U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #113, 99-08-30
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1004
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, August 30, 1999
Briefer: James B. Foley
MIDDLE EAST
1-8 Peace Process / Final Negotiations / Secretary Albright's Meeting
with Palestinian Representatives /Wye Implementation / Chairman
Arafat / Secretary's Travel to the Middle East / US Support /
Prisoner Releases / Final Status Talks Target Date
2-9 Secretary Albright's Travel to the Region / Syrian Track / Lebanon
/ Mistreatment of American Prisoners
INDONESIA
9-10;15 UN Administered Vote in East Timor / Security Concerns
RUSSIA
10-12 Money Laundering / IMF / Crime and Corruption in Former Communist
Countries / US Bilateral Assistance
JAPAN
10 State Secretary of Foreign Affairs Visit
CHINA
12-13 Humanitarian Payments to Bombing Victims / Discussions on Property
Damage to Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, and US Diplomatic
Installations
VENEZUELA
13-15 Democratic Procedures / Constitutional Change / Constituent Assembly
NORTH KOREA / SOUTH KOREA
15-16 Food Aid / Easing of Sanctions / Efforts to Improve Relations with
US and International Community / Security Issues
CUBA
16-17 Fight Against Drugs
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #113
MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 1999, 1:10 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department. Sorry for the
delay. I don't have any announcements.
QUESTION: Well, it may be "end game" maneuvering but, all of a sudden, a
lot of the hopeful statements of last week are vanishing, and the
Palestinians are particularly speaking of some crisis atmosphere. What is
the US view of the situation? Does it still seem positive and on track?
MR. FOLEY: I am tempted to read my guidance. The guidance starts with the
word "look."
QUESTION: Look?
MR. FOLEY: I think this is the dumbing down of State Department guidance,
which I will resist. Look, there have been ups and downs in the peace
process and I will tell you after the briefing what I think about it.
QUESTION: There have been ups and downs.
MR. FOLEY: Yes, and especially in the last few days but, of course, this
is not the first time this has happened but I think if you read the
newspapers or even monitored the wire services hour by hour, you would see
that the parties are blowing hot and cold hour by hour there. And I think
this is characteristic of a negotiation which is, as you implied, entering
what we hope to be its final stages.
We are endeavoring on our part to facilitate the parties reaching
agreement, but that is precisely the point; it is up to the parties to
reach the agreement, and we don't believe that there is any substitute for
the parties engaging directly and meaningfully to solve problems. As you
know, Secretary Albright met with Mr. Abu Mazen and Mr. Erakat on Friday,
to get a status report from them of how things were going -- also to look
ahead towards her visit. But it was precisely that: to hear from them how
things are going.
We believe that it's the Israelis and the Palestinians, through these
direct talks, that this matter can be successfully resolved. In our view,
this is precisely the kind of effective bilateral engagement that was
lacking for several years, and is now present between the parties, and we
think they need to continue their efforts to work together to reach
agreement as quickly as possible. We certainly hope that the parties will
succeed in concluding an agreement on Wye implementation before the
Secretary's trip to the region.
QUESTION: You're certainly not withdrawing her rather hopeful statement
after that meeting Friday, are you?
MR. FOLEY: No, we're not. But I think it's not surprising that, as the
parties narrow their differences, and are able to glimpse success within
their grasp, that it gets more difficult when peace or - excuse me -
agreement is within the grasp of the negotiators. She received what she
considered to be a hopeful report on Friday. And again, we've seen further
hopeful indications over the last days, including this morning, just
reading the wires. We've also seen other reports that some of the
negotiators are more pessimistic than other ones, but we continue to
expect, and certainly hope, that they will actually achieve an agreement on
Wye implementation, before the Secretary reaches the region.
QUESTION: OK, last then because there are so many other people. Mr.
Arafat is on the move in, evidently, Morocco where she is headed.
MR. FOLEY: Right.
QUESTION: Are they apt to meet there? And what's the view here about he
being in motion in this vital end period? Doesn't he have to be pretty much
on the premises to seal the deal? Does this hamper the final negotiations
-- that he's doing a little traveling in the region?
MR. FOLEY: I wouldn't want to read that into it. I hadn't heard he was
going to Morocco. I do know that Egypt, for example, has played a role -
also a litative role -- as the two parties inch their way towards what we
hope will be an agreement. Nevertheless, the telephones work wherever he
is. He's not the lead negotiator; he's designated other Palestinians to
play the negotiator role. So I would not see that as an impediment in any
way.
