U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #110, 99-08-24
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
699
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Briefers: JAMES B. FOLEY
NORWAY
1 Reported Refusal of Norway to extradite Drug Smuggler to US
FIJI
1 Reported Threat to American Installations
SERBIA (Kosovo)
2-3 Meeting Between Russian Officers and Local Albania Leaders Re
Russian troops
11-13 Richard Holbrooke's Travel to Balkans/Assumes Duties as UN
Ambassador Tomorrow
BOSNIA
3-4,6 Corruption Issue / Financial Losses
DEPARTMENT
4-6 US Foreign Assistance/ Goals and Objectives
IRAQ
7-8 Enforcement of the No-Fly Zone
8 Humanitarian Situation in Iraq / Sanctions
8-9 US Contacts with Iraqi Opposition
MEXICO
9-10 Expansion of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)
LIBYA
9,10 Non-Government Organization US-Libya Dialogue Group Meeting
INDONESIA
10-11 US Public Announcement on Situation in Indonesia
CHINA
14-17 Status of American Citizen Daja Meston's Detention and
Hospitalization
KYRGYZSTAN
17 US Public Announcement Issued Yesterday
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
18-19 Report Regarding Chairman Arafat's Health
SOUTH KOREA/CHINA
19 Defense Ministers Meeting
NORTH KOREA
20 KEDO's Light Water Reactors
ISRAEL
20 Status of Samuel Sheinbein Case
TURKEY
21-22 Update on Earthquake Relief Efforts
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #110
TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1999 1:15 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: It's another slow news day, so I expect another lengthy,
grueling briefing. I'm not going to add to it; I have no announcements.
QUESTION: We've got no questions so --
MR. FOLEY: Okay, enjoy your lunch.
QUESTION: I've got one. Do you have anything to say about Norway refusing
to extradite this alleged drug dealer?
MR. FOLEY: I just saw the wire, coming in, that reported that. So I'm
going to have to take the question. I imagine it's something that the
Justice Department might comment on.
QUESTION: I did have a question, but I thought it had been taken care of.
MR. FOLEY: I'm not surprised.
QUESTION: Well, I thought privately - pretty much - cleared of the notion
that there's been some trouble in Fiji, some threat to American
installations. Can we put that to rest if it's not true?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, the report is not true about a threat to American
installations. There were recent bombings in Suva over the past ten days,
but we have no indication that the bombings are related to the United
States or to our embassy in Suva.
At this time, the reasons for the bombings are unclear. Fiji authorities
are investigating. As far as embassy security is concerned, in case you're
interested, as we said back in January, security at the embassy has been
enhanced as part of our worldwide response to the bombings in Kenya and
Tanzania last year. The street in front of Embassy Suva was closed then by
the Fiji authorities and it remains closed. So we have, in effect, the
setback that you are very familiar with as a priority around the world.
And we've taken a number of measures at embassies around the world to
enhance security.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: I have a question about Kosovo. Have you been following the
tensions between the Kosovars and the Russian peacekeepers? And has the
United States tried to intercede at all through its back channel with the
KLA?
MR. FOLEY: I don't know what you're referring to when you say "back
channel."
QUESTION: The dialogue.
MR. FOLEY: We communicate with the KLA, certainly.
QUESTION: The dialogue between Mr. Rubin and Mr. Thaci?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I wouldn't characterize it in the way that you do. Mr.
Rubin is on vacation at the moment, in any event.
Russian officers met with local Albanian leaders in the town of Orahovac
today in an effort to resolve the situation and enable Russian troops to
deploy. An advance team of Russian KFOR troops scheduled to take over
patrolling from Dutch troops in Orahovac turned back yesterday after ethnic
Albanians set up barricades of tractors, cars and buses to prevent them
from entering the city. The barricades remain in place today.
As you know, that meeting today between Russian officers and the local
Albanian officials did not resolve the situation.
Yesterday, Serb residents of Orahovac continued to hand over weapons to
KFOR troops, turning in more than 500 small arms.
In terms of our view - the view of the United States - about how this
situation should be resolved, we fully expect to see this situation
resolved in a manner that results in the Russian troops taking over their
area of operations in Orahovac.
In terms of our communicating with the KLA, we do that on a daily basis. I
have no information to impart to you, but I am certain that we are
communicating that view to them. The fact is that we believe that Russian
troops will act even-handedly; they will fulfill their mandate in Orahovac,
just as they have done elsewhere in Kosovo.
I would point out that only a few weeks ago, ethnic Albanian residents of
Kosovska Kamenica were demonstrating similarly against the arrival of
Russian troops in that area. Those protests have died out as the Russians
have demonstrated that they are as committed as all other KFOR troops are
to fulfilling the KFOR mandate and providing security for all the people of
Kosovo, regardless of their ethnicity or religion.
Finally, I would point out that Russian forces in IFOR and SFOR in Bosnia
were met with similar skepticism on the part of some of the local
populations there. We believe very strongly that the Russians have
comported themselves very professionally and even-handedly throughout the
time of their deployment in Bosnia. We see no reason to expect otherwise
in Kosovo.
So our expectation is, while this stand-off continues, that it will be
resolved, as was the situation in Kosovska Kamenica.
QUESTION: After ten years of sanctions against Iraq and 110 strikes this
year alone --
QUESTION: Last week, the new UN High Representative, in an interview with
French newspaper Le Monde, said that he thought the only long-term solution
would be to put all the Serbs together in a protected enclave and that the
inter-communal situation can never work. Do United States officials see
that; do they agree that the inter-communal pattern of living between Serbs
and Kosovars will not work?
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen the interview. It was with Mr. Kouchner, you're
saying? As you know, there were proposals made, I believe in the meeting
of the transitional council this week, by the Serbs in Kosovo that their
population be moved into cantons in order to provide them with better
protection. I believe Mr. Kouchner has even today spoken out against that
proposal, spoken out against partition or de facto partition in Kosovo.
