Read The Treatment of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire (Part 1) (by Viscount Bryce) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923)
HR-Net - Hellenic Resources Network Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Thursday, 28 March 2024
 
News
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  Announcements
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Hosted
  Mirrored
  Interesting Nodes
Documents
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  Constitutions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Other
Services
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts
  Tools
  F.A.Q.
 

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #87, 99-07-07

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>


1113

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Wednesday, July 7, 1999

Briefer: James B. Foley

LIBYA
1-2	US Sanctions / British Decision on Sanctions / Compliance With UN
	 Resolutions /Restoration of Relations / UN Sanctions / State
	 Sponsor of Terrorism 

DEPARTMENT 3 Senators' Holds on Amb Holbrooke's Nomination / State Dept Letter to Senators 3-5 Review of Ms. Shenwick's Allegations / Status of Investigation / Privacy Act / Present Position / State Dept Contacts With Sen Grassley / Special Counsel's Responsibility / Repercussions

CHINA 5-6 Written Version of Under Secretary Pickering's Oral Presentation re Bombing of Embassy in Belgrade / Internal Review / US Compensation to Families / Transmittal of Written Report

ISRAEL 6-7 Secretary's Contact With Prime Minister Barak and Foreign Minister Levy /Prime Minister Barak to Washington / Secretary's Travel Plans

MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS 7 Secretary's Contact With Chairman Arafat 7-8 President Assad's on Opportunity for Peace / Prime Minister Barak's Inaugural Remarks / Resumption of Syrian Track 8 US-Russia Diplomatic Contacts 9 Implementation of Wye Agreement / Reports of Israeli Changes to Wye Agreement 9 Travel by Amb Ross

RUSSIA / SYRIA 8,9 Arms Connection

SERBIA (KOSOVO) 9-10 US Businesses Involvement in Rebuilding While Milosevic in Power / Humanitarian Aid 10-11 Secretary's Meeting With UN Special Rep for Kosovo 11-12 NATO Air Campaign Targets / Environmental Damage 12-13 Broadcasts to Serbian People / US Supports Peaceful Change, Democratic Movement / Indicted War Criminals Assets Frozen

SECRETARY 11 Contacts While on Vacation

NO. KOREA 11,16 AmCit Being Held / Next Steps for Consular Access 17 Dr. Perry's Report

CUBA 13-14 Smuggled Cubans / US Policy on Legal Migration 14-15 Additional People-to-People Measures / US Policy Goals / Changes in Allowable Remittances

INDIA / PAKISTAN 15-16 Situation in Kashmir / Prime Minister Sharif's Meetings / Restore Line of Control & Return to Lahore Process

RUSSIA 16 Expulsion of US Military Attache

INDONESIA (EAST TIMOR) 16 Status of US Military Assistance / Responsibility for Stopping Paramilitary Actions

BURMA 17-18 EU Mission Visit for Talks on Human Rights Issues


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #87

WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 1999, 1:20 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department. To echo my boss' normal announcement, today is Wednesday, July 7. This is another not-on-time briefing from your deputy spokesman. Mr. Schweid.

QUESTION: A lot of ground to cover. Let me try first, Libya. The British - curiously, I have to say - at the UN are joining the US in opposing a lifting of sanctions, but at the same time have fully restored diplomatic relations with Libya. Now, before you tell me it's a British decision and it's up to Britain, I would still try to see how the United States feels about its best friend in combating terrorism and other problem areas, feels about this. And if you can't deal with that, why would the US - how does the US feel about the wisdom of the US not restoring or restoring full relations?

MR. FOLEY: How would who feel about that?

QUESTION: Your own government.

MR. FOLEY: Well, we've stated our position on that on numerous occasions. We have separate from the United Nations regime of sanctions which have been suspended, as you know, we have US national sanctions on Libya, which remain in effect and will remain in effect until our separate concerns behind those sanctions are fully resolved and satisfied.

I would have to refer you to the British Government for comment on their decision. What I can say is that we understand from them that this step was taken because Libya has acknowledged responsibility for the murder of a British police officer in London in 1984. Libya has furthermore expressed regret for this act, agreed to cooperate with British police investigations and offered to pay compensation to the victim's family. Now, we believe that this parallels what we've asked Libya to do in the case of Pan Am 103. So we would hope that Libya would prove as cooperative in that case, as well.

We've made clear for our part that Libya must comply with the remaining requirements of Security Council resolutions before sanctions can be lifted or further developments considered. Libya has given assurances that it will fulfill these requirements and end support for terrorism, cooperate with the Pan Am 103 investigation and trial, pay appropriate compensation, and acknowledge responsibility for the actions of Libyan officials. We continue to look for Libya to take action on these assurances.

QUESTION: So that virtually does it - clear to your position on sanctions, but their position on sanctions is clear, too. They're with the US in imposing - so far as --

MR. FOLEY: Yes, and there are other members of the Security Council as well that support our view that it is not time to lift sanctions.