QUESTION: And she's not meeting - (inaudible) -- ?
MR. FOLEY: I have no information on that. She'll be meeting with him in
the West Bank. Yes, that's all I know.
QUESTION: If they don't have an agreement by the time the Secretary
arrives in Jerusalem Thursday night, would she then see it as her mission
to insure that they did have an agreement by the time she left?
MR. FOLEY: That's a good question. However, we have made clear - and I
just did today - that we regard this principally, if not exclusively, as a
matter for the two parties to negotiate between themselves. We have played
a facilitative role, and we've tried to be helpful. But the Wye
implementation negotiations are not the focus of the Secretary's visit to
the region; it's more longer-reaching, looking towards how, over the next
14 to 15 months, we can assist the parties as they engage in final status
negotiations on all tracks, with the aim of achieving an overall,
comprehensive Middle East peace agreement by the end of the year 2000.
So that's really the focus of her trip, is to - you'll love this phrase -
to take stock of where the parties are, but also to look ahead. And as I
said a minute ago, it is our expectation and it is most certainly our hope
that this aspect of the negotiations, namely the implementation of the Wye
Agreement, will be successfully completed before the Secretary departs.
Now, you're asking a hypothetical question. If those are not completed, my
understanding is that the Israelis have made clear that if there is an
inability to reach agreement on some of these modifications to Wye
implementation, then the Israelis are prepared unilaterally to implement
Wye as it was agreed last October.
QUESTION: How does the US State Department feel about that?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we've been agnostic on the question. Obviously, we were
a sponsor of the Wye talks. We support them; we support their
implementation. We've always said that, if the two parties themselves
could reach agreements on any changes or modification to Wye, we would
certainly be supportive -- if the parties were able to agree. This is not a
US effort, though.
QUESTION: But the opposite might happen if the two parties don't agree on
modification. I mean, this is today; tomorrow it might change again. It
might change in three hours.
MR. FOLEY: I don't think that contradicts our policy, though.
QUESTION: No, but it does leave it open and it does leave something
uncovered here. I know your policy: They have to agree on the minor
changes, and that's OK with you - minor changes. What if they don't agree
on a minor change and Israel says, for instance, this is the way it's going
to be, and goes ahead to implement that revised slightly - whatever,
revised scheme? Would the US disapprove of such action?
MR. FOLEY: As I said, we're a sponsor of the Wye agreement. We continue
to support them. We want to see Wye implemented. That's our view. If
they're able to achieve real agreement between them on any modifications,
we're supportive of that. But we're not being prescriptive in this area;
we're playing a facilitator's role.
QUESTION: Jim, was the Secretary in touch with Prime Minister Barak or
the Foreign Minister, or is there any US official in touch with Israeli
officials urging them to get rid of this midnight deadline, and extend the
talks until Secretary Albright's visit on Thursday?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that. Secretary Albright did call Chairman
Arafat on Friday after her meeting with Abu Mazen and Saeb Erakat, simply
to review the meeting and say that she looked forward to her visit. But US
officials have been in contact with their Israeli, as well as Palestinian,
counterparts. I'm sure that continued over the weekend, because that's been
an ongoing contact. But I'm not aware of your specific report, though.
QUESTION: Are you saying that the Secretary is not going to get drawn
into the specifics of this negotiation?
MR. FOLEY: I've indicated that's not the focus of her visit.
QUESTION: I understand it's not the focus of her visit but are you saying,
as she said before, that she's not going to get sucked into it, and that's
that?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not aware that anybody has used those words. I've
described the purpose of her trip, which is to take stock, and to look
ahead to the intensive period we're entering in which there are, we hope
and expect, going to be final status negotiations, and negotiations on all
tracks to close the circle of peace in the Middle East. The specific matter
of implementation of Wye is not the focus of her visit, and I am treating
it as a speculative question, though, precisely because we hope that the
parties will actually achieve agreement on implementing Wye before she gets
to the region.
QUESTION: Have the Palestinians requested, for example, in the
conversation between the Secretary and Chairman Arafat on Friday, have they
requested US mediation in their dispute, specifically on the prisoner
issue?
MR. FOLEY: They discussed prisoner releases in that meeting. I'm not
going to get into the details of the meeting. Again, our long-standing view
is that this one aspect of the negotiations is a matter to be discussed and
determined by the parties dealing directly with each other. It's not
something I'm going to comment on.
