U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #59, 99-05-05
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
522
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, May 5, 1999
Briefer: JAMES B. FOLEY
STATEMENTS POSTED
1 Swearing in of Robert Seiple, Ambassador-at-Large for International
Religious Freedom
1 Notice on US hosted joint political/military discussions with Israel
SERBIA (KOSOVO)
1,2 Dr. Rugova in Rome - confirmed by press reports / Legitimate
representative of people of Kosovo
2,3 Milosevic seeking peace settlement, but short of five core
objectives / NATO air campaign intensifies
2-8 Update on Refugees / Arrival in US
3,4 G-8 meeting hosted by German Government: Opportunity to achieve a
consensus on the requirements of the international community to
achieve a stabilization of Kosovo, FRY and Balkan regions
4-8 War crimes Update / Serbian forces continue to kill, rape, and
pillage Kosovar Albanians / International media is restricted /
Hunger being used as a weapon toward refugees
RUSSIA (KOSOVO)
3 Russian position regarding Kosovo
MACEDONIA
5 Macedonia has closed border to refugees
INDONESIA (East Timor)
9,10 UN vote on autonomy in East Timor
MEPP
10-12 President Clinton's letter to Arafat / US support of a Palestinian
statehood
TURKEY
13 Legal representation for Ocalan
LIBYA
8 US conditions for resuming diplomatic relations
CUBA
13-14 Members of baseball delegation return to Cuba voluntarily
DEPARTMENT
15-17 Ambassador Holbrooke / Standards of Conduct / Office of the
Inspector General
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #59
WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1999 1:40 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department. I don't
have announcements. I'm going to post announcements - one on the swearing
in today of Robert Seiple as Ambassador at Large for International
Religious Freedom; secondly, a notice on the fact that the United States
hosted joint political-military discussions with Israel on Monday. So I'll
post those in the Press Office.
QUESTION: Dr. Rugova has surfaced in Rome. I wonder what you know about
that and whether the US is talking to him?
MR. FOLEY: I've seen those press reports. I've just seen them in the
last hour. I can't confirm that the United States has been in contact. I
don't believe we have been in contact with him yet or with the Italian
authorities. I think they referred to the fact that they were informing
us. But certainly, we have no reason to doubt the press report that he has
arrived in Rome. We are very glad that he's been able to leave the FRY,
along with whatever members of his family who were allowed to leave with
him.
Our understanding is that he had been asking for several weeks to be able
to leave. We're, of course, sorry that he was subjected to pressure for
that period of time that it took for him to be allowed to depart. But it
is a positive development that he's been able to leave Belgrade or leave
the FRY and is now apparently in Rome.
QUESTION: Is he trying to put together some sort of a peace deal?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, he has appeared on Serb-controlled
television several times in the last several weeks, and we expressed, at
that time, our desire for him to be able to depart the FRY with his family
and be in a position to speak freely. Now, we can't be sure whether all
the members of his family have departed with him or not, or the circumstances
of his departure or what he's going to say now that he has arrived in
Italy.
So I think it would be premature to comment on what he may or may not be
saying. But obviously, we will be eager to have an opportunity to talk to
him and hear his perspective on what's been happening to his people in
Kosovo.
QUESTION: Do you still consider him to be the legitimate representative
of the Kosovar people?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we have dealt with him for many years as a representative
of the people of Kosovo. As Mr. Rubin has stated on numerous occasions
recently in this briefing room the last time the Kosovars had an opportunity
to self-select their leadership, they chose Mr. Thaci as the chairman of
their negotiating team at Rambouillet and in Paris. But ultimately, this
is a question for the Kosovars to decide, in terms of who is their
leadership, what will their leadership look like. This is something that
will be determined after NATO has reversed the ethnic cleansing, after the
refugees have gone back and the international security force is able to put
in place a secure environment that permits the Kosovars to exercise self-
government and to conduct elections and, therefore, determine their
leadership.
QUESTION: This is one of several goodwill gestures by Milosevic in recent
days. Is it going to move the United States or NATO from its stated
positions or demands?
MR. FOLEY: No, not one bit; not one bit. I think that we have been
saying now for several weeks that the air campaign is picking up. The
leaders of NATO, at the summit, agreed to intensify the air strikes. We
have had an increase of air assets to the region. The weather has improved,
although it was a little worse, I think, in the last 24 hours. But as
President Clinton said, the weather is getting better as the spring moves
on; as the spring turns into the summer it's going to get better and
better. And already NATO aircraft are conducting operations around the
clock with increasing efficiency and with an increasingly dramatic effect
on not only the Serb infrastructure throughout the FRY, but on the forces
on the ground.
In other words, time is not on Milosevic's side. He is facing an
inexorable logic to the air campaign. He has no exit strategy, short of
meeting NATO's five core demands. He doesn't have another arrow in his
quiver, another military option that can change the logic of where this
military campaign is going.
