U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #34, 99-03-18
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
880
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Thursday, March 18, 1999
Briefer: James B. Foley
ANNOUNCEMENT
1 African Ministerial Backgound Briefing at 3:30
SERBIA (Kosovo)
1 Secretary's statement on Kosovo
1 Evacuation of personnel from Belgrade
1 Shuttle diplomacy
2 Secretary spoke to FM Vedrine and Foreign Secretary Cook
2 Secretary travel plans
2,3,11 NATO is prepared to act / NATO seriousness
4 Serbs are building up security forces
4 Humanitarian castastrophe
4,5 Number of Displaced persons
6 KVM as human shields/troop movement
7 Visit of Kosovars Albanians
CUBA
7 Judge's ruling of MCI & AT&T
7 Letter from Department to Judge
14 People to people ties
NORTH KOREA
8 Nuclear site
MEXICO
8 Diplomatic Note to Department
CHINA
8,9 US China Relations
8,9 Nuclear Espionage
RUSSIA
9,10 Cooperation with Iran
10 Nuclear Missile program
10 Prime Minister Primakov's visit
BURMA
Visa for Aung San Sui's Husband
BOSNIA
11,12 Investigation
11 Money laundering
DEPARTMENT
12 Senator's Helms letter to Secretary Albright re
Amb. Dobbins
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #34
THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1999, 2:45 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department's noon briefing. Just one
announcement, there will be a background briefing -- the final briefing --
to sum up the US-African ministerial in this room at 3:30 p.m., assuming
that you're done with me by 3:30 p.m. But I have no other announcements.
QUESTION: The Secretary made a statement on Kosovo. I haven't seen it.
Could it be made available?
MR. FOLEY: Sure, sure. I've been looking for it, too. Because she just
made it, as you know, an hour ago, we're transcribing it, and we'll release
it in the Press Office shortly.
QUESTION: Well, it's hard to ask about Kosovo not knowing what she
said.
MR. FOLEY: In fact, let me take a time out and -
QUESTION: Think we're going to get it?
MR. FOLEY: Sid, thank you. If I can take a time out, please, make sure
that that is finalized and distributed.
QUESTION: I've got to pass on Kosovo because I don't know what today's
party line was.
MR. FOLEY: All right, Barry. Sid, you're next.
QUESTION: Well --
MR. FOLEY: Carole?
QUESTION: The status of the planning for evacuation in -
MR. FOLEY: I have nothing to update since yesterday. As I said yesterday,
we are looking closely at those plans. We want to be in a position to
implement withdrawal of our personnel in Belgrade, of our personnel in
Kosovo as necessary. I have nothing to announce in terms of implementation,
but it's something that we will do as soon as we see the need.
QUESTION: Any plans for last minute shuttle diplomacy? I think there was
a Reuters story about European diplomats expected to go to Belgrade this
weekend.
MR. FOLEY: You may have seen Jamie Rubin spoke to that on television
earlier. He said that we weren't ruling out any particular steps. There's
nothing that I'm aware of. I think this will be a matter for the co-
chairmen to decide. Certainly, we don't - let me put it this way, we are
really at the crunch point now. We have a Serb no, so far, to the peace
plan. We have Serb actions on the ground -- and I will describe them in
further detail in a minute -- which constitute non-compliance with the
October commitments. In other words, the Serbs, on the two triggers
for the NATO decision, are out of compliance and the NATO decision
is becoming more and more relevant, given that Serb behavior.
But in terms of what precisely happens next, it's up to the co-chairs,
first of all, to decide that this round of negotiations has come to an end.
I would anticipate that decision shortly; I don't know exactly when. It
will be up to the co-chairs to decide if they wish to pursue a further
diplomatic effort. Secretary Albright has been in touch with Foreign
Minister Vedrine, Foreign Secretary Cook today. I wouldn't rule that out.
But I think President Milosevic already knows where things stand, and we
already know where things stand with him. Unless we see quickly a reversal
on his part, then, as Mr. Rubin indicated earlier, really, the NATO Act-
Ord being in effect will be - NATO will be the decision maker in the
next instance.
But in terms of further diplomatic moves, we don't seek military action for
the sake of military action. We would like to see President Milosevic
reverse course. But again, we don't see signs that he's about to do
so.
QUESTION: What is it that you're not ruling out?