QUESTION: But the related issue is recognition, restoration of full relations. So I take it that the United States sees no expectation of restoring relations until Libya qualifies also for a lifting of sanctions. Do they go hand in glove with you guys?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I talked about two different sets of sanctions. One has to -

QUESTION: And there are two different sets of sanctions, yes.

MR. FOLEY: The UN sanctions that are yet to be lifted, and we do not support lifting those sanctions at this -

QUESTION: Nor does Britain, but they're having full relations.

MR. FOLEY: Nor does Secretary General make such a recommendation in his recent report, which is being discussed today in the Security Council.

Apart from that, the United States has national sanctions against Libya, and Libya will have to meet our concerns or satisfy our concerns fully, thoroughly and definitively before we consider any further steps down the road in adjusting our relationship with Libya, be it the question of changing our sanctions policy, be it the question of political relations of any kind.

QUESTION: Jim, I wonder a couple things on the Holbrooke nomination. Let's give it a whirl.

QUESTION: Can we stay on the Libya subject? Does the United States consider that Libya is an active supporter of terrorism or is it a passive supporter of terrorism? That is, in its support of terrorism, is it merely being a host country for some undesirable groups, or is it actually out there committing acts of terrorism?

MR. FOLEY: Well, Libya is officially deemed by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism. That covers a multitude of sins, if you will. It covers relations with terrorist groups, their support to terrorist groups, their harboring of terrorist groups. Our sanctions also relate to Libyan programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. There are a whole range of concerns we have with Libyan policies.

QUESTION: But you can't say if Libya is an active --

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think I've indicated the areas of Libyan support to terrorism that are of concern for us. I think that's about as specific as I can get.

QUESTION: On the Holbrooke nomination, we'll just give it a whirl. Can you confirm that Senators Lott and McConnell have placed holds on the Holbrooke nomination?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, that's our understanding, that there are two additional holds by senators on the Holbrooke nomination. As you know, Ambassador Holbrooke's nomination to be our next Ambassador to the United Nations was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It awaits a vote by the full Senate. We don't believe that other issues external to Ambassador Holbrooke's qualifications should be linked to his confirmation; we've made that position very clear all these many months.

Ambassador Holbrooke is an excellent nominee. We certainly need him now at the

United Nations to promote American interests. I think nobody in the Senate disputes that fact that we have important interests to pursue at the United Nations and he is certainly superbly qualified to pursue our interests at the United Nations. So we hope that those issues will be de-linked and that we'll see Ambassador Holbrooke in New York as rapidly as possible.

QUESTION: Let me just confirm, you said two senators. Are you confirming that they are Lott and McConnell in addition to Grassley?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have that information. I've certainly read it in the newspaper today as you have, but I can't confirm that.

QUESTION: Can you also confirm if the Senate --

MR. FOLEY: I think you should direct your question at the senators.

QUESTION: Right, but can you confirm that the State Department has been notified about which senators are putting a hold on the -

MR. FOLEY: I don't know that because I don't know officially whether those two are the senators who have the holds. So I can't confirm whether we've been, obviously, informed of that.

QUESTION: Just a final question. Can you also tell us which senators that letter went to - the letter that went from the Inspector General's office last week? I believe you said it went to Grassely and a few others.

MR. FOLEY: Yes, it was actually a letter signed by the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, and it went to several senators. I don't have a list, but they include certainly Senator Grassely, who had written to us. This letter was in response to his correspondence. The letter went to Senator Helms, to Senator Lott, but beyond that I don't have a list.

QUESTION: Can you tell us where the administrative review of Ms. Shenwick is?

MR. FOLEY: In 1997, Ms. Shenwick filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel. The OSC, as I indicated to you last week, is an independent federal agency established to investigate, among other things, allegations of prohibited personnel practices. She alleged that the Department had retaliated against her for what she believed to be protected whistle- blowing. The State Department vigorously denies these allegations and also the facts that underlie those allegations. We do not retaliate against employees who make protected disclosures to the Congress, and we did not retaliate against her.

We have been cooperating fully with the OSC during the course of its two- year independent investigation. The Department understands that the investigation is in its final stages and that the OSC will perhaps soon reach a decision on the merits of the case. But again, this is an independent federal agency, and we do not have an ability to influence the pace of its deliberations.

QUESTION: Has the employee in question signed the Privacy Act waiver that you all - you all, in previous public comments, had said that you were limited in your comments on the issue because of the Privacy Act. Has she made that easier for you, as far as you know?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I believe it was your network that ran a piece of information from us about a week ago or so indicating that we had not received a waiver of the Privacy Act. My understanding is that has not changed. That is certainly fully within her rights.

QUESTION: Is she still being paid?