As I said, we are progressively taking apart the infrastructure that
supports his war machine. Major regime assets that simply cannot be
replaced are being destroyed. His military establishment, as well as the
police apparatus that supports his rule, is being destroyed and will be
systematically destroyed. He will be bereft of the instruments of
dictatorial rule, as well as a national defense establishment, which the
FRY requires in a volatile region.
So the only question that we face on our side is a question of will. In
other words, do the allies have the will and the determination to continue
the campaign until the objectives are met? I think, therefore, you could
expect, from time to time, attempts on his part to show movement that is
not real movement and to seek to exploit openings in order to achieve an
endgame or an end state that does not meet the requirements of NATO and the
international community.
So we have to be prepared for such half-baked measures or gestures along
the way. But at the end of the day, provided that we maintain our
determination, our unity and our will, he's going to have to come to terms
with NATO's five core demands. The fact is, he's going to have a lot to
answer for to his people when this conflict ends. He will have less to
answer for if he ends the conflict now than if he waits until a month from
now; and he'll have more to answer his people for if he waits two months
instead of one month. That inexorable logic of what's happening to his
military capabilities and to the infrastructure that supports his
dictatorial rule are being taken away.
So I think you're right that we may see such signs from time to time -
gambits on his part to try to achieve a settlement that's less than what
the international community is demanding.
QUESTION: Just to follow up, why do you refer to these as half-baked
gestures and gambits when this was a demand that NATO and the United States
made which he's responded to?
MR. FOLEY: In order to stop the bombing, NATO has to achieve its five
core objectives. So that's really the sine quo non of a political
settlement. Nothing short of that will satisfy NATO.
QUESTION: Do you think he understands this when the US is returning
Yugoslav soldiers? Doesn't that seem to support the notion he gives a
little, you give a little? It sounds like his gambits get a response,
no?
MR. FOLEY: Sure, he would be pleased if NATO halted its bombing.
QUESTION: No, but he does little things and you do little things. I
suppose he and the world connect those two things.
MR. FOLEY: NATO will continue its air campaign, will continue to
intensify its air campaign until he completely reverses course; until the
refugees can go back - and, I might add, all the refugees go back. We've
seen some statements out of Belgrade indicating that yes, refugees can go
back; but in the meantime, they have shorn large numbers of the refugees of
their identification documents, of all kinds of documentation that proves
who they are, where they lived, what they did in order, at some point, to
be able to deny them reentry. So that, too, is an empty promise.
We will not stop the air campaign until all the refugees can go back, until
all the Serb forces are withdrawn, and until an international security
force can go in and ensure security for the returning refugees, for the
Serb minority, so that an autonomous self-government can be established in
Kosovo, remaining within the FRY.
QUESTION: Did you mean that literally - that the bombing will go on until
all the refugees have returned?
MR. FOLEY: President Clinton the other day, referring to the NATO Summit
communique, indicated that we would be prepared to halt the bombing if we
saw that the withdrawal was beginning, and it was beginning according to a
precise time table. I can refer you to the summit communique language. So
if we see that it's happening, sure.
QUESTION: Can you give us an update, please, on your objectives for the G-
8 meeting tomorrow? Some of the reports from Europe seem to suggest that
there's a strong possibility that there might be some kind of deal in the
making with the Russians; whereas yesterday, we had the impression here
that this was rather unlikely. Did something happen in the meantime that
makes you more optimistic?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I've not seen that particular report. Could you be a
little more precise?
QUESTION: I think Chancellor Schroeder said some very kind of upbeat
things about it.
MR. FOLEY: As Mr. Rubin indicated yesterday, we expect there will be a
meeting tomorrow of the G-8 Foreign Ministers. The German Government has
invited foreign ministers to a meeting, and we are working through the
details of specific timing and other arrangements before we can confirm
that it is taking place. But we're right now in discussions with the other
G-8 members to plan for such a meeting. As I said, we expect it to take
place.
We regard such a meeting as an excellent opportunity to coordinate closely
with the G-8 partners on the political and economic aspects of the crisis
in Kosovo, and also our efforts to support the neighboring states.
The Russian Government, as you know, has been active on the diplomatic
front. Special Balkan envoy Chernomyrdin was just here for discussions.
He met with UN Secretary General Annan in New York. We believe a G-8
meeting could provide an appropriate forum to continue these discussions
and consultations.
So in other words, we see such a meeting as an opportunity to continue to
try to achieve a consensus at the G-8 level on the requirements of the
international community to settle this conflict on terms which will
guarantee not only an end to the current fighting, not only a return to the
refugees, but a stabilization of Kosovo, of the FRY and of the Balkans
region. That's what we're working very hard, particularly with the
Russians, on.