MR. FOLEY: She asked if there were going to be any diplomatic efforts -
QUESTION: She used the word shuttling. Let's re-rack and try it this way.
I didn't get her statement and I wasn't watching television, so I'm
operating a little blind; I come to the State Department for these things.
Secretary Albright yesterday had no plans. Is she beginning to have plans
to do some traveling on behalf of a last diplomatic effort? Is that what
you're not ruling out?
MR. FOLEY: No, I think the question was more generally whether anyone was
planning diplomatic efforts because you and I have seen the same press
reports that perhaps, some of our European friends may be considering trips
to Belgrade or what not. I don't rule that out. They will decide themselves.
We will be in touch with them.
But really, the critical factor here is not whether someone makes a visit
to Belgrade or not, it's whether President Milosevic reverses course. We
are seeing quite the opposite. He's digging in his heels; he's digging in
his forces; he's refusing to negotiate. He's putting himself in a position
where he will bear the consequences of his obstinacy.
Everyone knows that the NATO Act-Ord is in effect, that NATO is prepared to
act. I think we have solidarity on the part of our allies. The conditions
are clear. President Milosevic does not have much time to reverse course.
Whether he needs to hear that message again in person or not is not a
terribly important detail. If a visit produced a change of course, change
of opinion on his part, that's a good thing. I don't think we would hold
out exceptional hopes in that regard.
QUESTION: I think people know that NATO has been prepared to act for a
long time; but the question has been, is NATO really serious about acting
on the terms that NATO sets for itself? The fact that you're talking now
about the possibility of an extension of time -
MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry, where did you - in any sense I talked about an
extension of any kind?
QUESTION: To the extent that you raise the issue yourself about, well,
maybe another visit.
MR. FOLEY: Let me, if I can, interject something. We had a very similar
debate - maybe you and I or Mr. Rubin and other journalists in December. We
were asked, because the United States had indicated in that situation,
whether if Saddam did not cooperate with UNSCOM and once it was clear he
had not cooperated, you were asking us a question involving military timing
and you were questioning our credibility and willingness. You waited a few
more days, and the result was Operation Desert Fox.
Then others raised questions of a different nature after that. That's the
nature of journalism is that you ask tough, skeptical questions. We will do
our business. We will not, through you, let President Milosevic know the
timing of what may follow. That's a matter of national security, and I'm
not in a position to talk about that. But for you to conclude that we are
extending something or that we are delaying something is erroneous. We will
act - we and our NATO allies - when it's the right moment, when it's
in our interest to act.
QUESTION: I'm not really concluding anything. I'm trying to actually
understand what message you're trying to send. I got the impression through
some of the things that you were saying, including, well, if another
mission has to go to Belgrade and we get a yes out of Milosevic, then
that's great. I mean, you're leaving open yourself the possibility that
there will be another mission to Belgrade, which of course would require
more time to execute. So I'm just trying to understand how serious that
possibility is. It sounds like there may be a difference of opinion
between the United States and its European allies.
MR. FOLEY: I'm not suggesting that. I don't believe decisions have been
made yet in that regard. We'll let the - whether the Europeans are planning
another visit or not to Belgrade; I'm just saying I wouldn't rule it out.
I'm not saying that I'm criticizing that in any way.
NATO is fully capable of acting at a moment of its own choosing. The signs
are not good for President Milosevic. He is way out of compliance on the
ground. He has refused to engage seriously, let alone sign the peace
accords. The writing for him is on the wall, unless he completely reverses
course.
As to when something might happen, what might happen before that action
takes place are details; they're not fundamentally important.
QUESTION: Jim, one thing the Secretary did say on the Hill is that the
Serbs are building up their security forces in and around Kosovo, and that
alone would be a violation. Can you give us those figures?
MR. FOLEY: Serb, VJ and MUPP operations, apparently designed to root out
the KLA, destroy villages and displace the Albanian population, continue.
KLA units have been withdrawing from the Cicavica Mountains, north of
Vucitrn, in the wake of the recent Serb offensive there.
A new offensive about five kilometers northwest of Prizren has also been
reported. An estimated 200 MUPP and VJ tank and armored armed truck support
are involved in this operation, which has produced an additional 1,500
internally displaced persons.
In a village northeast of Pec, three Kosovar Albanian brothers, who
disappeared two days ago, were found. All, tragically, had been shot at
close range, one with his throat slit, another handcuffed. In a village
east of Orahovac, there was a large funeral for nine KLA fighters, killed
on March 15.