So I'm not familiar with the Le Monde interview, but I am familiar with his
statements today and I believe yesterday as well.
As far as the United States is concerned, we've made it clear that we do
not support partition in any form; and we, therefore, believe that
cantonization based on ethnicity is a bad idea. It's in conflict with all
that we're striving to achieve in terms of the unity and territorial
integrity of a multi-ethnic Kosovo. So that is the view of the United
States. As far as Mr. Kouchner's view, I'd have to refer you to him; but
again, his comments today echo the ones I just made.
QUESTION: On Bosnia, has the money - that $500,00-odd that was supposed
to be returned or repaid - has that happened?
MR. FOLEY: Well, again, the amount of US money in this bank - the BH
Bank, I believe it's called - was only $1.1 million. As you know, there
was press reporting that originally talked about the possibility of up to
$1 billion in foreign aid having been lost or stolen in Bosnia. We
researched the issue and published and strongly underlined our findings,
which did not in any way support anything like those figures. Indeed, the
amount of foreign aid - especially US aid - that we were able to identify
that was subject to litigation, as I said, was $1.1 million; not $1
billion, not $20 million, not $4 million, but $1.1 million.
Of that, about $600,000 is in a State Department account for the embassy
for local expenses and salaries and what-not that happens to be at risk
because this bank is in difficulty. There's another account of $520,000
over which a court has decided that we should be repaid that amount. That
is coming to a decision this week. I don't have the final disposition of
the case, but it's before the courts. I think the bank has to transfer the
money to us. If it doesn't transfer the money, then it will be subject to
further litigation; namely, its assets will be at risk.
But as we've stated from the beginning, we will get that $1.1 million back.
But I have no update in terms of whether the bank has repaid the $520,000
yet. But believe me, I asked about it today and it's something I'll follow
up on every day this week.
QUESTION: Jim, do you have any comment on The New York Times editorial
today saying that foreign aid is a good thing?
(Laughter.)
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not surprised. I think that The New York Times has
been a consistent supporter of a strong American foreign policy. The New
York Times editorial refers to the President's speech before the VFW a week
ago, in which the President described foreign aid as our first line of
defense, as that which we commit to spend overseas in order to prevent us
from having to spend vastly larger sums in situations where diplomacy has
not succeeded and we have to intervene in situations of conflict or
disaster.
So I'm not surprised that The New York Times has underlined the fact of the
really woeful inadequacy of the State Department budget and foreign
assistance budget that has been reported out thus far by the Senate and the
House. I think the editorial gives you some of the big ticket items that
are vastly under-funded in the appropriations bills coming out of the House
and Senate. I can go briefly through some of those items if you're
interested, but I think the editorial references the Wye River agreement
and it also references the severe under-funding of our contributions to
international peacekeeping. But there are a whole range of accounts in the
foreign assistance area, which we call a national security budget, which
are severely under-funded.
As I think the editorial indicated, it's about to the tune of $2 billion.
This involves severe cuts in our Middle East programs and debt
restructuring; voluntary peacekeeping operations; the multilateral
development banks; international narcotics and crime; the threat reduction
initiative, which is so critical to achieving our non-proliferation
objectives in Russia and the former Soviet Union; non-proliferation;
anti-terrorism; de-mining and related programs; economic support fund; not
to mention the State Department budget itself - our operating expenses.
These cuts will damage our ability to secure our posts abroad, under-funds
our vital infrastructure, communications in the State Department.
So there's a whole range of areas which I think, if examined carefully by
the Congress, would be understood as important to the national security.
So we very much hope that the Congress will listen to the President's
message of last week and when they come back that they will rethink their
approach to our budget and to our national security needs overseas.
QUESTION: There's been no change in the Wye River money, has there?
Because Congress is not in session.
MR. FOLEY: Well, in the appropriations bill --
QUESTION: No, the conference.
MR. FOLEY: Yes, but under the separate bills, the House would cut 80
percent of what we asked for.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- $1.2 of the $1.6?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, $1.2, I believe. The Senate cuts 100 percent. So we're
just out of business in the Middle East under the current circumstances.
QUESTION: There's no way the conference is - well --
MR. FOLEY: We hope that in conference they will revise upwards
significantly and meet the President's request.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) the editorial mean the hatchet is now buried?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think it's important to stress that although in this
business, the relationship between government and government spokesmen and
the press is inherently one of - how shall I put it - help me --
QUESTION: Adversarial.
MR. FOLEY: Adversarial, thank you; I was looking for a nice word.
QUESTION: Collaborative?
MR. FOLEY: It's not normally collaborative; although we're all --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. FOLEY: Symbiotic, yes. That's your word, Sid.
(Laughter.)
Especially in - and sometimes we get angry at each other because you print
things we don't like; we say things you don't agree with. That's the
nature of our relationship and of the business. So these things happen
every day; you have your frustrations, we have ours. That's just the price
of doing business.
But this was a different order of problem, because the effects of an
incorrect story or an incorrect implication in the story - that, namely, up
to $1 billion, and one network reported more than $1 billion in foreign
assistance, was stolen or lost - is so pernicious, so damaging to the case
that the President made a week and a half ago that the Congress is under-
funding our national security needs in the area of foreign affairs, that we
had to speak out. We had to urge that the record be rectified. I salute
The New York Times for making clear on Friday that they weren't talking
about $1 billion in foreign assistance. They whittled it down to about $20
million, which, of course, as I've made clear, we dispute because we only
have $1.1 million in a failed bank. But it was a helpful rectification.
So I salute them for it.
However, it remains the case that the original story in that paper was
reproduced all over this country; reproduced on two or three of our major
television networks; reproduced in major newspapers around the country.