MR. FOLEY: I think so; I would have to check that. The fact is that she was - it was determined by the State Department's Executive Resources Board, in an independent action that was not connected to her performance evaluation in 1996, but the Executive Resources Board determined that the Department can most effectively utilize Ms. Shenwick in the SES position, Senior Executive Service position, which is at her rank as Director of Acquisitions Management. She was directed to report to work in that position at the opening of business on June 29 of this year.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. FOLEY: I'd have to check that for you.

QUESTION: Also, can you tell us whether there's been, since the letter went to the senators last week, has there been any attempt by the State Department to contact Senator Grassley? Has there been any response to that letter? Has he acknowledged --

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of a response. That's not to say that there hasn't been one on his part, but I'm certainly not aware of it. As I indicated here from the podium on Friday, the Office of Special Counsel was established by statute by the US Congress, precisely to adjudicate such cases in an independent way, free of any kind of external influence or pressure. So it's a body whose work is independent and whose work cannot be interfered with in any way. So this is not a matter that is within our hands at the moment; it's before the OSC. I think all parties to this issue will have to await the outcome of the OSC's deliberations.

QUESTION: And again on Ms. Shenwick, what repercussions would there be if she didn't turn up on the 29 and start work on that post?

MR. FOLEY: I'll have to look into that for you.

QUESTION: Can I try on something else? Sort of a follow-up to the distribution of the Pickering transcript at dinnertime last night. I understand that the Chinese --

MR. FOLEY: Dinnertime? What time do you have dinner, Barry?

QUESTION: Well, late last night. Just as people were leaving, we got this transcript. It was good to see it; we've been waiting for it. But I wonder if that's the end of it, because the Chinese wanted, I understood, another delegation - or maybe the same delegation - but wanted another visit and wanted a written statement. I don't know that that's ever been dealt with. It's just sort of footnote to this business, but I'd like to wrap it up if I could.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think I can answer both questions. First of all, a written version of Ambassador Pickering's oral presentation has been given to the Chinese first. Secondly, Ambassador Pickering delivered a full and detailed explanation to the Chinese and answered their questions concerning his oral presentation.

We have no additional explanation regarding the events in question, nor is the investigation into what occurred ongoing. So we believe that the explanation was full and satisfactory.

QUESTION: Okay, I may have read it differently on that last point. I read that transcript late into the night yesterday and tried to read every word. In it, it said something about we're continuing - (inaudible) - if we find any need for disciplinary action, we would take it. So something is still working its way through the system.

MR. FOLEY: Well, that is a separate issue in terms of how things happened.

QUESTION: Oh, in terms of how things happened.

MR. FOLEY: We've completed that investigation.

QUESTION: But you're still looking to see if there's any --

MR. FOLEY: Well on that particular issue, we will inform the Chinese of all appropriate information on any further results of our internal review with respect to the question of whether any disciplinary action is called for.

Let me also say that should any further written materials be produced - for example, if there's any congressional testimony on this subject --- we will make those available to the PRC as well.

QUESTION: Another question that's left unanswered by that report was the issue of compensation. It said that the US had offered immediate compensation for the families of the three and the injured. Can you tell us how much that was? Did the Chinese accept it? The second thing is that it said that there was going to be discussions about compensation for the embassy damage itself and that they were complicated by the damage to the US Embassy in Beijing. What's the status of that?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have any monetary information to provide to you. I'm not sure that has been addressed to this point. But as we reported at the time, during his visit to Beijing Ambassador Pickering conveyed our willingness to provide a humanitarian payment to the injured and the families of those who were killed. We are, as I indicated, prepared to discuss this through diplomatic channels. So I think that remains to be done.

But he also told the Chinese that we are willing to discuss the issue of damage done to China's embassy in Belgrade, and that will also take place in subsequent diplomatic channels.

QUESTION: There's been no payment yet, then, made?

MR. FOLEY: To my knowledge, yes, there has not.

QUESTION: Jim, in what form was the written version transmitted to the Chinese? You said at the beginning --

MR. FOLEY: You mean in English or in Chinese? It was on paper.

QUESTION: No, through Ambassador Sasser, from Pickering, in the mail?

MR. FOLEY: I confess, Charlie, this is a level of detail that surprises me a bit. I don't have the answer. It was probably communicated through our embassy. Often we send information to an embassy in the field to communicate to a government, and they attach a diplomatic note to it and they type it or it's printed from the computer. But I have nothing in my book on that.

QUESTION: So I've surprised you.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Inquiring minds want to know.

QUESTION: As long as we're asking you in the area of communications, has the Secretary - even though she's on vacation - been in communication with the new Israeli Foreign Minister? There are indications from Israel that she has. And where are we; what does that amount to, besides congratulations? Barak is coming here; we're okay on that. But is there traffic now between the two?