According to KVM observers, the VJ is conducting last minute training
drills and call up of reservists and regulars in apparent or possible
preparation for possible NATO action. The KVN confirms four tanks are in
position at Podujevo air field and six large concrete barriers have been
pre-positioned along the roadway near Gnjilane. The barriers could be
designed to cut off KVM departure routes or to deter entry of NATO
forces.
I gave figures yesterday, Jim, on our estimates of the numbers of Serb, VJ
and MUT forces either outside or in Kosovo. I'd refer you to those figures;
I don't have them before me today. They were in the 18,000 to 21,000 range.
But obviously, the situation on the ground is very alarming.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up? This air field, is that central to the
evacuation planning?
MR. FOLEY: Which evacuation plan - of the KVM monitors?
QUESTION: The KVM.
MR. FOLEY: I'm not in a position to talk publicly about evacuation plans;
that's a security matter.
QUESTION: And one more thing - the nine bodies found and the three others,
do you now believe that the humanitarian catastrophe that some people have
been talking about has already begun?
MR. FOLEY: Well, that's a judgment call. The situation is worsening
there. The numbers of internally displaced persons are going up. I can give
you some figures on that. We have increasing numbers of people being forced
from their homes, mostly as a result of the VJ offensive in the Cicavica
Mountains. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimates over 80,000
people have been displaced since December 24. Now, that's an update; a few
weeks ago I gave you a figure, I think, in the 50,000 neighborhood. So that
continues to go up.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. FOLEY: Since December 24 - 45,000 since the close of the first round
of negotiations at Rambouillet on February 23. UNHCR and about 50 or so non-
governmental organizations are still operating in Kosovo, continuing to do
really heroic work in spite of obstacles. They've increased emergency
convoys that go into the countryside in search of displaced persons.
They've had their vehicles stopped; they've been searched; they've been
stoned; they've had their access to displaced people blocked by Serbian
police, VJ also, in one case, the KLA. So these are very difficult
conditions, but they are still there on the ground looking for people who
are displaced.
The fact is that most of these people are not facing the elements. The
numbers of displaced people that we give you mean these are people who are
not living in their homes. In most cases, they are able to - thanks to the
work of these humanitarian workers - able to get shelter of some kind and
food.
QUESTION: When you began your military description, you spoke of an
offensive. By the time you ended it, you were describing steps - by your
description - being taken to defend against the possibility of a NATO
attack.
MR. FOLEY: Right.
QUESTION: Is this a mixture of things, or are they, plausibly enough,
digging in, preparing to be bombed by NATO and wouldn't you expect a
country about to bombed to take steps? Or are they moving independently
against civilians, killing people, taking towns, rooting people from their
homes? Is it a combination of these things?
MR. FOLEY: It's a combination. Of course, people are fleeing because of
the heightened military activity, as well as the attacks on some villages.
That is happening. They are also positioning themselves in such a way that
one could infer that they are anticipating NATO military action. It's a
combination.
Now I don't know if you're a mind reader, Barry, but the ability to read
Mr. Milosevic's mind is a hazardous endeavor, and he may not know his mind
either. I tried to make the point yesterday that he's making the gamble of
a lifetime, gambling with the fate of his country, because he cannot
predict what will happen if it comes to military action. On the other hand,
if the Serbs reverse course and embrace the peace plan, he can count on a
stable future and one that's better for the people of Kosovo and the
people of his own country.
QUESTION: Just a quick one -- I didn't know, when you said offenses, if
you meant they're on the move, or you literally meant offensive in military
terms. Apparently, you mean they're on the move and you can't --
MR. FOLEY: They're on the move, but they have been undertaking military
actions, though, against the KLA in Kosovo in recent weeks.
QUESTION: Also when you were describing, you talked about these barriers -
some sort of barriers they're erecting that you said could be designed to
hinder the withdrawal of KVM? What did you mean by that?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, well I can just repeat. I'd have to check further for you
in terms of what's behind it. But four tanks are in a position; six large
concrete barriers pre-positioned along the roadway that might be designed
to cut off KVM departure routes or deter entry of NATO forces.
QUESTION: Is this along a road where the NATO forces would be coming in,
or why -
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not able to specify where these roads are and what
there purpose might be in the mind of military planners. I'm just pointing
out to you that they're engaged in provocative activity.