The fact is, as Mr. Rubin indicated last week, we are hearing from
Congress, we're hearing from citizens. The story is believed across the
country that we lost $1 billion in our foreign aid overseas. The story is
not in any way true, in any way, shape or form; we've made that clear. The
New York Times has recognized that the way the story was written could have
led to that conclusion. I would, therefore, urge, as a public service
those news organizations that reported incorrectly the original story to
correct the record today. It's very detrimental to the interests of the
American people that that incorrect information remain unchallenged out
there.
QUESTION: The same subject. President Izetbegovic has said he's going to
sue The New York Times for libel as a result of that story. I wonder
whether, in your investigations of that story, you were able to clear -
looked into whether he was involved in this alleged graft, whether you saw
he might have been involved; whether you think he might ought to step down?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that we have any information in that respect.
What we did last week - and, of course, the story appeared on Tuesday - so
we spent Tuesday afternoon and all day Wednesday, I think, putting together
the facts of the case; and we're still working on it. But we were focusing
on what we knew about US assistance and, to some degree, about
international assistance. But certainly, we wanted to be very thorough to
make sure that our assistance moneys had not been stolen or lost.
Let me say, in echoing what The New York Times said on Friday, the premise
that corruption is a big problem in Bosnia is one that we fully share. I
think Jacques Klein himself has spoken to this problem, stating that it
really does cast a shadow over the ability of Bosnia to transition to self-
sustaining growth and to stability in the longer term. It's a very, very
serious problem. So we wanted to make - we always make certain, especially
in a country that does suffer the problem of corruption, that we do know
where our aid or assistance money goes. It's precisely in those
circumstances where the monitoring is most intense so we can make sure that
our assistance - much of which goes to the private sector that we're trying
to encourage; a private sector which itself is most penalized by instances
of official corruption - that we see the assistance we give goes to a
private enterprise, is used for the purposes intended. We're able to
monitor that very, very carefully.
QUESTION: Two subjects, also for a slow news day. Iraq. Jim, have the
French recently renewed their concerns to the US Government over the
continued US-led bombing raids over Iraq?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that we've been in diplomatic contact with
France on this particular matter involving the no-fly zone and no-fly zone
enforcement. I think that on the part of Paris, there has historically
been a concern that the no-fly zone enforcement, or the whole entire issue
of Iraq, be treated in such a way as to preserve the territorial integrity
of Iraq.
Let me say for the record that we completely agree with our French allies
that that is a very important principle that we thoroughly support the
continued territorial integrity of Iraq. So on that question, I think
there's no daylight between us.
In terms of our enforcement of the no-fly zone, however, we believe that
our enforcement is something that flows out of Security Council resolutions
from the time of the Gulf War; that it's intended to protect the people of
Northern and Southern Iraq from depredations by Saddam Hussein; and that
the actual use of force that has occurred with some regularity since
December in enforcing the no-fly zone is wholly the responsibility of
Saddam Hussein, who is clearly attempting to shoot down an allied aircraft
and, therefore, is challenging the aircraft, endangering pilots,
illuminating aircraft, and our pilots are responding in self-defense.
QUESTION: Just on that note, if I could just follow up, in terms of -
this is not new, either, obviously. Some people who are sort of with the
Iraqis stepping up their attempts to hit an allied aircraft in the no-fly
zone, it seems to be happening more and more lately. More and more people
are coming forward - critics, analysts and the op-ed pages - sort of
questioning the whole sort of US approach to Iraq; saying it's at a
stalemate, it's not working, inspectors haven't been in there since
December. There are reports that the sanctions are causing some damage in
some areas of the country. What do you say to those critics, who really
say that this policy is not working and it's time for a full review of the
approach to Iraq?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I certainly don't agree with the basic premise that the
policy is not working, and I've said this before. If you asked Saddam
Hussein does he think American policy is one that he likes or doesn't, I'm
sure he doesn't like it one bit because he's still very much contained,
unable to threaten his neighbors, constrained in his ability to threaten
his own people - at least in the north and south of Iraq - still subject to
sanctions and, therefore, very much a contained threat in the region.
We would share the concern of critics over the fact that we have not had
weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq since the end of last year; that
is a significant concern. Therefore, we are pushing strongly in the
Security Council for a resolution which protects the integrity of the
inspection regime, which continues to ensure that Saddam Hussein's imports
are monitored, scrutinized and approved carefully by the international
community so that he's unable to import elements that can bolster his
weapons programs.
But we very much want to see progress in this area because we believe that
the best way of ensuring that the international community has a handle on
his programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and is, indeed, in a
position to disarm those weapons and programs is to have inspectors on the
ground in Iraq. We are striving to achieve that in the Security Council,
but we're not willing to sacrifice the integrity of the program. We're not
willing to see "Potemkin" inspectors or inspection regime. We don't trust
Saddam Hussein and, therefore, we are moving forward with those concerns
very much in mind.
QUESTION: Will the sanctions have caused the doubling of the infant
mortality since ten years ago? And people even in Great Britain, like
George Galloway, are intending to send a tour bus to protest against the
sanctions. Now the sanctions the United States has installed another
regime in Iraq, but so far we didn't see any results. Is there any other
way to deal with the regime of Saddam Hussein; and are there any efforts to
escalate these strikes since we have seen 110 strikes this year alone?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, in terms of your question about the
humanitarian situation, we have a very clear view of this, which is that
the problem of malnutrition and the humanitarian crisis in Iraq is the
responsibility of Saddam Hussein. We enabled the oil-for-food program to
go forward. It took a long time to persuade Saddam Hussein to allow that
to go forward. The problem is that if the United Nations is authorized to
feed and care for the people of Iraq, then he loses his best argument, his
best propaganda tool for arguing in favor of lifting the sanctions.
In this regard, if you're looking for something that can improve the
situation, I think that Saddam Hussein ought to heed the report issued by
Secretary General Annan last week, in which he called for Iraq to do more
to help mothers and children under the oil-for-food program. For over a
year, the UN has urged Iraq to use oil-for-food revenues to purchase
special nutritional supplements targeted at vulnerable groups. But despite
its promises, Iraq ordered only one of these items in the last 15 months.