QUESTION: Well, on the prisoner release, the political prisoners are the
main issue remaining to get to final status talks, in a sense -- at least
that's what the Palestinians are saying. Is the Secretary, if she does take
up the issue of political prisoners or the numbers to be --
MR. FOLEY: I didn't say she was.
QUESTION: Yes, you didn't, but the Palestinians are saying she will.
Maybe you want to comment on that.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I am going to bore all of you by repeating myself ad
nauseum but, again, that's not the focus of her visit, number one. Number
two, it is our hope that actually these issues will be resolved by the time
she gets to the region.
QUESTION: My question addresses the American citizens that are also
political prisoners.
MR. FOLEY: That's a more specific matter. We can get to that if we're
done with the Secretary's trip and the peace process. I'll come back to you
on that.
QUESTION: You said earlier in the guidance somewhere about concluding the
final status talks by the end of the year 2000. Is that something that you
said?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I believe that when Prime Minister Barak was here at the
end of June he, himself, laid out an ambitious 15-month timetable. You can
do the math in terms of where that gets us in the year 2000, but that's
roughly the case, yes.
QUESTION: So the target date then, we all agree, should be end of the
year 2000?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Wrapping it all up?
MR. FOLEY: Well, that's a very ambitious aim. We recognize that nothing
will be harder than the final status issues, which have long been
postponed. We are encouraged by the fact that the region seems poised to
grapple with those issues, finally, after years of treading water, as you
indicated, where we had a crisis of confidence between the parties, and
they were paralyzed over issues that, in the larger scheme of things, are
of secondary importance to the final status issues. So we realize this is
going to be an extraordinarily difficult period ahead, to achieve success
in final status negotiations to close the circle of peace in the Middle
East. It is simply a fact, though, that it is a hopeful sign that the
parties are apparently on the verge of grappling with those issues.
QUESTION: Does what King Abdullah did yesterday or today, as far as
tossing in the towel on Jerusalem and the holy sites, is that helpful to
the negotiations?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of what you are referring to.
QUESTION: He said that he has delegated -- according to the reports -- he
has delegated authority for negotiating the status of the holy sites in
Jerusalem to Yasser Arafat, to the Palestinian delegation. I mean, it's
been all over the wires for eight hours.
MR. FOLEY: Sorry,, I haven't been spending all my time reading the wires.
QUESTION: Could you take that question?
MR. FOLEY: Sure, sure.
QUESTION: It could be quite important.
MR. FOLEY: Sure, but we're probably not going to be in a position to
comment specifically about final status issues. If what you've said, the
report you've given, which is a procedural matter in terms of negotiations,
if that helps matters then that's obviously positive. But the issues
themselves -- for example, Jerusalem as a final status issue -- will be
extraordinarily difficult to deal with. We are very aware of that, but the
Secretary's trip is aiming to begin to set the groundwork for that phase of
the negotiations to begin.
QUESTION: Come Saturday or whenever it is, does she believe that she can
really fly out of the Middle East and tell the Israelis and Palestinians
just to keep working on it and leave them to it?
MR. FOLEY: I think it's the view of the Israeli government that these
discussions over Wye implementation will not continue ad infinitum. I
believe their view, and our view, is that this is a matter for the two
sides to decide. The Israeli side has made clear that they are prepared to
implement Wye as it was agreed last October, and that they're not going to
stretch this out indefinitely.
QUESTION: I know there's no answer to what I'm about to say. I do have a
question at the end of it though. You're in the end game, too. It would be
odd for the US to say, just wait until we get there, we'll help wrap this
up, because the effect of that might be --
MR. FOLEY: I didn't say that.
QUESTION: Of course. And you can't say it even though that may be very
much the plan because if you said that --
MR. FOLEY: No, not necessarily.
QUESTION: -- the two sides would sit back and wait for you, and you don't
want them to sit back. You want them to get it done themselves.
MR. FOLEY: But we have made that clear all along, that we want them to
get it done themselves.
QUESTION: It's hard for me to believe that as eager as the State
Department is to get Wye back on track and how she has said - as Sid quoted
from a couple of years ago - she doesn't go there just to tread water. It's
hard to believe that if they're not in agreement when she gets there she's
going to say, hey, it's up to you to work out and just go on to Vietnam to
open a consulate. It's really hard to believe she would depart the
scene. But that's not a question. I just have trouble --
MR. FOLEY: But you're assuming --
QUESTION: I think you have - I think the statement has a motive too, in
saying what postures they should work at and I think the motive is to make
sure they work at it.