QUESTION: So you're raising the possibility of the Serbs using the KVM as
human shields?
MR. FOLEY: Well, you're saying that; I'm not suggesting that. Now that
you raise the point, let's remember that President Milosevic made a
commitment, first of all, to invite the KVM monitors into Kosovo; secondly,
to guarantee their safety. We hold him responsible for living up to that
commitment. Certainly, at a moment when the Serb authorities are saying
they don't want a NATO force but they do want the OSCE monitors to play a
role, it would be very ironic and self-defeating were there to be
any threats or impediments to the KVM monitors.
QUESTION: Is there just one place where you see this happening?
MR. FOLEY: I'm only aware of that one instance.
QUESTION: And this offensive that you're talking about in such stark
terms today, when exactly did this become - I mean, I realize there's been
some talk about moving troops for weeks and some US officials were sort of
discounting it as a real problem.
MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure they were discounting it. The fact is there was a
build-up along the borders.
QUESTION: And when did it become a critical mass, though? I mean, it just
seems that it's convenient that it all comes to a point at the same
time.
MR. FOLEY: I don't know if it's convenient, but you're able to watch your
television screens as we are. All of us have seen a significant up-tick in
military action. We've seen villages burning in the last couple of days. It
seems to me - and I don't have a studied answer for you, I'd have to check
and see what our analysts see as a threshold day, if there was such one,
when military activity increased. But anecdotally, it seems to have
been in the last number of days that they've really stepped up the military
action on the ground.
QUESTION: The last week, you would say?
MR. FOLEY: Anecdotally, in about the last week, I would say.
QUESTION: The visit by the Kosovar Albanians - the Rubin-Thaci show. Is
that on for Saturday?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have the exact date. Ambassador Hill talked this
morning with the Kosovar Albanian delegation about their visit. We have no
announcement to make today about who's coming and when. Maybe we'll be in a
position to do that tomorrow; I'll let you know.
QUESTION: Is there any official reaction to the ruling today in Miami by
Justice James Lawrence King that $6 million that MCI and ATT owe to the
Cuban national telephone company should be given to the American families
of the shot down over near Cuba?
MR. FOLEY: Not at this stage. We've just seen the press reports that the
judge has issued a ruling in the case. We will have no comment until the
Administration has had an opportunity to obtain and also to assess Judge
King's ruling.
QUESTION: But you -- (inaudible) - to that type of settlement in advance.
Were you not opposed to the --
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'd refer you to what Spokesman Rubin and I said
previous to today about that. But I'm not really in any position to comment
today until we've actually gotten a copy of the ruling and had a chance to
study it.
QUESTION: I don't recall what you said before.
MR. FOLEY: I would refer you to the transcript.
QUESTION: One of the assistants -- (inaudible) - said to the wires that
the State Department sent a letter to the judge saying that this is a
matter of national security for the United States and they are rejecting
his decision. That's not true?
MR. FOLEY: I'd have to check that for you, whether any such letter was
written.
QUESTION: Another subject - the official North Korea news agency is
quoting a Foreign Ministry official as saying the US has agreed to pay a
fee to inspect the nuclear site. There was a sufficient debate and
agreement on the payment of the inspection fee. That's the central news
agency.
MR. FOLEY: That's absurd.
QUESTION: On Mexico, the government of Mexico sent an official note to
the State Department asking to sustain or deny the story in The New York
Times saying that the defense minister of Mexico is involved in money
laundering. Do you have any response to that?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, a diplomatic note on the subject of those allegations,
which were raised in The New York Times article was received from the
Mexican Embassy on Tuesday. As the Mexican Embassy indicated, in a press
release Tuesday, the note asked for clarification of the basis for the
allegations about General Cervantes. Beyond that, we're not going to
discuss the contents of a private diplomatic communication. It's a serious
matter, certainly, and we'll be studying the Mexican note carefully and
responding in due course.
QUESTION: But you said you will continue to work with General Cervantes.
MR. FOLEY: Yes, I stand by what we said previously - that certainly the
drug traffickers have had a practice of claiming connections with senior
officials. We have no evidence in that regard.
QUESTION: On China, a Chinese Embassy official today rejected the
insinuations and reports that there was any Chinese nuclear espionage here.
He also said that US-Chinese relations are being held hostage to party
politics. Do you have a reaction to that?