In light of the recent UNICEF report on the child mortality rates in the
regions controlled by Saddam Hussein, Iraq should, indeed, redouble its
efforts to provide nutrition and humanitarian assistance to the innocent
victims of his regime.
But again, the UNICEF report underscores the success and efficiency of the
oil-for-food program in the northern regions of Iraq, where the child
mortality rates have fallen to below pre-Gulf War levels. In the south and
central regions, where Saddam Hussein controls the territory, medicine and
humanitarian assistance sits in warehouses while child mortality rates have
doubled.
QUESTION: The INC was supposed to have its general assembly to get a new
umbrella organization launched by mid-July. It hasn't happened. Can you
tell us what's going on there; and are you trying to persuade them to speed
this process up? Because it doesn't look too good.
MR. FOLEY: Well, here, because, to be perfectly honest with you, I'm just
back after having been absent for quite a number of weeks. I am not up to
speed on our contacts with the Iraqi opposition and the efforts to get that
assembly underway. So I'd like to take the question and come back to you
if not this afternoon then tomorrow on it.
QUESTION: Do you have anything about the Syrian transfer or the purchase
of the Chinese missile technology?
MR. FOLEY: I've not heard that story. Maybe after the --
QUESTION: It's a Washington Times story.
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen it. Maybe we can talk afterwards and we can
look into it and get back to you.
QUESTION: I hesitate to bring this up --
MR. FOLEY: Then don't bring it up.
QUESTION: -- after it's been denied. But I have to because - on the
beautiful island of Malta, there are apparently US and Libyan academics
meeting to discuss normalization of ties. I'm just wondering if the State
Department (a) knows anything about this; or (b) has any comment on it.
MR. FOLEY: I think we do know something about it and what we can say
about it will be brought up to me in the minutes to come. So I'll come
back to you.
QUESTION: The government of Mexico, through the embassy here in
Washington, is calling attention of the Clinton Administration about the
bill that was a month ago approved by the Senate trying to expand the
sanctions against foreign companies with relations with narco-trafficker
organizations abroad. What is the opinion of the State Department about
the bill?
MR. FOLEY: The International Emergency Economic Powers Act - the IEEPA -
allows the President to direct economic sanctions against those individuals
and entities whose activities present an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States if
the President declares a national emergency with respect to such a threat.
President Clinton has used IEEPA as an effective tool against the front
companies of drug traffickers and terrorists. He announced its use against
key drug kingpins in a speech to the UN General Assembly in October 1995.
The use or exercise of IEEPA authority has proven to be a powerful weapon
against the business interests of these international outlaws. The
Administration is committed to using this when appropriate against their
front companies. But we are committed to ensuring that the use of the
IEEPA sanctions does not produce negative consequences against unintended
targets in Mexico or elsewhere.
QUESTION: Do you think the government of Mexico is trying to defend some
companies that probably are involved in narco-trafficking - that's why they
are opposed to this bill?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we are determined to confront the challenge of narco-
trafficking and we believe we have a partner in the Mexican Government that
shares that commitment. So we are using tools at our disposal bilaterally
to deal with that problem. As I implied, we don't have any reason to
believe that the premise of your question is true. I think the Mexican
authorities are afraid of unintended negative consequences. And as I
indicated, we're committed to ensuring that use of IEEPA doesn't produce
such consequences.
QUESTION: Do you think this bill could affect very hard the Mexican
economy that could have some reactions to the American economy?
MR. FOLEY: No, I wouldn't draw such sweeping conclusions. I've simply
stated, though, that from our point of view, we're going to ensure that the
use of this tool does not produce negative consequences for Mexico or
elsewhere.
QUESTION: Are you trying to say that the legislation is redundant; that
the President already has exactly the same powers which he can use at his
discretion; is that what you're trying to say?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't want to prejudge the President's decision on the
bill. I haven't talked to the White House today on it. So I'd really not
want to comment on our particular view or intentions vis-a-vis the bill. I
can take the question, if you'd like.
The group you referred to is apparently called the US-Libya Dialogue Group.
It's a non-governmental organization composed of Libyan and US nationals,
apparently from academia and business. I guess they had a meeting already
in The Netherlands in April. Therefore, we are aware of the organization
and of the meeting that you referred to.
We do not in any way intend to participate in the meeting, and our policy
on Libya is clear. This is separate from the US Government; it's not
something that we're involved with.
QUESTION: So you're not encouraging it at all?
MR. FOLEY: No, we're not.
QUESTION: Last week the US State Department issued a public announcement
on security in Indonesia. It looks like Indonesia is a dangerous place and
the Indonesian Embassy wants the US Government to withdrawal that
assessment. Indonesia is not only Aceh -- (inaudible) - or East Timor; we
have 13,000 islands. So what's your comment about this?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have the text of the public announcement before
me, and I'm not aware of any Indonesian Government complaints about the
announcement. So I'd have to get the text and respond to you perhaps
tomorrow on the issue.
What I can say is that our drafting of these travel warnings or public
announcements are based strictly on objective criteria. The State
Department's first responsibility is to American citizens, especially to
American citizens traveling overseas, to bring to their attention our best
information about security conditions - be it crime or terrorism or
violence or lawlessness in any given situation anywhere around the country.
Often when we produce this sort of documentation, we are subjected to
criticism by local governments for obvious reasons. But we have to stand
by our honest assessment because that's our obligation to American
citizens.
So I can assure you that these are not drafted with any political intent
involved. We work very closely with local governments and certainly with
the government of Indonesia to ensure that our citizens who wish to travel
overseas have the best information available to them.
QUESTION: There is no American tourists or foreigners that have been
killed in Indonesia.
MR. FOLEY: Well, as I said, I don't have the statement before me and I'd
be glad to describe it in more detail for you tomorrow. But as a matter of
principle, I stand behind it because they're very carefully drafted with
the interests of American travelers in mind.