MR. FOLEY: Yes. Yes, Secretary Albright spoke last evening or late last night to Prime Minister Barak; and she spoke this morning, European time, with Foreign Minister Levy. Those were both calls to congratulate both leaders on the assumption of their positions. As you indicated, these were congratulatory phone calls. She also, of course, expressed her keen interest in working with both of them to advance the peace process. She spoke also today with Chairman Arafat to convey a similar sentiment, that we are very eager to work with Israel and the new government, as well as the Palestinian Authority, to help reinvigorate the peace process, put it back on track. We look forward to Prime Minister Barak's visit here. I don't have the announcement - haven't seen it yet from the White House. You'll have to check with them. I think one will be forthcoming because we're expecting that visit soon.

So these were essentially congratulatory calls. The Secretary took the opportunity to express her support for the peace process and to working with all the leaders in advancing the peace process.

QUESTION: Do you have any long-range weather forecast?

MR. FOLEY: In hopes that the weather will improve in Washington or -

QUESTION: Or that if it stays bad here, maybe the - (inaudible) - will not have hit the Middle East and she could go there to cool off. Or to tread water - whatever.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think it's likely that she will be making a trip to the region. We haven't set a date yet; first things first. Prime Minister Barak is going to come here and then we're going to consult with the Israelis and the Palestinians. I would expect a visit to the region by the Secretary in the near future.

QUESTION: The Syrian track, which the Russians have been involved in lately. I guess she didn't call the Syrian Foreign Minister, but how are you keeping up with that? Have you heard of the positive Syrian statement that they want to move step by step with the new prime minister?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, well, we've seen reports of the statement by President Assad together with President Yeltsin, that Prime Minister Barak's election represents an opportunity to work towards a comprehensive peace in the region. Such positive statements are very welcome, and we look forward to consulting with Israel's new prime minister and all the parties on how to advance progress on all tracks of the peace process.

We note that the Prime Minister, in his inaugural address to the Knesset, made clear that a comprehensive peace between Israel and all of her Arab neighbors is one of his highest priorities. So we certainly encourage a resumption of the Syrian-Israeli track. Certainly, Prime Minister Barak has indicated he wants to move forward on that front as well.

QUESTION: Do you have any general observations on Mr. Barak's inaugural address?

MR. FOLEY: Well, not beyond what I just said in terms of welcoming his stated commitment to move forward on all fronts of the peace process. I think we found that very encouraging.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - the Russian-Syrian arms connection again?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have anything more for you from yesterday.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, do you know any more? Does the State Department --

MR. FOLEY: No.

QUESTION: Your cautionary note yesterday was registered, but I don't think it had an impact on Moscow. It sounds like they're revving up to - what is the quote here - I don't know, whatever. They seem to be preparing for another arms deal. This is the Russian Prime Minister now involved in coming here and ready to receive another IMF loan. Is there any contact between the US and Russia as to whether - private diplomatic contact, like, don't do it, it ain't helpful?

MR. FOLEY: Barry, it's hot up here.

QUESTION: But I mean, Russia - you cooperate -

MR. FOLEY: Although President Truman said, if you can't stand the heat get out of the briefing room.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - you want him gone?

MR. FOLEY: No, I didn't have anyone in particular in mind. No, Barry, seriously, I don't have anything from what I said yesterday -

QUESTION: No, I mean, you're talking about cooperating with - there are areas of cooperation and then there are areas of bombing Yugoslavia, disagree politely. But do you folks agree on how to move in the Middle East, or do the Russians have their own game plan?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we are in communication with the Russians on a range of global issues, including the Middle East and the Middle East peace process. They were a cosponsor, as you know, of the Madrid conference and have maintained, along with the European Union and others, an active interest in promoting the peace process. I believe we have a common interest in promoting the peace process. Beyond those generalities, though, I have nothing to report about latest diplomatic contacts with the Russians on advancing the peace process.

I think, in our view, to be very frank with you, this is a matter, essentially, for the parties. I think Prime Minister Barak has made it clear that in his view, this is a matter primarily for the parties. The United States, as always, is certainly willing to play a helpful role in that process, to play any role that the parties want us to play. But nevertheless, the philosophy that it's up to them remains our watchword. We encourage them to engage in direct bilateral talks and to solve their problems and the issues between them themselves. We will play whatever helpful role they want us to play.

QUESTION: That's the peace-making position, and it's clear. I just was asking about whether Russia providing weapons to Syria is some --

MR. FOLEY: I answered that question yesterday. I would be glad to repeat it. It doesn't mean I've backed away from what I said yesterday.