MR. FOLEY: Well, rare are the cases where a government denies that it has
committed activities of this nature; so that denial is not surprising in
any way. We, for our part, remain deeply concerned about reports of China's
attempts to illegally acquire sensitive US technology. We have conveyed our
concern to Chinese officials. We've warned of negative effects on
our overall bilateral relationship, and urge them to take the matter
very seriously.
In response to your second question, let me say that we've also explained
to the Chinese that this concern is shared broadly within the United States
Government. It is shared by the Executive and the Legislative branches, by
both political parties. It is not a matter manufactured by opponents of US-
China relations.
QUESTION: I think you misspoke in the first sentence of that. Can you
repeat it again for the record? You said rare are the times when a
government denies this. I think you meant to say admit.
MR. FOLEY: No, I think I got it right.
QUESTION: Well, I'll bet you. I know what you meant, but --
MR. FOLEY: I don't want to hear journalists talking about betting. Enough
of that. But for the record, it's rare for a government to deny - I'm sorry
- now you've got me -
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Jim, you said it's not a matter of politics? You don't think
there's anything political behind these Chinese allegations?
MR. FOLEY: Let's make a distinction - to the opposition to the deep
concern over potential or actual espionage against the United States is not
a partisan matter; it's shared widely by both branches, the Executive,
Legislative branches of government, by both political parties. There's no
division there. The Chinese should not read our concern over espionage as a
partisan matter or a matter that's manufactured by opponents of US-China
relations.
Now, apart from the question of illegal acquisition of US military secrets
or technology, which we have to remain vigilant about, which is a constant
in international relations, it is as we've stated. Many countries seek to
acquire sensitive information and technology for military use by many
means. We have no illusions about China or other countries in this regard.
But we also have to have a relationship with China. China is 1.2 billion or
more people; it is a major and emerging power in Asia; it is a growing
economic market; it is a force for good or ill in the world. We believe
that having a relationship with China helps to build a China which is a
contributor to international peace and security and not a threat.
I've not heard any argument that can credibly make the case that isolating
China will be in the US interest and will produce the kind of China that we
would like to see play a positive role in international relations in the
next century.
So it's a different - I forget who was asking me the question - the
distinction is that we are capable of having major differences with China
on human rights and to be totally opposed to Chinese or any country's
efforts to illegally acquire our technology and secrets and still be able
to conduct a diplomacy in the interest of the American people and the
United States.
QUESTION: Yesterday there was a story about potential Russian concession
on the Iranian issue. I wondered what you knew about that. Have the
Russians signaled to you that they are going to limit in any way their
cooperation with Iran - present cooperation or future cooperation?
MR. FOLEY: Right. In January, the Clinton Administration, as you know,
imposed penalties against three Russian entities -- (inaudible) -
University of Chemical Technology for their contributions to Iran's nuclear
weapons programs, and also the Moscow Aviation Institute for its contributions
to Iran's missile program.
We welcome statements by Minister Adamov that Russia is willing to curtail
illicit cooperation with Iran's nuclear program. So this is a potentially
positive statement on his part. Ongoing Russian cooperation with Iran
remains a serious concern that we are discussing intensively with the
government of Russia. We would like to see action taken to remedy the
problem before the penalties can be reconsidered.
QUESTION: Adamov's public statements don't go as far as you want them to
go, right?
MR. FOLEY: I wouldn't quite put it that way. If the Russian aim is to
halt that kind of cooperation with Iran, that is a good statement. What we
want to see, though, is the action taken to eliminate the problem so we can
verify that cooperation has ceased. In that context, we'll be willing to
look at the penalties.
QUESTION: Have they told you this privately, or are they only dealing
with what's on the front --
MR. FOLEY: I believe we've heard that in the last weeks, and I would
expect it to be addressed also in the context of the Gore-Primakov
Commission meeting next week.
QUESTION: Can you stay on Gore-Primakov and Primakov's visit here in
general? In addition to the subject you've already discussed, can you tell
us what's expected?
MR. FOLEY: This is the 11th session of the US-Russia Joint Commission on
Economic and Technological Cooperation. It will be the first one between
Vice President Gore and Prime Minister Primakov. The Prime Minister is
coming to the United States at an important time in US-Russia relations and
in Russia's post-communist transition.