I don't want to make any predictions about what may come out of the
meeting. We have not closed all gaps with the Russians, as you know.
Given our talks of the last few days, we felt that we've made real progress
with the Russians in terms of understanding each other's perspectives and
in particular with the Russians understanding the logic, the rationale
behind NATO's core demands. We hope to be able to work together, and
that's what we're endeavoring to do, on a plan of action for ending this
conflict on acceptable terms.
We're not there yet. I wouldn't, therefore, want to highlight or forecast
what the results of tomorrow's meeting might be.
QUESTION: Okay, can I have a quick follow-up, then? Some of these
reports say that in return for Russian support, the NATO members of the G-7
would be happy to drop the word "NATO" from some kind of final statement.
Is that something that the United States would be happy to go along
with?
MR. FOLEY: Well, this falls into the category, Jonathan, of that case
where Secretary Albright is on the road, Mr. Rubin is with her; and the
story, therefore, is on the road. I'd really have to refer you to the
party in terms of what's happening now, what's going to happen tomorrow in
Bonn. Certainly, one of our five cored demands - that NATO form the core
of the international security force that will go into Kosovo at the end of
this conflict - remains unalterable.
QUESTION: Can you give us some details regarding Madame Secretary's visit
in Romania? The trip was postponed. Do you have any details?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have any update on her schedule. I'm not aware of her
travel plans beyond what is occurring now in Germany.
QUESTION: Jim, a couple questions. There was a late report that
Macedonia has closed their border. Do you have anything on that?
MR. FOLEY: I don't. Someone mentioned that to me as I was walking down
the hallway. I don't have a comment. Obviously, it's very important that
Macedonia continue to allow these refugees or deportees who are in great
danger for their lives to be able to, in accordance with international
norms, find refuge in neighboring countries.
We understand the pressures that Macedonia is laboring under, and we're
doing everything we can -- we, the United States, the NATO alliance, the
UNHCR, the international community - to help alleviate those pressures. As
you know, this afternoon we are going to be receiving the first flight of
450-some refugees from Macedonia who will arrive in Fort Dix in a matter of
hours. I believe the First Lady will be present at their arrival. There
will be subsequent flights to Fort Dix, to New York over the weekend.
So we're doing everything we can to help alleviate the bottlenecks, to help
alleviate the pressure on Macedonia. Efforts are being made to transport
refugees out of Macedonia into Albania. There is, I believe, construction
or plans for construction of further camps in Albania. We continue to
encourage other nations also to take in refugees on a temporary basis to
help alleviate the bottleneck.
So I can't confirm that report. I hope that it will be reversed if it is
true, because it's very important that everyone work together to help deal
with the plight of the refugees.
In that regard, I must say, some of the images that I saw - some of you may
have seen on television last evening - of refugees just coming out of
Kosovo were among the most heart-wrenching I've seen. There were largely
women and children who indicated that they had been on the run basically
for six weeks, moving from village to village. Their place of refuge would
be burned down; they would flee to another village, it would be burned
down. They finally, in the last two days, made their way to the border. I
don't know if it was Macedonia or Albania. Short of the border, the men
were separated to face a fate that we can only imagine. We've seen
evidence or reports in the last days and weeks that men in these circumstances
have been massacred.
So I think these images only drive home the need, obviously, for NATO to
stay the course and to reverse ethnic cleansing, but for the neighboring
states to do as much as they can with the help of the international
community to help these refugees in their time of greatest danger.
On the war crimes situation, I have a brief update I can go through, in
terms of some of our latest information or at least reports from refugees.
Obviously, far from searching for a solution, Milosevic is continuing to
have his forces kill, rape, mutilate, pillage and de-populate Kosovo of its
ethnic Albanian inhabitants. The international media is barred from where
Serb forces are committing these atrocities, and they're controlling what
journalists are allowed to see. But we continue to hear from refugees, as
I indicated, a number of accounts of different kinds of crimes and
atrocities, including recently that Serb forces are burning or destroying
the bodies of their victims.
In one case, in the Slatina area, 26 ethnic Albanian men were reportedly
abducted and murdered and their corpses thrown down a well. The well was
dynamited to destroy both the bodies and the well. In another case,
refugees report that more than 60 ethnic Albanians were killed in Kacanik,
between May 1 and 2. Witnesses report that a large number of bodies were
taken to Urosevac, where their disposition is unknown. The judgment of our
war crimes experts is that the Serbs appear, in a number of cases like
these, to be trying to destroy evidence of crimes that they've been
committing since before the NATO air strikes began.
In the last 48 hours, some 20,000 Kosovar Albanians arrived in Macedonia,
many aboard packed trains. From a variety of sources we know of more than
500 towns, villages or settlements that have been wholly or partially
destroyed by Serb forces. And according to the refugees, the Serb forces
are now using hunger as a weapon against the Kosovar Albanian civilian
population.
