obligations with the relevant Security Council
resolutions. So I think that takes care of your question on that score.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the extradition yesterday of the
suspect in the embassy attacks?
MR. FOLEY: I believe I have something. Let me look for it and come back
to you on that.
QUESTION: The Israel Wye agreement - it looks very likely that the whole
process will be frozen until April. How does the US government feel about
this? Are you dismayed and alarmed, disappointed, or -
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't believe that the Knisset has acted yet, so I
can't give you an official reaction to this point. Certainly the position
of the United States -- that the Wye River memorandum should be implemented
as signed without new conditions -- it's obvious that the requirements
during this second phase under the Wye agreement have been more difficult
and numerous than during the first phase.
As a consequence, the parties have not been able to complete their efforts
on the second phase of implementation. In this regard, however, the
Palestinians have worked hard to implement many of their commitments under
the agreement, including annulling clauses in the PNC charter and stepping
up the fight against terror.
We have said from the beginning that for implementation to proceed, both
sides needed to engage directly and continuously with each other in an
effort to solve problems. We are concerned that this process of Palestinian-
Israeli contact, which was so evident during the first phase, has been
lacking during the second phase. President Clinton secured an agreement
from each side that these contacts on a variety of issues would continue,
and it is essential that they do so. We are working with both sides to urge
them to complete implementation as quickly as possible so that the second
phase can be carried out.
QUESTION: Would you like to be more specific? Would you like to say that
you are urging the Israeli government to carry out the troop withdrawal
that they have failed to carry out last Friday?
MR. FOLEY: It's been our position, all along, ever since Wye was signed
that it ought to be implemented as signed. The Wye River memorandum was
approved and ratified by both sides. Consistent with that, we feel that it
should be carried out and implemented as agreed.
QUESTION: So you're saying that - would you say that there was no excuse
for failure to -
MR. FOLEY: Well, we believe that the commitments made at Wye should be
fulfilled by both parties, and we will continue to work to support full
implementation.
QUESTION: But the Israelis say they have - they cite reasons why they
fail to do it. Do you accept those excuses?
MR. FOLEY: We believe that both sides need to meet their commitments and
to move forward on implementation.
QUESTION: Even if there's no active, elected government -
MR. FOLEY: Well, again, that's hypothetical. We don't know yet what's
going to happen in the Knisset today. Certainly as far as the United States
government is concerned, we believe the cornerstone of moving forward on
the Middle East peace process, which is so important to all the peoples of
the Middle East, is by continuing to implement the Wye agreement. We're
going to continue to stand by that and work with the parties in whatever
way we can to help promote progress.
QUESTION: On this, the 10th anniversary of the Pan Am 103 bombing, where
do we stand in terms of getting the Libyan suspects to trial in a Scottish
court in the Netherlands, especially in light of Qadhafi statement earlier
today?
MR. FOLEY: What was that?
QUESTION: He said that he is supporting an international court, which, of
course, is not a Scottish court.
MR. FOLEY: Of course, that's not what the Libyan authorities proposed
back in January. They proposed a Scottish trial in an international venue,
and we took that offer up. It's been 10 years ago - today now - that 270
people from 21 countries were killed in the tragic bombing of Pan Am Flight
103.
We offer the families of these victims our most profound sympathy for their
lost. We insist on seeing those charged with this terrible crime brought to
justice. That is the least we can do after 10 long years. We will accept
nothing less than Justice for the victims of the Lockerbie bombing and
their families. They deserve nothing less. I believe that President Clinton
is addressing a memorial service at Arlington Cemetery even as we speak on
this issue. I expect that he will have something specific to say about
the status of our proposal.
QUESTION: Follow up, -- many of the spokespeople for the families, the
victims, said today that she doesn't believe that Mr. Qadhafi was serious
and that Qadhafi would meet the terms of having the trial in Holland.
Basically, she says Qadhafi is just dodging and not serious.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I understand that view. Certainly on the basis of
objective facts and criteria, he has not accepted the offer. Whether he may
do so in the coming weeks remains to be seen, but I can't quarrel with that
assessment to this point. I believe the President is speaking today about
the limits of our patience.
QUESTION: The offer is still on the table, right?
MR. FOLEY: It's still on the table but, again, I believe the President is
addressing the specific limits of our patience in his remarks at Arlington
Cemetery. When we complete the briefing, I think, you may find that already
over the airwaves.
QUESTION: Jim, have you received any explanation, indirectly or directly,
from the Libyans for their failure to send this legal team to New
York?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that. I believe, however, it's an issue
between the UN, relevant officials, and the Libyans. Thank you.
QUESTION: Jim, can you give an answer to the extradition?
MR. FOLEY: Oh yes, I'm sorry. yes, you're right. We keep our promises
here. This involves Mr.Mamduh Mahmud Salim, who's an associate of Bin
Laden. Mr. Salim is expected to be arraigned in the southern district of
New York today. He was arrested in Bavaria three months ago and extradited
to the US yesterday with the cooperation of Bavarian and German federal
government authorities. He's been accused of conspiracy to commit the
murder of US citizens overseas, to use weapons of mass destruction, to
transport explosives, and to attack military facilities. He's considered to
be a key figure in Bin Laden's financial activities since the case is
now before the US courts, I'd have to refer you to the Justice Department
for additional details. Let me say that we greatly appreciate the swift
cooperation of the Bavarian and German federal authorities in this case. It
underscores the importance of cooperation and bringing terrorists to
justice.
Thank you.
|