The Commission has become a key vehicle for strengthening the US-Russian
cooperation and promoting solutions on a number of tough issues. The Vice
President and Prime Minister will discuss many issues on the bilateral
agenda, such as working together to promote Russia's economic recovery;
pressing foreign policy issues, such as Kosovo and Iraq; and our continuing
concerns, as we noted a minute ago, about Russian technology flows to
Iran's missile nuclear program, as well as next steps on strategic
arms control and the US stance on national missile defense.
The Commission has eight committees and two working groups under its
umbrella. Each of these has an ongoing agenda and practical work that will
come to the fore next week. Vice President Gore and Prime Minister Primakov
will recognize achievements since the last session, review ongoing work and
look for opportunities to further provide impetus to join activities and
cooperation.
QUESTION: While we're on this Russia business, the timing of Primakov's
visit - and you probably won't answer this question, but I'm going to try
anyway. I mean, can you conceivably see the - or what do you think the
consequences would be if the United States actually took military action
against Yugoslavia in the time before or during Primakov's visit?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I wouldn't want to speculate and I think you anticipated
that. However, it is a fact that Russia has been a very constructive
participant in the Paris talks -- within the Contact Group as well -- and
has also helped the Contact Group effort in its dealings with the Serbs. I
don't think it's a secret that Russia has been urging President Milosevic
to accept the Contact Group plan. Russia supports the Contact Group plan.
We believe that President Milosevic is thoroughly isolated in this
regard.
There is a difference of view between the NATO members of the Contact Group
and Russia about the actually use of military force. But certainly, we
understand that the Russians are doing their utmost to persuade President
Milosevic that this peace agreement is in the interest of his people. Let's
remember, Russia has a close and historic relationship with the people of
Serbia. Their relationship with President Milosevic is not an easy one,
though, and they are finding the same difficulty that everyone is in
trying to bring him to his senses.
But I don't want to speculate about what might happen if NATO is forced to
use military action. As we've said repeatedly, we don't seek to use
military action for its own sake. We believe that the Contact Group peace
plan is in the interest of Serbia as well as the people, Serb and Kosovar,
of Kosovo. We think that President Milosevic ought to see it in that way
but if he does not, the consequences will be his to bear.
QUESTION: The other question was about Burma. There are reports that on
Aung San Suu Kyi's husband, Michael Aris, is critically ill with cancer,
and they're seeking a visa for him.
MR. FOLEY: I issued a statement on that yesterday.
QUESTION: Did you really? I'm sorry, I apologize.
MR. FOLEY: I can go into it, if you want.
QUESTION: No, that's all right.
QUESTION: Jim, there's an AP report that Strobe Talbott's brother-in-law
is being investigated by the State Department over contacts with the
accused Bosnian war criminal and may be receiving money from him and his
associates. I'm wondering if you can comment at all if he is under
investigation?
MR. FOLEY: I cannot comment on the work of the Inspector General of the
State Department. I'd refer any questions you have to the Inspector
General's Office.
QUESTION: They have basically no comment, so they basically -
MR. FOLEY: Well, they follow their standard practice, but I'm not allowed
to comment on whether or not they're conducting an investigation. If you
have questions about the specific elements that appeared in that press
story, Mr. Shearer is a private citizen; he's a private business man. I'd
urge you to ask him about his activities. They don't involve or engage the
State Department, though, I can tell you that.
QUESTION: Jim, can I just clarify something what you say on Cervantes.
You say the State Department doesn't find any evidence that involves
Cervantes with money laundering.
MR. FOLEY: I would refer you to what I or Jamie Rubin said the other day
on this subject and leave it at that.
QUESTION: Speaking of investigations, would you comment on The New York
Times article today that implicates Jim Dobbins, saying that he was under
investigation, the investigating stopped and what type of punitive measures
against Mr. Dobbins are about to occur, if there are going to be punitive
measures?
MR. FOLEY: Well, there's a lot in your question that's not exactly on the
mark, Toni, with all respect, but there's a lot in there.
My first comment is that this is old news; it's kind of an old story. These
are events that happened quite a number of years ago and were looked into
quite some time ago. The story has reappeared. But the problem I had with
your question, you were asking matters about the present tense that don't
really apply. I think I was asked for comment in that article, and I would
stand by exactly what I said. I can repeat it for you: The State Department
has in place a rigorous discipline process. The allegations that are
referred to in that article were thoroughly investigated. After a thorough
consideration of all relevant facts, it was determined that Ambassador
Dobbins testified in good faith, did not intentionally mislead Congress.
Ambassador Dobbins retains the full confidence of Secretary Albright.