QUESTION: Mr. Holbrooke heads to Kosovo Friday after his swearing-in. I
wonder if you could tell us anything more specific about his objectives on
this first official mission; and more generally, what his top goals will be
in the next couple of months.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think that he spoke about his goals when he was up for
his Senate hearings last week. I'm not going to attempt to speak for him
about his priorities in New York. The priority we have is that he start
his work there. So I'm happy to report that Ambassador Holbrooke will
commence his duties as our new ambassador to the United Nations beginning
tomorrow in New York.
He is, you're correct, planning, at Secretary Albright's request, to travel
to the Balkans later this week. He will, of course, be traveling in his
capacity as our new ambassador to the UN and he's going to be visiting
Pristina, Tirana, Skopje and Sarajevo. He will meet with UN and NATO
officials and local representatives in Kosovo, and he will be looking into
the issues of refugee resettlement, reconstruction and war crimes. In
Tirana and Skopje, he'll meet with UN and other officials to thank them for
their efforts during the conflict and to discuss matters pertaining to
refugee relief. In Sarajevo, he will meet with local officials to discuss
issues of reconstruction and implementation of the Dayton accords.
When he was before the Senate, though, in his confirmation hearings, I
think he made clear his view -- that certainly we share here in the
Department - that Kosovo and peace implementation in Kosovo and throughout
the Balkans, and Bosnia as well, is a major test case for the United
Nations.
So at the very moment he's taking on his duties in New York, the Secretary
thought it would be very worthwhile for him to go to the region, update
himself on the current conditions and circumstances surrounding peace
implementation so that he's in the best position when he returns to New
York to be the forceful advocate we expect him to be for effective,
competent, professional implementation of UN Security Council mandates.
QUESTION: Where is he being sworn in?
MR. FOLEY: There's going to be some sort of formality at the US Mission
to the UN in New York tomorrow. This formality does not preclude a more
thorough-going swearing-in ceremony that will be arranged, I'm told, I
think, in September in Washington.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on the Holbrooke-Balkans thing? Does this say
something about the way he's going to go about his job? I mean, no two
people do a job the same way. But given his interests - I don't know if he
has any lingering interest in Cyprus, which he once resolved to resolve -
will he be sort of a traveling UN ambassador, making frequent trips to
those kind of stressed areas; and would that help him? Is that something
that he intends to do, do you know; and is it something that Secretary
Albright thinks is a good idea - to have an ambassador at the United
Nations making the kind of trips the Secretary of State would make?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think you rightly put it, Barry, that there are
different models. We've had ambassadors to the UN who have simply done
their job at the UN. We've had ambassadors - including then-Ambassador
Albright, Ambassador Richardson - who have traveled the world and played
useful diplomatic roles for the United States on occasion.
I don't think it's for me to describe what Ambassador Holbrooke's future
role is going to be. It will emerge from his conversations with Secretary
Albright. But she, as you know, was frustrated over the fact that it took
so long for him to be confirmed, felt that we really needed him in New York
all these many months that it took for him to be confirmed. She regards
him as a major diplomatic asset of the United States and of herself
personally. I have no doubt that she will not hesitate to deploy, as it
were, Ambassador Holbrooke in appropriate circumstances as our diplomatic
needs require.
I think that certainly this trip is a sign that for Ambassador Holbrooke to
do his job well in New York - and we're talking about his job in New York,
Barry, not something else - but that to familiarize himself, to be in a
position to speak with real time, on-the-ground knowledge of a given
situation, a trip like this is going to be very, very useful.
QUESTION: You refer to the fact that there's a special UN interest in the
Balkans, but I just --
MR. FOLEY: It's not possible for me to --
QUESTION: You can't read that far into the future.
MR. FOLEY: -- speculate into the future, but I wouldn't rule out that
he'll be called upon by the Secretary or the President to continue to play
a diplomatic role, as he has done for many years now.
QUESTION: You mentioned war crimes. What is he going to be doing
relating to war crimes?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have a specific itinerary with him, but war
crimes is a UN issue, though. I mean, the Security Council established the
tribunal in The Hague for the former Yugoslavia. So when you look at the
whole challenge of the Balkans - in particular Kosovo and Bosnia -
transitioning to a post-war reconciliation to sustainable growth to
democratization, the importance of justice cannot be underestimated.
If the wounds of war and of civil war are to be healed, in our view - and I
think in the view of the Security Council, which established the Tribunal -
it's necessary that its work be pursued and that justice be achieved.
So I can't give you the particulars of his itinerary; I don't have that.
But he's certainly going to be touching base with the people on the ground
who are working on the war crimes issue.
QUESTION: Are you saying that he will be sworn in tomorrow?
QUESTION: I know you don't have a schedule, but what is the Department's
view of whether he should meet with those who have been indicted for war
crimes or those among the 300 who are on the EU visa ban list?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure I understand your question. Certainly, he's not
going to be meeting with any indicted war criminals.
QUESTION: He's not?
MR. FOLEY: No, of course not.
QUESTION: And what about those on the EU visa ban list?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have the EU visa ban and I don't have his list
of appointments. But that's not to imply in any way that he's meeting with
those people; I just couldn't answer the question.
QUESTION: He'll be sworn in tomorrow here and then --
MR. FOLEY: He's going to be pursuing meetings that will enable him to do
his job better in New York.
QUESTION: He will be sworn in as ambassador here tomorrow?
MR. FOLEY: No, there will be some sort of a formality -- swearing-in, if
you will - at the US Mission to the UN that permits him to start his job.
And then we will have a formal, appropriate swearing-in ceremony in
Washington, I believe sometime in September.
QUESTION: Do you have anything more today on the American who was injured
while being captured in China?
MR. FOLEY: I have a little more, not a lot more today. I think it's
significant, nevertheless, because the Chinese authorities have informed us
of two things which are important. First, the provincial authorities in
Xining have agreed that Mr. Meston can be transferred to another hospital
where he will be able to get the specialized treatment he requires.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. FOLEY: Let me give you the second point before I answer that.