In many ways, the flight of refugees from Kosovo is increasingly a flight
from hunger. Hundreds of thousands have sought refuge from Serb forces by
hiding in camps in the mountains of Kosovo. Rather than feeding these
refugees, we are getting increasing reports from inside Kosovo that the
Serbs have been firing artillery shells at them up in the mountains. We've
also, as you know, begun to see first-person accounts of rape and sexual
violence.
So that's my latest information on that account.
QUESTION: Is there an alternative, is there a plan to somehow alleviate
the military pressure on these refugees that they might flee, that they
might make their exits? And do we know from the exiting refugees if, in
fact, those people in the mountains want to be out of Kosovo?
MR. FOLEY: Well, that's very hard to say when you're talking about
potentially hundreds of thousands of people who are displaced in remote
areas of Kosovo. Certainly, they want to be free from the Serb forces,
which, as I said, we've gotten reports that they are even firing at some of
these poor people up in the mountains who are simply trying to escape from
the Serb forces.
So presumably, they want to be safe; and if that means leaving Kosovo, then
they ought to be allowed to leave Kosovo. We've seen the Serbs over the
last month, six weeks have turned on and off the spigot, in terms of
letting refugees or deportees, as they may be, leave Kosovo.
But in terms of our ability to help alleviate the pressure that they're
under, that's difficult to say with specificity. But in a general sense, I
think if you watch the NATO briefings lately, you've seen the sense that
the air strikes are increasingly pinning down the Serb forces. They're
increasingly hunkering down and they've lost mobility; not only because
they are conserving fuel, since NATO has been successful in destroying the
petroleum refineries and putting them under great pressure in that regard,
but also because the air strikes themselves are becoming more and more
intense and focused on the Serb forces on the ground. So we see evidence
that they're hunkering down and that the KLA, for its part, we understand,
is in a better position to harass the Serb forces.
So in that sense, I don't want to say that the situation has changed
markedly for the internally displaced persons, but we see evidence - and
the KLA confirms it - that the Serb forces are less mobile and less in a
position to harass people.
QUESTION: On refugees also, in light of the continued flow out of Kosovo
and the beginning of the arrival here at the US and we got the briefing
last week from Julia Taft, saying that it will continue in the next few
weeks. Is there any thought in the US or NATO to raise the 20,000 number
that the US is willing to accept, or other NATO countries raising the
number of refugees they're willing to accept?
MR. FOLEY: I believe Prime Minister Blair, who was in Macedonia the other
day, indicated that the UK would increase the numbers of refugees it was
willing to take in. We applaud that. Germany has done, really, a
remarkable job not just during this crisis, but over the years, in taking
in Kosovo refugees. Turkey, of course, is very willing to take them in.
We're trying to look at ways to help transport refugees to that country and
elsewhere. We continue to encourage countries around the world to do their
part.
I think those of you who read widely in the newspapers have been able to
tell in some sense it might be surprising, given what these people have
gone through and what they know will await them when they go home, they
want to go home. I think there was one newspaper article about those, I
think who were getting on the airplane today to fly to Fort Dix, who said
they were happy for American hospitality, grateful for it, but they want to
go home. So that's very encouraging.
In terms of our numbers, we've said that we're willing to take in 20,000.
We're going to get the first 453 today. I think the numbers over the next
weeks may be to the tune of several thousand a week. That's a very rough
guess. But it's going to take some time before we reach the 20,000 level,
and I think that's a hypothetical question and I couldn't answer it at this
point.
QUESTION: Speaking of their going home, is there a chance, in your
opinion, that any refugees could get back into Kosovo this year?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we'll have to see how long it takes for the NATO air
campaign to hammer Milosevic and his forces enough that he reverses course.
I think, as I was saying a few minutes ago, this is going to be his
decision to make. Whether it's his alone to make is an interesting
question. The fact is that the Yugoslav people, the people of Serbia, may
have their own calculus. We've seen Mr. Draskovic and others talk about
the fact that they are going to lose; that NATO is only stronger; the
bombing is intensifying; and that the writing is on the wall. As this goes
on, Serbia, its infrastructure, its military infrastructure, its military
capabilities are being taken away and simply won't exist when this is
over.
We've also seen indications in the military of the consciousness of that.
These are officers who have a certain pride, certain sense of honor,
certain loyalty to the institution of the military who recognize that needs
to play a role - the military - in Serbia in the region, presumably - as I
said, a still volatile region - and that won't be possible as this
continues. So they may have their own calculus. To the extent that either
civil society or disgruntled military officers have an impact on Milosevic
is anyone's guess. I think there's every reason to continue to assume that
Milosevic will make the decision on when he's had enough on the basis of
what supports his personal interests.