QUESTION: One of Prime Minister Barak's colleagues today is saying that he expects the Israeli side to seek some changes to the Wye agreement. Does the United States see that as a distraction? Would you rather that they just pressed ahead with what they agreed and then move on, or are you happy to let them start wrangling on that one?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I've not seen that statement. I think in his inaugural address yesterday, Prime Minister Barak indicated that he supported implementing the Wye agreement. That certainly is the view of the United States Government, that not only Israel but the Palestinians, obviously, both sides should implement that which they agreed. We look forward to that happening. In terms of any adjustments to the Wye agreement, again, I've not heard that. It's not something that I can comment on. We support the Wye agreement as negotiated. If the two parties themselves were to agree to talk about the Wye agreement and agree on matters along the lines you're suggesting, that's something we could live with. But we're not calling for that; we're not endorsing that. We believe the Wye agreement ought to be implemented, and we understand from the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that that's exactly what he intends to do.

QUESTION: Would you expect Ambassador Ross to go out in advance of the Secretary to the Middle East?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have any information about his travel plans.

QUESTION: What is the US Government's policy for American businesses that are seeking to be part of the rebuilding effort in Kosovo and Yugoslavia?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we certainly support the ability of American businesses to participate in the reconstruction of Kosovo, similarly in Bosnia, as has been the case. We think that American companies deserve the right to compete on an equal footing with European companies and other companies. We believe American enterprises have a lot to offer not only in terms of their products and what they can build, but also in what they can share and what they can help others learn about our way of practicing free enterprise. So we certainly support a level playing field for American businesses.

On the subject of Kosovo, let me also tell you that Secretary Albright yesterday had a two-hour luncheon meeting with Bernard Kouchner, who was newly named by Secretary General Annan as his special representative for Kosovo. This was a very positive meeting. The Secretary was most impressed with his energy, passion and commitment to doing the job. He's fully aware of what a tall order his job is because, in effect, it's going to fall on his shoulders to run the civil administration of Kosovo during this interim period. He conveyed to her not only his strong commitment, but also his sense of the urgency of getting people - officials, police - in on the ground and successfully mounting the initial stages of setting up the UN administration.

So it was a very good meeting. They've spoken subsequently on the phone to their luncheon yesterday. She's very encouraged by his commitment to the job.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up, Jim? With Milosevic continuing to be in power, are US businesses allowed to participate in the rebuilding in Yugoslavia?

MR. FOLEY: With what?

QUESTION: With Milosevic remaining in power, while Milosevic is still in power.

MR. FOLEY: I thought your question was about reconstruction of Kosovo. Did I misunderstand?

QUESTION: It was; this is a second question. Would US businesses, or are US businesses allowed to reconstruct things destroyed in Yugoslavia?

MR. FOLEY: Is that a trick question?

QUESTION: No, it's not; totally innocent.

MR. FOLEY: I'm joking, but you know our position is that we do not support reconstruction in Serbia while Milosevic remains in power. So we do not, therefore, support American firms or any firms participating in the reconstruction of Serbia while Milosevic is in power.

QUESTION: What about contracts having to do with humanitarian aid?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I wouldn't want to rule it out. Again, this probably is the decision, however, of humanitarian agencies - of NGOs, of international organizations that will be responsible for humanitarian relief inside Serbia.

QUESTION: Where was this meeting between Albright --

MR. FOLEY: Innsbruck.

QUESTION: Innsbruck, Austria?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: I thought she was on vacation. What is this - she's on the phone with Arafat and --

MR. FOLEY: I don't know if this Secretary of State is ever fully on vacation. She is on vacation, but she's also keeping in very close contact with officials in Washington every day, and she's been in contact with counterparts around the world, as I just indicated.

QUESTION: OK, so has she been in touch with anyone else that you haven't told us?

MR. FOLEY: She's spoken to Secretary General Annan a couple times. She spoke to Foreign Minister Ivanov, I believe it was yesterday morning, following the successful conclusion of the NATO Russian talks in Moscow. I think she's spoken to Foreign Minister Schuessel of Austria.

QUESTION: But because she's there.

MR. FOLEY: You said that.

QUESTION: Well, Jim, you just told us she had lunch in Austria. I mean, I think the cat's out of the bag now.

MR. FOLEY: But I don't have a read-out of that phone call, Matt. It's helpful information, though, thank you.

QUESTION: Has she had any calls with Lott or McConnell?

MR. FOLEY: Not that I'm aware. The Senate is on vacation - is really on vacation.

QUESTION: Any news on the American being held by the North Koreans?

MR. FOLEY: No, nothing further.

QUESTION: There's a UN team investigating environmental damage from the war in Kosovo and Yugoslavia, and complaining that NATO's not being cooperative. Can you reassure them?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'd have to refer you to NATO; NATO can answer for itself. But what I can tell you is that we believe that one person is responsible for the damage of NATO air power over Serbia and Kosovo, and that's Mr. Milosevic. He had every chance to settle this diplomatically, to get a better settlement diplomatically, at Rambouillet than he got following the NATO air campaign. We made no secret of the fact that the aim of the NATO air campaign was to degrade Milosevic's military capability. That included attacking the country's industrial capacity as the conflict continued. NATO targeted very carefully, however, and tried very hard to avoid collateral damage.