Secondly, we have received assurances from the Chinese authorities that the
case will be handled as quickly as possible - the case that they are
investigating concerning Mr. Meston - in accordance with Chinese law.
So I think that's encouraging in the sense that Mr. Meston will be
permitted to go where he needs the kind of specialized treatment I
discussed yesterday. At the same time, the Chinese have told us they're
going to expedite their investigation. That, at the end of the day, should
permit him to be moved to a specialized hospital. I'm not in a position to
say where that will be. But if the case against him is finished, then I
think the implication is clear: that that could be outside of China.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - I'm not sure I understand because as of
yesterday, the case had been suspended and that sort of created the
inference that maybe it would just quietly go away. Now they're starting
up the case again and you are encouraged by it.
MR. FOLEY: No, no, that was not the inference; and it was my mistake if
you drew that inference.
QUESTION: No, no, I'm sure it's our mistake.
MR. FOLEY: I would have read suspension differently: suspension meaning
there's a pause while he's hospitalized and then they're going to start up
all over again. Whereas the news I'm giving you today is that they have
indicated to us that they're going to expedite the disposition of that
case. Taken together with their commitment that he will be able to be
moved to a specialized facility - let's remember, our first concern is
about his health right now and welfare. We want him to be given quickly
the specialized treatment he needs. And if they're able to also expedite
the resolution of the case, we expect that this issue involving Mr. Meston
will be brought to a conclusion, hopefully rapidly.
QUESTION: Jim, if he has been asked by the doctor or the consular
official about the circumstances of his arrest?
MR. FOLEY: Well, my information on that aspect is not different from what
I said yesterday; namely that the conversations of our consular officer and
the doctors with him have focused on his medical condition, on his needs,
on his wife, who is going to be visiting him shortly. As I said yesterday,
our understanding and the doctor's understanding of his injuries are not
inconsistent with what the Chinese told us happened to him. To be a little
more specific, his injuries are, I'm told, what parachutists who have an
accident often experience when they land on their feet. His heels were - I
don't know if they were fractured, but they were hurt and his spine, of
course, and some internal injuries. So it's our assessment at this stage
that he did appear to have landed on his feet. We don't have reason to
doubt the version we've been told, which is that he jumped.
But your question is a legitimate one about the circumstances. We don't
have information that he was mistreated; he's not told us that. I would
underline that. But we believe that we're focusing on first things first -
his current condition, his medical condition. Those circumstances that you
legitimately ask about will be further pursued and you will be informed if
the results are newsworthy or different from what I've indicated.
QUESTION: Do you have any indication as to exactly what he will be
charged with?
MR. FOLEY: I don't know if he'll be charged with anything; I'm not saying
he won't, either. I don't think we know that at this stage. But as I
understand it - and I indicated yesterday - that because the Chinese
authorities had indicated their willingness at the time of the World Bank
approval of this project that they were open to international visitors to
looking at the region and the site. So on that basis, we believe his
application for a visa, his going to China, was legitimate.
However, I also said yesterday the Chinese have a right to decide who
enters their country. They have a right to enforce their laws in their
country. Apparently, there is some focus on the Chinese side not only on
Mr. Meston but also on Mr. Lafitte, the Australian, as to whether they
visited areas that were marked as inaccessible and took photographs in
areas that were marked in English as not being subject to photographing.
So the Chinese apparently have some issues with them. But I don't believe
that charges were filed against the Australian; he was merely expelled from
the country. We have very strongly urged from the beginning of this case
that Mr. Meston be released.
QUESTION: Can I follow that? Does it not seem that the man, injured as
he is, should the United States not be asking that he be Medivac'd back to
the West, where he can receive the best care?
MR. FOLEY: We are very much pursuing that issue of his being Medivac'd.
We want to see him out of the country, and we've made that clear.
QUESTION: On this evacuation, can you say whether there is any
consideration being given to moving him to another hospital within China as
a sort of temporary measure?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that. At least in China proper.
QUESTION: And you said yesterday that there was kind of a window of
opportunity before his injuries might cause permanent damage. Are you
getting any indication from the Chinese that they're going to be able to
expedite this in time to meet his medical needs?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not aware that there is such a facility on the
Chinese mainland, but perhaps the Chinese authorities can answer that
better.
In terms of the window of need or opportunity involving his condition is
concerned, to repeat - Charlie, you haven't been here for Jamie's
disclaimers, which I echoed yesterday as to that which we are not - but
doctors, one of those. So I can't answer that in terms of what that window
is. But I do know that we regard this urgently. He has serious spinal
injuries; he needs specialized spinal treatment. We believe that and we
expect - based on the information that I've just imparted to you - that the
Chinese authorities, recognizing this problem, will facilitate his transfer
to such facilities.
QUESTION: You mentioned a moment ago he has not stated that he was
mistreated, But is he in a physical and geographical situation where he
could actually make that kind of statement?
MR. FOLEY: I don't think that this is something that he's gotten into in
detail with our consular and medical people who have visited with him. I
can't explain the entire situation involving their exchanges, but the fact
is he's come out of surgery; he's not in good shape; he's in serious
condition. Those circumstances are not such that now is the moment,
really, to pursue that issue. We will have time to pursue that issue
later.
QUESTION: I think I'm getting your hint but I'm not sure. Which comes
first -- the wrapping up of the case or transferring him possibly to Hong
Kong for treatment?
MR. FOLEY: I can't answer that today. The fact is today we've been
informed separately by the Chinese authorities about both factors - that
they're willing to see him transferred, they recognize his need for
specialized treatment and they're also willing to expedite their case. So
I can't parse that for you further. Maybe tomorrow I'll be in a better
position to do so.
QUESTION: Okay, so, they're saying he can be transferred somewhere else
for treatment.