But the point I tried to make a few minutes ago is that there will be a
reckoning in Serbia when this is over, and he will have a lot of explaining
to do to his people. He will have less explaining to do if he ends it now,
sooner rather than later.
QUESTION: What about the refugees who prefer to stay here rather than go
home, even if conditions permit?
MR. FOLEY: Right. What's your question?
QUESTION: Well, will they be allowed to stay here?
MR. FOLEY: Yes. Once they land in the United States, they have the
rights of refugees. I believe within a year - I think it's one year -
they're able to apply for permanent residence.
QUESTION: Will they be all going to homes of people who have volunteered
to take them in? Have they all been placed so far?
MR. FOLEY: Well, our first priority is to try to take refugees who have
family members in the US who want to take them in. I believe that the
flight that arrives in New York on Saturday is constituted largely of that
category of persons, who have family members in the US. So we're going to
continue to try to identify family members in the US and match them up with
refugees in Macedonia.
Secondly, there may be Kosovar Albanian or Albanian Americans who are
willing to take in refugees, even if they're not family members. So that's
sort of a second category of priority. But we will take in 20,000
regardless of whether they're all going to be family members. Non-
government organizations - I believe there are upwards of ten around the
country - will be in charge of resettlement, finding the communities and
the local infrastructure that will support refugees in conformity with our
normal practice.
QUESTION: Just another refugee one, I'm sorry. The timing was a bit
unclear in terms of when the refugees actually can start going back. How
long do the planners say that it will take for this permissive environment
to exist before the refugees can start going back in?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think that in the first instance, it's going to be a
military question. When the Serb forces withdraw and the international
security force and NATO are moving in, our military commanders are going to
have to assess the situation in terms of the security environment. Clearly,
that will be the paramount concern: are they able to go back safely number
one; number two, we will have to mobilize the international community, the
refugee and humanitarian agencies to also help create the conditions inside
Kosovo where these people are able to survive during the reconstruction
period that will have to take place.
I wish I could give you a precise answer, but this is going to depend on a
military assessment and also on the humanitarian situation at the time when
the Serb forces leave and the international force goes in.
QUESTION: Can you tell us anything specific about attempts to get in
touch with Mr. Rugova; and who do you expect to do this on behalf of the US
Government?
MR. FOLEY: Well, Jonathan, this is a hot-off-the-press story. We've just
seen that he's arrived in Rome. Undoubtedly, US people will have an
opportunity to speak to him. The Italians, I'm sure, are already speaking
to him. I think we'll be able to answer that at some point, but not
immediately.
QUESTION: New subject, if that's all right. East Timor - I just wanted
to ask what the State Department reaction is to the agreement being signed
today in the UN that provides for a vote on autonomy in East Timor and the
concerns that it could spark more violence between the integrationists and
pro-independence groups. Also, a Washington Post editorial recently said
that Australia must take a lead in keeping the peace in East Timor. I'm
wondering what the State Department's view of that is.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I wouldn't want to comment on The New York Times
editorial, but in terms of our view of what's happening now, Ministerial
delegations from Portugal and Indonesia are meeting today in New York with
the Secretary General's Special Envoy Jamsheed Marker to consider an
agreement to have the UN facilitate a vote by East Timorese on an
Indonesian autonomy proposal. It is hoped that they will be able to
formally sign the agreement at the conclusion of these talks.
The United States strongly supports the New York process, and we call on
all sides to cooperate in establishing a UN presence with appropriate
security guarantees as soon as possible to begin preparations for the vote.
Whether Australia itself plays a role in that UN presence, I wouldn't want
to prejudge. But our view is that it needs to be a presence that's able to
guarantee the security of the vote.
We also call on Indonesia to facilitate unimpeded access for organizations
providing humanitarian assistance throughout East Timor.
Now, the larger question of whether East Timor becomes independent or an
autonomous unit within Indonesia is, in our view, for the people concerned
to decide. Now, if the parties to the New York talks authorize a direct
ballot of East Timorese on Indonesia's autonomy proposal, the focus of
attention should immediately turn to ensuring that this vote is fair,
peaceful and free of intimidation. We look forward to working with the UN
and others to support preparations of the ballot. We call on all parties
to fully live up to their commitments under the agreement.
QUESTION: Another area - there's a report in (inaudible) newspaper that
the United States representatives and Libyan representatives met in Rome
last week on easing relations. Can you confirm that that happened?
MR. FOLEY: No, I cannot.
QUESTION: They didn't meet?
MR. FOLEY: I heard that report this morning and asked around, and nobody
in the State Department knows about it. I don't believe it's true.