I would have to refer you to the Pentagon and to NATO for any questions about specific targets hit or industrial plants destroyed. But again, responsibility for any attendant environmental damage, if there is any, rests with him.

In that regard, we believe that the ongoing democratic movement in Serbia, which we've been seeing more and more of in the last days, is very significant. I would take this opportunity to remind the authorities in Belgrade that the eyes of the world are on them, and they need to understand the importance of allowing for internationally recognized rights of free assembly, of freedom of speech. We believe that the hopes of the entire Serb people lie with those who wish to promote democratic change and a better future for the people of Serbia. So we're watching very carefully as these events unfold in Serbia today.

QUESTION: Jim, back to George's question on the American - I know you don't have any new information, but at what point does the US --

MR. FOLEY: Are we finished with Kosovo?

QUESTION: No, one more. Are the broadcasts which are being retransmitted by the aircraft flying near Serbia -- are those still continuing? Broadcasts in Serbian directed at the Serbian people?

MR. FOLEY: I believe they are. But let me stress something, though: that change will have to come from inside Serbia. Because of Milosevic's repressive policies and his denial of information to the Serb people, we will continue to try to make information available to the people of Serbia. But what is happening in Serbia today -- the democratic movement and the growing support we're seeing on the streets of many Serb cities, including cities controlled by Milosevic's own political party -- are truly the work of the people of Serbia themselves. We are not their political advisors. This is their movement.

But I would say that we certainly support peaceful change inside Serbia and we've seen powerful examples of successful, non-violent movements that have produced dramatic political change in our lifetimes. Certainly, we've seen, going back to the example of Gandhi in India, Martin Luther King in our own country and of Corey Aquino in the Philippines, that "people power" is powerful indeed. What's happening in Serbia today is very significant. Again, we repeat that the authorities in Belgrade have to understand that this is a movement that the world is watching very closely and very carefully. Again, this is an internal movement. I think you've seen some of the stale old propaganda that blames people who want change in Serbia for being tools of outside interest. Nothing could be further from the truth. And I think the people of Serbia see through those lies today.

QUESTION: You're obviously very keen on this democratic movement. Is there anything the United States is doing or can do to encourage it, apart from making statements like this?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we are and have been looking at ways to try to create space independent of the regime in Serbia. Historically, we've given help to the free and independent media and to labor organizations. We've helped to -

QUESTION: Are there immediate plans?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we're looking at the matter. I think we've given some money in the past to international organizations, or NGOs that tried to help create democratic space in Serbia and we're still looking at that and we intend to be as helpful as we can. But I think the important point is the one I made a minute ago, which is that this is not a made-outside-of- Serbia movement. This is an internal, home-grown movement of people who understand that Milosevic has only brought ruin and misery and isolation to his own people, and that their future -- inevitably -- lies in democracy and lies in reintegration with Europe. Milosevic's days are numbered. It's impossible to predict how many numbers there are in those days. But certainly, Serbia historically has been a part of the West. Its separation from the West has been an anomaly. Serbia has not only failed to develop democratically in the last ten years, it's been completely absent from the movement towards free markets and integration that's occurred in the other former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe. So they have a lot to catch up on, and I think one can sympathize with the sense of impatience that's growing on the part of opposition leaders and their followers inside Serbia.

QUESTION: Jim, I don't necessarily expect you to answer this question, but I'm going to put it out there anyway so that the discussion is full. Isn't it true, though, that the United States has gone quite a bit farther than just sort of looking at the issue of trying to overthrow or create democratic change in Serbia and replace Milosevic? Newsweek this week has quite a long piece about a presidential finding and covert efforts to sort of -- sabotage his financial transactions, his bank accounts in various countries. Can you speak to that question?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I can't speak to any specifics of what you're asking, but certainly his assets and those of all indicted war criminals are, by international law, frozen. Certainly, we want to do our part to implement our obligations under the War Crimes Tribunal statutes.

QUESTION: There are 22 Cubans sitting on a key outside of Miami, Florida, that are suspected to be smuggled from Cuba. There was an abortive incident last weekend, I believe, and a successful incident a couple of weeks ago. Is the US concerned about this seeming increase in the number of smuggled Cubans?

MR. FOLEY: I have not seen that report about additional Cubans who may have recently arrived, you say, in -

QUESTION: They're sitting in Elliott Key off of Miami.

MR. FOLEY: In Florida. I've not heard that report. I'd have to refer you to the INS for any information on it.

But what I can tell you is that the United States is committed to promoting safe, legal and orderly migration, as put forth by the September 9, 1994, joint communique, and the May 2, 1995, joint statement. Working in tandem, these accords are intended to discourage dangerous open-sea voyages, while providing legal means for migration. There has, as you point out, been a recent upsurge in the number of Cuban migrants. The increase in migrant arrivals appears to reflect a rise in organized alien smuggling activity. There is no indication that the Cuban Government has eased controls that deter illegal migration, and we expect the government of Cuba to continue to uphold migration agreements with the US in deterring illegal migration by peaceful means.