Secretary Albright has conveyed that confidence to members of Congress.
Ambassador Dobbins shares her commitment to close cooperation with Congress
and looks forward to working with its members as he assumes his new
responsibilities.
QUESTION: Is there any ongoing investigation at the State Department at
this point?
MR. FOLEY: No.
QUESTION: The Congress had no ability to block any appointment?
MR. FOLEY: Well, his position is not a Senate confirmed position.
QUESTION: Do you have any theories as to why this story has cropped up so
many years after the fact?
MR. FOLEY: No, I don't.
QUESTION: It wouldn't be anything like the Chinese partisan - a hint of
partisanship in the story, would there?
MR. FOLEY: Chinese, I don't see any Chinese.
QUESTION: Like the Chinese comments on the spying allegations, that they
were partisan. I'm saying, could this be like that - that perhaps these
allegations against Mr. Dobbins are of a partisan nature?
MR. FOLEY: I have no idea where the story originated. I couldn't comment.
I don't see any signs of partisanship, certainly.
QUESTION: Well, Jesse Helms is quoted in that same story as the prominent
Republican member of the Foreign Relations Committee. He's given you some
trouble on such issues in the past. He is quoted as sending Secretary
Albright a letter asking that she not appoint Mr. Dobbins.
MR. FOLEY: That's a different matter; now you've narrowed it. The
question earlier was about an investigation that is not a current matter.
But your question about Senator Helms' letter is a relevant issue of the
moment. Secretary Albright will respond to that letter. She certainly
respects Chairman Helms and values highly her good relationship with him. I
expect in her reply she will explain that she has confidence in Ambassador
Dobbins. He really is one of the top-flight diplomats in the State
Department. He has, really, a remarkable record of service to this
country. He is someone who specialized in tough situations, and he's
the kind of person, really, as is historically proven, you need in
this kind of a tough job where you're dealing with issues involving peace
in the Balkans. So he's in the same sort of line as some of his predecessors
- very capable guy. As I said, there was a rigorous discipline process and
those allegations were looked into.
There were serious allegations there. It was determined, after careful
review and checking with different sources and other relevant factors in
weighing the totality of evidence and looking at the case very carefully,
that he was not careful in his testimony. He could have been more careful,
and that certainly is the watch word when we are dealing with issues that
have to do with law enforcement; I can tell you that. Every time, as you
know, when we spokesmen are standing here and you ask a question about
an ongoing investigation, we're normally very careful not to comment,
not to get ahead of it. He was not appropriately careful in his response.
But since he is such a strong and capable and eminent diplomat and when
you're talking about charges of this nature, under any circumstance, no
matter who the employer diplomat may be, requires really looking very
carefully at the matter. We determined that he was careless, that he could
have expressed himself better but that he did not intentionally seek to
mislead Congress; that he testified in good faith. I think the record will
show that.
QUESTION: I have a Cuba question. I know that you want time to review the
specific ruling, but would you mind commenting specifically on the fact
that this Administration thinks it's so important to have people-to-people
contact, and one obvious people-to-people contact is telephone usage. So
the specific targeting of retrieving money from telephone companies, how
does that affect the people-to-people contact?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we've made that point. We think that, first of all,
we're fully committed to US legislation regarding Cuba. We don't think that
it's a time for olive branches to be extended to Fidel Castro. He doesn't
show, really, any signs of change. Certainly, if Cuba were on the road to
democratic change, that would be a different matter. We don't see any
evidence of that; on the contrary, we see a crackdown on dissidents.
In that context, Secretary Albright and the President have felt that
dealing with this entrenched communist dictatorship, which is really
responsible for the suffering of the Cuban people, that we ought to try to
open up some space for the Cuban people and to increase our people-to-
people ties, being very careful not to help the regime not to in any way
prolong or consolidate the regime.
So we've made some efforts in this regard, and communication is part of
them. I've indicated that previous to the judge's decision. I hope that
answers your question.
I can't analyze the judge's decision. We haven't seen it yet.
QUESTION: We're about to run into another briefing. Could we call it
off?
MR. FOLEY: Okay.
QUESTION: Could we also get like 15 minutes or something?
MR. FOLEY: Ten?
QUESTION: Well, I mean, people have to file.
MR. FOLEY: Can we do it? 15, okay, thanks.
(The briefing concluded at 3:25 P.M.)
|