QUESTION: Another subject - the Administration has dropped its challenge
to a lawsuit by a Saudi businessman who owned that the pharmaceutical plant
in the Sudan. Does this mean - in effect, freeing his $24 million in
assets. Does this mean that the Administration is now beginning to doubt
the --
MR. FOLEY: No, not at all; not at all. It's not about the decision to
strike the El Shifa plant. In fact, our actions against the plant were not
predicated on the gentleman's ownership of the plant. I think we indicated
at the time we didn't know he was the owner until after the strike.
QUESTION: Can I ask you about the Middle East? The President has written
a letter to Mr. Arafat. I'm sure you've seen it.
MR. FOLEY: I've heard about it; I haven't seen it.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, heard about it or saw quotations from it and/or
excerpts from it. In it, he says --
MR. FOLEY: Reported.
QUESTION: You think there's doubt that he wrote the letter, is that what
you're saying?
MR. FOLEY: No, reported excerpts. I don't doubt that he wrote the
letter; we've confirmed that.
QUESTION: Well, you've confirmed the excerpts?
MR. FOLEY: No, confirmed the letter.
QUESTION: Well, if you're going to begin by saying you don't know he's
ever said these things, there's no point in my asking any questions.
MR. FOLEY: You can ask the question, Barry, go ahead.
QUESTION: The President assured Mr. Arafat that he believes that they
have a right to be free in their own land. He never uses the word
"statehood." Does the US support statehood at this point for the
Palestinians?
MR. FOLEY: We believe that's a matter to be determined in permanent
status negotiations. Now, as to the letter, we've seen numerous press
reports regarding the text of the letter that President Clinton sent to
Chairman Arafat. I am not going to comment on what, for us, remains a
private communication.
I can tell you there's been no change in our policy, that the only way to
resolve all final status issues is through direct negotiations between the
parties. We're not going to say or do anything to prejudge the outcome of
those negotiations.
Consistent with what the President said when he was in Gaza, we have made
it clear that the United States supports the aspirations of the Palestinian
people to determine their own future on their own land. But we've also
said that negotiations are the only realistic and acceptable way to fulfill
those aspirations.
QUESTION: I don't understand how the Palestinians can be free, in the
President's words, to determine their own future, if at the same time,
their future has to be determined jointly with Israel. Doesn't one
contradict the other?
MR. FOLEY: No, because both Israel and the Palestinians are partners in
the peace process. We don't believe that either side should decide or
preempt through unilateral declarations or moves what needs to be
negotiated at the negotiating table.
QUESTION: Well, if that were the case, the President would say, "I
believe the Palestinians have a right to be free - comma -- subject to
Israeli's approval."
MR. FOLEY: Our policy is that we support the aspirations of the
Palestinians --
QUESTION: What are the aspirations?
MR. FOLEY: -- to determine their own future in their own land.
QUESTION: Freely - and free.
MR. FOLEY: We've not defined what their aspirations are.
QUESTION: No, but it says to freely determine their own future. Anyhow,
I see where this is leading, so let's ask you if it is still - last
question - the Bush Administration informed Israel that it opposes
Palestinian statehood. Is that position operative in this Administration?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we are not going to oppose what the parties themselves
agree to; but we're not going to prejudge what the parties may agree to.
Therefore, we're not going to take a position ourselves on permanent status
issues.
QUESTION: So when the Bush Administration says it opposes statehood, that
was the Bush Administration's position? There were negotiations in the
Bush Administration, too. Negotiations didn't begin on your watch; it
began a long time ago.
MR. FOLEY: I'm not going to stand here and either offer unilateral US
positions on something we need the two parties need to decide themselves.
QUESTION: I'm not asking you to. I'm asking if one Administration makes
a statement if it's binding on the next Administration.
MR. FOLEY: I'm simply saying that we're not going to take a position on
an issue that we believe the two parties need to decide themselves.
QUESTION: Can you confirm that Mr. Pickering has pledged more support for
the Nigerian-led Africa force?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have a read-out of his current trip. I'd prefer to
take the question and get back to you later or tomorrow. Certainly we are
very supportive of the transition to democracy. We have welcomed the
elections and we've indicated we want to work very closely and supportively
with the new government. But as to the details of his trip, I prefer to be
careful and get you the right answer.
QUESTION: On Turkey, do you have anything to say about the legal
representation the Turkish Government is allowing for Mr. Ocalan? His
attorneys are threatening to quit today because --
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen that report. To be perfectly honest, I had some
information on that, I think last week, and I can get it for you in the
Press Office. But I have not seen that latest report.
QUESTION: Can I just go back to Libya a moment? Can you spell out for us
exactly what US conditions are for resuming diplomatic relations with Libya
now that the Lockerbie affair is pretty well out of the way?
MR. FOLEY: We have still important ongoing concerns in the area of
terrorism or support or terrorism or harboring terrorists that remain on
the list --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - Syria --
MR. FOLEY: We are concerned about issues of weapons of mass destruction.