QUESTION: Is the US prepared for any onslaught? I mean, were they --

MR. FOLEY: I'm sure various federal, state, local agencies have contingency plans. But I have to dispute, though, the sort of alarmist premise behind your question. We don't have evidence of a crisis. We don't see - although there's been a recent upsurge in incidences of alien smuggling, we don't see the kind of numbers that would justify the type of question you're asking.

QUESTION: Jim, do you have any comment on the report today in The New York Times suggesting that the US is contemplating an announcement on additional people-to-people measures vis-a-vis Cuba?

MR. FOLEY: Well we're always looking for ways to try to reach out to the Cuban people. That has been the essence of the President's and Secretary of State's philosophy: to create space for the Cuban people for civil society to grow, while pending a democratic transition in Cuba, which we're also trying to promote. But I'm not aware of anything specific in that regard. I've not heard anything in that regard.

What I can tell you is that the fundamental goal of US policy toward Cuba is to promote a peaceful, democratic transition and respect for human rights. US policy is premised on maintaining pressure on the Cuban Government for change through the embargo and the Libertad Act, while working to aid the development of independent civil society. Our policy was exemplified by the measures announced in January 5 to provide support for the Cuban people, while denying the regime the means to maintain its repressive system.

On January 5, as you know, we authorized the expansion of charger flights between the US and Cuba and a number of other steps having to do with direct humanitarian cargo flights, restoring direct passenger charter flights, restoring the authority for family remittances to Cuba in the amount of $300 per quarter, also simplify/expedite the licensing of commercial sales and donations of medicines and medical supplies consistent with existing law. This was announced in January, and we're working on all those steps.

QUESTION: Are you're contemplating additional airports and changes in remittances so that they won't be limited to $300 per quarter?

MR. FOLEY: I've not heard anything about the latter point you raise. In terms of additional cities, what we're looking at currently is where and what cities are concentrated Americans who have family ties to Cuba who wish to take advantage of this provision that we announced in January. We're going to make decisions on that basis. It's simply a function of where people live in the United States. I don't think we've made decisions in that regard yet, though.

QUESTION: Jim, do you have anything on the situation in Kashmir?

MR. FOLEY: I have no update from yesterday. I have no indication of any fundamental change. I believe the fighting continues there. Certainly, Prime Minister Sharif is returning today. He stopped en route back from the United States in London. He met with Prime Minister Blair. So he's only returning today.

But our information, in terms of what's happening on the ground, is that the fighting there continues along the Line Of Control in the Kargil sector. Indian leaders have declared that military operations will continue until all the forces infiltrated from Pakistan are removed or withdrawn from their side of the line.

As you know, in a statement following his meeting with Prime Minister Blair yesterday, Prime Minister Sharif agreed that it was important that concrete steps be taken swiftly to restore the Line Of Control and return to the Lahore Process. We certainly support that, as the President indicated on Sunday.

QUESTION: The militants, though, made some rather muscular statements today, to the effect that they aren't buying this deal and they're going to continue to fight on and stay where they are. So I wondered how you read that.

MR. FOLEY: Well, as I said yesterday, the head of the army indicated publicly that he supported the Prime Minister. So I would point out only that the Prime Minister is returning today. Our understanding is that he plans to meet with the parliament, meet with opposition leaders to discuss the way forward. We believe, certainly, that the Prime Minister is committed to an early resolution of this crisis, and that means restoration of the Line Of Control and return to the Lahore Process, which was a very hopeful development that occurred earlier this year, in which India and Pakistan agreed to discuss the whole range of issues between them, including Kashmir. That is the way, in our view, to go forward and to get beyond this crisis with its dangers of escalation.

Let's remember that what we support here is not anything that's against the interest of Pakistan, or against the interest of India. We believe it's fundamentally against the interests of both peoples for this crisis to continue, for the conflict to continue with its attendant risk of escalation.

The Prime Minster met with President Clinton on Sunday, met with Prime Minister Blair, and found support from those two important friends for restoring the Line Of Control and returning to the Lahore Process.

QUESTION: Are you confident that India will go back to the table, go back to the Lahore Process?

MR. FOLEY: I believe they've indicated that they want to see, obviously, restoration of the Line Of Control. But I believe certainly privately, if not publicly, that India remains committed to the Lahore Process.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a question that I started to ask 20 minutes ago, which is, what --

MR. FOLEY: Were you rudely interrupted?

QUESTION: Yes, I think so. I know that you don't have any further information on the North Korean - the American woman there. But at what point does the US step up; I mean, really start to put the screws to the North Koreans? I understand that the woman that's being held is elderly and there are serious health concerns about that.