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: You're saying that you're not aware that there's a facility on
the mainland that's appropriate.
MR. FOLEY: Right, right.
QUESTION: Okay, and they agree with that?
MR. FOLEY: I can't answer that. I don't want to say more than I've
said.
QUESTION: Okay, could there be one, say, in one of the satellite - the
new Chinese territories, which is Hong Kong --
QUESTION: Taiwan.
(Laughter.)
MR. FOLEY: There might be.
QUESTION: Let the record reflect that was Reuters.
(Laughter.)
MR. FOLEY: I don't have a list of specialized facilities in China or the
Asian theater; I'd have to take the question.
QUESTION: Okay. The bottom line is you're confident that China is going
to accede to these requests?
MR. FOLEY: We're hopeful. Based on the information -- first of all, the
cooperation we've had --
QUESTION: They're giving you reason to be hopeful.
MR. FOLEY: Yes, now we believe we have reason to be hopeful that this is
going to be resolved.
QUESTION: Do you have any updated report on - (inaudible) - Uzbekistan
armed forces are having a - (inaudible) - Japanese are involved as
hostages.
MR. FOLEY: We issued a public announcement yesterday. That's all the
information I have. According to Kyrgyz press reports yesterday, an armed
group of Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan's Batken district kidnapped an unknown number
of people on August 22. This second wave of kidnappings follows the
kidnapping and release of four Kyrgyz citizens in mid-August in Batken.
Senior Kyrgyz military and security officials continue to follow this
situation. We've urged Americans to avoid travel to this area. I don't
have further information on that at this time.
QUESTION: Have you heard any new reports about the health of Yasser
Arafat; that he's experiencing some deterioration of health? And are you
concerned that it's going to affect his effectiveness in upcoming talks?
MR. FOLEY: It's interesting because we got some calls on Friday to this
effect, actually indicating or claiming that Chairman Arafat's health had
declined. We looked into it and we found no basis. We spoke with the
Palestine Authority and were told that there's been no change. He is, I
believe, 70 years old and he may have some health difficulties, as many
people do at that age, but we're not aware of any important development or
anything that impairs his ability to continue to function in his job.
QUESTION: Can I follow up? In Syria you're dealing with a leader who is
- -
MR. FOLEY: Barry, this is your third location so far in this briefing.
QUESTION: It's hot under those lights and I'm trying to survive. I don't
know how you can do it, frankly. But this follows up the Arafat but
couples Arafat with Assad as two older leaders who the State Department is
counting on as key players -- at least for the foreseeable future - in your
active diplomacy. I wondered if the State Department is - because
everybody's mortal - convinced that there is a succession or an orderly
transition possible should either of these leaders be incapacitated? Is
the Palestinian Authority a democratically established institution that,
for one thing, if Mr. Arafat is not up to the job, he would step aside; and
if he is incapacitated, unfortunately, that someone else would step in and
take over the job; or is it a one-man operation, which would have an impact
on your planning, wouldn't it?
MR. FOLEY: The reason we like you to sit there is because the lights are
so intense that the questions are shorter. It's a serious question and
you'll get a very short answer from me, who is, indeed, under the lights.
I think it's obviously a hypothetical question and you know we don't like
to answer hypothetical questions. We deal with the current leadership of
the Palestinian Authority and of Syria. I have no comment to make on the
Syrian case. I'm not aware of any deterioration in the health of either
leader that you mention. In the Palestinian case, I will check the record
on both, but I do believe the PLO - and perhaps the Palestinian Authority
as such - have electoral mechanisms. We've seen elections in the West Bank
and Gaza. They presumably, therefore, have mechanisms to ensure
succession. But I don't have any information on either case that I can
give you beyond that.
QUESTION: When we discuss Russia, for instance, and Mr. Yeltsin's
troubles and also his somewhat eccentric changes of government every other
week, it doesn't seem to bother the State Department. They say we have a
policy and the policy supersedes individuals and personalities. We're
dealing with policies. I'm asking if you have the same sort of relaxed or
confident view of what might happen on the Israeli-Palestinian front should
anything happen to Mr. Arafat.
MR. FOLEY: I believe that we are confident that in the Palestinian case,
as I indicated, that there are democratic processes - nascent, admittedly -
but which have existed. The PLO as a body has mechanisms by which the
leadership is chosen. We believe that insofar as those bodies and
mechanisms reflect both the prevailing opinions within the leadership - I'm
speaking beyond Chairman Arafat - and, indeed, among the body politic of
Palestinians, that there is general support for the basic policy of
pursuing the peace process and pursuing negotiations with Israel through to
a final settlement.
So we would expect continuity in that regard. I'm not commenting on the
Syrian case.
QUESTION: What is your reaction, Mr. Foley, to yesterday's diplomatic
offensive by the South Korean Government, sending diplomats to Japan and
sending diplomats to China and also here to the United States to head off
the launching of North Korean missile in the near future? Is this an
effective campaign, do you think?
MR. FOLEY: My answer is that first of all, I'm becoming increasingly
hungry. But beyond that, let me say that first of all, you're right to
point out that the South Koreans have been involved in different forms of
diplomatic activity. The meetings that took place between the foreign
ministers of Japan and Korea, for example, were meetings that we were not
participating in. So I'd have to refer you to those governments for
details. But obviously, to the extent that such bilateral meetings address
the goals of peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, we welcome any
positive contribution that consultations make.
With regard to perhaps you alluded to meetings between the PRC and South
Korean defense ministers, we're encouraged to see China and the Republic of
Korea meeting to discuss issues of common concern in the region. China's
engagement with its neighbors on key security issues like the DPRK's
missile program is a welcome sign.
In terms of our approach, though, to the North Korean issue, you reference
the issue of missile testing, upon which we've spoken at length previously.
I think I would underscore two points in this respect. First of all, our
position on this matter has been very closely and carefully coordinated - a
lot of c's for you - with our South Korean and Japanese allies. So we've
been in touch with each other on a trilateral basis as we move forward.