I don't have a list of all the particulars, but we have still, as I
indicated, several major areas of remaining concern with the Libyans that
we want to see addressed before -- as you know, we have bilateral sanctions
that aren't covered by the UN - before we consider adjusting our sanctions
policy against Libya.
QUESTION: Can you be more specific about what they need to do, other than
merely address you concerns, which is a bit vague?
MR. FOLEY: Well, that's not unimportant - address our concerns. Address
our concerns means sever all ties with international terrorism; stop
harboring of terrorists; stop providing financial support to terrorists or
to those destabilizing other governments. It means halt production or
development of weapons of mass destruction. Address, yes, it's a
diplomatic term, but it has some very important meaning when it comes to
what our expectations are.
QUESTION: Well, why do you require these of the Libyans when you don't
require these of the Syrians?
MR. FOLEY: Syria remains on the terrorism list. We continue --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - my question --
MR. FOLEY: Look, I'm not going to get into an apples-and-oranges
discussion with you.
QUESTION: On Cuba, did the State Department get to meet with the six
Cubans that got left behind yesterday; and are you satisfied that they left
voluntarily?
MR. FOLEY: Not the State Department, but let me give you the information
that I do have. All of you have seen the press reports that one individual
has sought asylum. As you know I am constrained; it is a general policy of
the US Government to neither confirm nor deny requests for asylum.
But on the issue of the other six, you've also seen in the press reports
that six missed their return flight to Havana yesterday. We learned
yesterday that they had overslept and missed their flight. There was no
indication from them that they wished to remain in the United States.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service spoke with the individuals.
There were no Cuban diplomats present. They spoke separately and privately
with them, and all the individuals assured the INS that their return to
Cuba was voluntary.
QUESTION: Do you know where the interviews took place?
MR. FOLEY: I believe at the airport, but I'd refer you to the INS for any
specific details.
QUESTION: A North Korea question. There is a report that Dr. Perry's
visiting North Korea - is planning to visit North Korea sometime this
month. Can you say anything of this?
MR. FOLEY: I have no information in that regard; nothing to announce,
certainly.
QUESTION: Also, the timing of the Perry report - anything on sometime
this month or whenever?
MR. FOLEY: I don't believe it's imminent, but he's working on it. He's
obviously been consulting in the region with our allies, in the Administration,
with the Congress actively; and his review continues.
QUESTION: There are reports that Ambassador Holbrooke took time off in
some sensitive negotiations to go off and give some private speeches. Is
that a matter of concern to the Department?
MR. FOLEY: The article would be a matter of concern if we took it
seriously, but it is inaccurate and, frankly, with all respect, a
ridiculous article.
President Clinton and Secretary Albright have periodically asked Ambassador
Holbrooke to undertake missions on behalf of the US Government, and he's
always done so thoroughly and conscientiously. Ambassador Holbrooke has,
throughout, been a valuable part of the Administration's team working on
Kosovo issues. There should be no suggestion that the US policy that he
was advancing was affected adversely in the manner implied in the story
printed today.
With regard to the specific negotiations referred to in the article,
Ambassador Holbrooke accomplished what he was asked to do. His role
concluded at each stage based on decisions made by those involved, that
this was in the best interest of the mission.
On the particulars, this is just really shoddy reporting. Ambassador
Holbrooke canceled his trip to New York and never gave the so-called
"Siemans Speech" that was mentioned in the article. In other words, the
whole predicate of the article is simply untrue. He canceled the speech;
he never left Belgrade to go give a speech in New York. He canceled the
speech. Certainly, a call to his office could have confirmed this.
That was the allegation concerning events in October of last year, 1998.
With regard to the June allegations, Ambassador Holbrooke left the region
only after consultation with all the relevant decision-makers, and when it
was deemed appropriate that his participation end. He did not give a
speech; I think he gave a commencement address in Athens that was not
compensated. I think the journalist mistook a speech that he actually gave
in Switzerland several days later.
Furthermore, as we've noted and as most other press organizations have
reported today, the Inspector General's investigation is now closed and
found no evidence of a clear violation of the standards of conduct. The
blame for the failure to reach a negotiated settlement in Kosovo rests on
the shoulders of Slobodan Milosevic, and not on anyone else.
If you'd like, I can go into some of the more particulars of the article,
because he reports - the journalist - about Ambassador Holbrooke's
negotiations in Belgrade of June 1998, and then he writes that Mr.
Holbrooke's departure from Pristina - in other words, in June 1998 - was
followed by a peace proposal that was seen as little more than an ultimatum
to Mr. Milosevic, congressional critics say. The peace proposal they're
referring to was the proposal that the Contact Group put on the table at
Rambouillet some many, many, many months later - at least half a year -
following Ambassador Holbrooke's departure at that time, in June 1998, from
Belgrade.