MR. FOLEY: Well, we don't have a Privacy Act waiver signed.

QUESTION: Yes, I know.

MR. FOLEY: So I'm not able to talk about her. Obviously, we're very concerned about her situation, concerned about the fact that we have not, through our protecting power, had the consular access which is guaranteed under an agreement we have with North Korea - an interim consular agreement, which is guaranteed under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. This is important to us.

What I've told you -- every day now -- is that we expect there to be consular access, and we have not made a determination that there will not be consular access. So I think that answers your question. If we arrive at such a conclusion, then we will consider that matter accordingly, and treat it with the seriousness that it deserves. We are concerned about the fate of this American citizen, and we are trying vigorously, assiduously, through diplomatic channels, to reassure ourselves about her status and condition, and make sure that these international agreements are respected.

QUESTION: One more that you had no comment on for the last couple days, but I'll try again. That is the American military attache being --

MR. FOLEY: No, I have nothing further for you.

QUESTION: Will you allow me a question on East Timor, please? There's been a Senate amendment on June 22, urging tougher US policy towards Indonesia. In the last weeks, different NGOs, like OxFam, are complaining about the misuse of World Bank funds for the pro-Indonesian integration cause in East Timor. (Inaudible) - attacks every day from the militias against United Nations --

MR. FOLEY: We do what every day, I'm sorry?

QUESTION: We saw every day attacks from the militias against the United Nations mission there. So I have two specific questions for you: Are you in favor of a hold of World Bank money until a fair vote is assured in East Timor? And are you in favor of a ban of US military assistance and arms transfer to Indonesia until Indonesia stops supporting the paramilitary groups?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'd have to check the record on the second question to find out what is the status of our relationship with Indonesia on that score. So I can't answer that for you now; I'll get that answer for you later or tomorrow.

But on the first question, we have made it very clear - unmistakably clear - our view that the actions of the militias or paramilitaries on East Timor are unacceptable, number one. Number two, and more importantly, the Indonesian Government has a responsibility, the Indonesian military has a responsibility to bring those militias under control. This is an important process, this vote that's scheduled to take place in late August. It's a potential resolution to a long-simmering and very bloody problem, with a potential way out that provides an opportunity for the people of East Timor to decide their own future peacefully. It's in everyone's interest - the people on East Timor and Indonesia writ large - that this be allowed to go forward peacefully and fairly. So we continue to call on the Indonesian Government to meet its responsibilities to ensure that the militias are brought under control, and that threats to the UN cease, and that threats to the integrity of the vote cease as well.

We think this is an important vote; we want it to take place. But it must take place under appropriate and safe conditions.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - Dr. Perry is going to Moscow. Do you have anything on this?

MR. FOLEY: No, I have nothing on that.

QUESTION: I have a question and maybe you have something to date. Have you seen the reports that there has been a four-person European Union delegation in Mayanmar, formerly known as Burma?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have any views on that?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, we support the discussions by the special European mission which has arrived in Burma for talks intended to encourage Burma to improve its dismal human rights performance. The US has long urged Burmese authorities to begin a real substantive dialogue with the National League for Democracy, including Aung San Sui Kyi, and leaders of Burma's ethnic minority groups, leading to a peaceful democratic transition. We call on Burma to improve its human rights record by stopping such practices as forced labor, extra-judicial and arbitrary executions, rape, torture, mass arrests, forced labor - I mentioned that already - forced relocation and denial of freedom of expression, and by permitting the parliament that was democratically elected in 1990 to convene. So we support the team's effort.

QUESTION: Do you have any indication that Burma has changed its mind, that the regime has changed it mind and is willing to sort of consider these issues in a positive way?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I personally have not seen anything recently that indicates any change in their consistent stonewalling in this regard.

QUESTION: Then how come you're endorsing this mission? I thought the whole --

MR. FOLEY: Because it's important to discuss this matter with them. If we are alone waging an effort to spotlight the dismal human rights record in Burma, that' s one thing. We have to do our job as befits our view and vision of human rights in the world. We're willing to do that if we stand alone. But it certainly is more effective when others join that struggle. So in that regard, we support the fact that the EU is willing to go there and to sit down and discuss these issues with Burma. The message needs to be constantly reinforced with the Burmese authorities.

QUESTION: So you're persuaded that this is going to focus mostly on human rights and not prospect for business?

MR. FOLEY: Our understanding is that the purpose of the mission is to focus on human rights and the prospects -- check that -- the ongoing political stand-off between the government and the opposition.

Thank you. (The briefing concluded at 2: 05 P.M.)


U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
Back to Top
Copyright © 1995-2023 HR-Net (Hellenic Resources Network). An HRI Project.
All Rights Reserved.

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.01b run on Thursday, 8 July 1999 - 1:42:48 UTC