But you are emphasizing one aspect, and I think it's equally legitimate,
though, to emphasize the positive dimension, though, of the approach that
Japan and South Korea and the United States have taken towards the entire
North Korean issue. The three of us are continuing to urge North Korea to
choose a path that embraces peaceful and productive engagement with the
international community. We remain prepared to improve political and
economic relations in the near term in the context of the DPRK's
implementation of the agreed framework and as the DPRK addresses other
issues of concern to us, including on the missile issue, based on the ideas
that were discussed during former Secretary Perry's visit to Pyongyang.
So I think that what the South Koreans are doing is in close consultation
with the United States and also with our Japanese allies.
QUESTION: Jim, on that, what do you make of the latest round of --
QUESTION: Let me just ask - Lim Dong-won is coming to the United States
to see Mr. Bill Perry. Is he going to be here at the State Department in
his --
MR. FOLEY: Not to my knowledge. I think it's a private, informal visit
to Dr. Perry out on the West Coast.
QUESTION: What do you make of this latest round of bombast from Pyongyang
complaining about - that the light water reactor has been delayed?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we don't believe there's a basis for the claim. At
least, as I understood the reference you're making was to US allegedly not
meeting its commitments on the light water reactor.
Let me make clear - the United States is meeting all of its obligations
under the agreed framework and remains committed to the light water reactor
project. Japan has pledged the equivalent of $1 billion and the Republic
of Korea has agreed to fund 70 percent of the construction costs of the
light water reactors. Both legislatures in both countries recently
approved funding for the light water reactor project.
In terms of our commitment, the United States - let me say first of all,
the burden-sharing agreement reached last August among KEDO members does
not contain any commitment by the United States to contribute to the light
water reactor project. But the United States is committed to seeking
funding for the supply of heavy fuel oil and for other KEDO needs, as
appropriate, from the US Congress and all other possible sources. That's
exactly what we've been doing for several years now.
QUESTION: Samuel Sheinbein - while we were in here, I believe, there were
some reports that he may plan to plead guilty to all the charges. Has the
Israeli Government been in touch with the US Government about these
developments; and has the US Government been in touch with the victim's
family?
MR. FOLEY: You'd have to ask the Justice Department or maybe the
Montgomery County prosecutor's office. I checked because I was called
about these rumors a few hours ago. At least as far as I was able to
determine, it's not something that the State Department knew about. But we
have not had responsibility from the US Government perspective for this
case. I think it's been under the purview of the Justice Department. We
certainly have called for justice being achieved in this case, following
the horrible murder that occurred. We stated we would have preferred to
have seen this trial take place in the United States. But since it was the
view of the Israeli courts that it should take place there, we wanted to
see justice done.
But I have not been able to confirm the rumors you refer to.
QUESTION: Do you have the details of what the Cuban Government has said
in the proposal of the United States in the anti-narcotics cooperation?
MR. FOLEY: I think in this building we probably do, but since we're at
the moment studying the Cuban response, we're not prepared to talk publicly
about how it's going to turn out yet.
QUESTION: Do you have anything about the Turkish earthquake?
MR. FOLEY: I have probably some extensive information on the current
status of our relief efforts. I'd be glad to give those to you if you'd
like. We continue to work at all levels to help Turkey respond to the
crisis --
QUESTION: Are you going to answer that question?
MR. FOLEY: I'm going to answer that question; it was asked. The first
priority has been to search for and rescue survivors, obviously. The
Fairfax County Search and Rescue team has left Turkey today. It was
augmented by the arrival of a 70-person search-and-rescue team from Miami-
Dade on Saturday. Those two teams together saved the lives of five people.
The USAID Disaster Assistance and Response Team and the group of eight
USAID-sponsored experts working with the UN coordination group are
continuing their work. On the humanitarian side, one 747 carrying relief
supplies has already arrived. The shipment included 30,000 blankets; 500
rolls of plastic sheeting; emergency medical supplies for 10,000 people;
and two epidemiologists. A second 747 with relief supplies will arrive
this week.
Clearly, the focus of the relief work is now shifting to meeting the mid
and longer term medical and health needs of the communities affected by the
quake. Two water purification technicians arrived in Turkey yesterday and
three mobile water purification units - each capable of processing enough
water to sustain 10,000 people - arrived today.
The Department of Agriculture has offered assistance in dealing with animal
health aspects of the disaster. A 22-person military medical crisis
response team has been working since last Thursday to help Turkey assess
the medical situation for follow-on assistance and is now preparing to
depart.
Two US Navy ships - the USS Kearsarge and the USS Gunston Hall - are now
fully operational. A third ship, the Ponce, has joined them today. Their
primary purpose is to provide lift support. They're moving relief
supplies, medical teams and patients throughout the affected area. Also
heavy equipment located on the Kearsarge has been offered to assist in
rubble clearing. And finally, the ships have the ability to produce
potable water.
The US Navy will deploy three additional ships to provide hundreds of
thousands of gallons of potable water daily. We provided a shipment of 10,
000 surgical gloves and masks and medical supplies that were sent by the
US- European Command. As you know, the President issued a strong statement
calling for Americans to contribute or donate to NGOs involved in the
earthquake relief.
So that's about where we are.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - to ease some economic limit or regulations. For
example, textile quotas on Turkish production.
MR. FOLEY: Well, what I've been describing thus far - and it's all that I
can really talk about now - is what concretely we're doing to deal with the
immediate pressing humanitarian needs.
As a government, we are putting our best minds together right now, though,
to look more to the medium and longer term about different measures we can
take in working with Congress, working with our friends and allies in
Europe and around the world, to deal with the longer range consequences of
the disaster. So we're at work in the thinking and reflecting and planning
stage, but we're not in a position to talk about any decisions at this
point.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. FOLEY: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:25 P.M.)
(###)
|