Furthermore, referring to the October 1998 departure of Ambassador
Holbrooke, the journalist writes that Mr. Milosevic reneged on the
agreement reached by Ambassador Holbrooke in Belgrade in October 1998:
"Milosevic reneged on the agreement, after Mr. Holbrooke departed to speak
to executives at Siemans." Number one, he did not depart to speak to
executives at Siemans; he canceled that speech. Number two, Mr. Milosevic
did not renege on that agreement in October 1998. At the time, that was a
successful agreement in which a cease-fire was reached; Milosevic agreed to
withdraw some of his forces in Kosovo, which he did at the time; and he
agreed to the introduction of the Kosovo Verification Mission.
Milosevic reneged on his promises made in October 1998 several months
later; several months following the speech that Ambassador Holbrooke never
gave in New York.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - would you care to speculate that any of this has
a particular political flavor to it, given the publication and the source
of the allegations?
MR. FOLEY: I couldn't speculate on it; I wouldn't.
QUESTION: Secondarily, is it now the policy of the State Department
Inspector General to release the results of its investigations, or was that
just a special for The New York Times?
MR. FOLEY: I haven't even seen the article; I couldn't comment on
it.
MR. JOHNSON: There was no statement.
MR. FOLEY: No statement, no.
QUESTION: There was a statement issued last night to The New York Times,
similar to the one you just gave; at least that's what the newspaper
said.
MR. FOLEY: I'm told there was not a statement.
QUESTION: So the paper like - would you care to take that paper on the
same way you just took on The Washington Times about the inaccuracy of the
article, misrepresentation of -- the mischaracterization of the statement
or whatever from the State Department Inspector General?
MR. FOLEY: Sure, if they misreported a statement, I'd be glad to do so;
I'd be glad to check the record in the meantime.
QUESTION: Well, in the interest of fairness, it seems like you should
since you just had pages and pages of guidance debunking a story in one
newspaper, which the Administration doesn't particularly like, and then you
had nothing at all on what this other --
MR. FOLEY: Pages and pages of guidance is not quite precise.
QUESTION: That's what it sounded like.
MR. FOLEY: I was largely leafing through the article and doing some text
explication as we went along.
QUESTION: Well, in the interest of fairness --
MR. FOLEY: But the Inspector General's office is independent; they are
not subject to coordination with the Press Office. So I'd be glad to look
into the question. I'm told that they did not issue a statement.
QUESTION: My curiosity with this doesn't go to either newspaper account,
but goes to the fact that you've told us that the Inspector General's
investigation is now closed. I thought there was never any comment about
their investigations.
MR. FOLEY: They don't while something is happening.
QUESTION: Well, so, my follow-up is, can you tell us anything about the
report of an investigation now that is closed?
MR. FOLEY: Simply the conclusion. I'm certainly, myself, haven't been
privy to the report itself. But I read to you the conclusion just at the
start of my answer.
QUESTION: So is that a new policy now? You all will, once the IG has
finished an investigation, you will then tell us the conclusion of
it?
MR. FOLEY: Well, if you recall, when the IG completed its last investigation
of Ambassador Holbrooke and there was an agreement between Ambassador
Holbrooke and the Justice Department, this was confirmed.
QUESTION: Yes, but there's been - they do thousands of investigations a
year. If we were to ask you about one or the other, we could expect - and
it was completed, we could then expect an answer?
MR. FOLEY: Well, they don't comment on - as I said, they are independent,
first of all. So I would, in the first instance, refer you to them in
terms of their policy. Secondly, my understanding is they don't comment on
ongoing investigations. Whether they have a general rule or not about
informing the public or the journalists about the closure of an investigation
subsequent to an investigation, I truly don't know.
QUESTION: This is just suspicious - this is such a high profile
individual under investigation --
MR. FOLEY: What's suspicious, Sid?
QUESTION: That in this one case among many, and you're asked a lot about,
they're asked a lot about, that you should care to comment on it. That's
my --
MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry, that I should care to comment on the article that I
was asked about?
QUESTION: That the State Department Inspector General should pick out one
case among the thousands it investigates every year and decide to release
or tell or comment on the results.
MR. FOLEY: So you're implying that you've asked thousands of times of the
Inspector General whether they've completed an investigation or not. As I
said, in terms of their general policy as to whether they comment publicly
when they've completed an investigation, I'd refer you to the Inspector
General.
QUESTION: Now that this one is complete, can you tell us whether there
are any pending investigations into Mr. Holbrooke's various affairs? And
if there are none, then how soon can we expect this nomination process to
go forward?
MR. FOLEY: I'd have to refer you to the Inspector General.
Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:25 P.M.)
[end of document]
|