MR. FOLEY: Right. But the point I'm - the larger point I'm trying to make
is that they are going to move - at least on the Palestinian-Israeli track
- they are going to move to final status negotiations with or without
agreement on these
QUESTION: That's true.
MR. FOLEY: With or without agreement on these - on this question of
modification
QUESTION: All right, here's my question. Here's my question.
MR. FOLEY: Her visit is not material, if you will, to the question of
whether final status negotiations will take place. Both sides are agreed to
enter the final status negotiations on an accelerated basis. That's linked
to Wye implementation. There's going to be Wye implementation. The question
is whether the two parties agree to changes to Wye, or whether the Israelis
will simply go ahead and implement the agreement as originally negotiated.
QUESTION: I understand and the US - the US endorsed the Israeli notion of
accelerated action on final status talks a long time ago. Now that seems to
be entwined with a final phase. According to some accounts, Israel is
delaying the final withdrawal phase, to see how these final status talks
are going - in fact, to see if there is a format for an accord.
MR. FOLEY: I'm not going to be able to help you with the actual specifics
of what they're discussing.
QUESTION: No, I understand that.
MR. FOLEY: We've refrained from doing that all along.
QUESTION: But your description, which is not unusual, of these issues as
being very thorny, doesn't suggest you're going to wrap it up in three
months. Is it the US view that it's plausible to hold up withdrawal until
there's a clear vision of what's going to happen, so far as an overall
settlement is concerned? Don't you want Wye wrapped up one way or another?
MR. FOLEY: Again, my impression is that these are not negotiations that
are going to drag on the way this briefing has dragged on on this subject.
They are in the final phases; they are very close; they have an agreement
within their grasp, if they have the will to cross the finish line. But
failing that, there is going to be Wye implementation according to the
terms negotiated last October, with all of the provisions of Wye, including
redeployments.
So that will go forward. The question is how it goes forward - whether
changed or unchanged - from October.
QUESTION: So you're saying the broader focus of the Secretary's visit was
longer-term peace-making. What do you think her message will be for the
Syrian leader, Hafez Assad, on that score?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not going to be in a position, publicly to talk
about private meetings she's going to have. I simply laid out the broad
goal of her visit to the region. Clearly, a critical component of closing
the circle of peace in the Middle East is achieving peace between Israel
and Syria and between Israel and Lebanon. Without getting in, in any way,
to the specifics, obviously there has been disagreement between the parties
about how they resume the Israeli-Syrian track. Yet we've seen evidence - I
think it's obviously been in the public domain -- that each side is eager
to resume those negotiations.
So if the Secretary can help contribute to progress in their resuming that
track, and to lay the groundwork for their resuming that track, then this
will be worthwhile. She's going to be exploring that possibility. I would
not expect there to be, necessarily, something concrete or imminent coming
out of that particular aspect of the visit, but she is hoping to make
progress and lay the groundwork for resumption of that track.
QUESTION: If you won't agree that she will be talking prisoners,
political prisoners on the Palestinian side, what about the American
prisoners who have been tortured? We now have evidence, and the affidavits
have been submitted to the Department of State, and there are five or six
that have not been released, and have also been tortured and forced
confessions. Is the Secretary intending to take any action on these cases
while she's meeting with Barak?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I can't answer questions about additional cases that
have not been brought to my attention. As a rule, though, it is the
obligation of the American embassy or consulate in any country to take
seriously any charges involving mistreatment of American prisoners wherever
they may be, whoever they are.
We met with the three who were prominent in the news last week, and they
did detail their charges of mistreatment and the conditions that they were
detained under, and they provided us with the written affidavits that we
had requested and that we required in order to be able to move forward with
those cases. So what we are going to be doing is sending these reports to
our embassy in Tel Aviv, and they are going to look into the reports and
take them up with the relevant authorities. So we are going to be looking
into these cases. Additional ones I'm not familiar with, but certainly as a
matter of principle, though, our embassy has an obligation to act on behalf
of American citizens who have been detained.
I would, of course, point out that American citizens, wherever they are --
whether it is in Israel or anywhere else in the world -- have an obligation
to abide by the rules and laws of wherever they happen to be traveling. So
it's not a question necessarily of our protesting in this or any case about
an arrest, as such, depending on the circumstances. If we feel an arrest is
unjustified, certainly we will act on behalf of the American. In any case,
whether an arrest leads to legitimate prosecution or not, we do have an
abiding concern in the treatment of Americans regardless of the facts of
the case, and so we will weigh in in each and every case that this is
brought to our attention.
QUESTION: But the overwhelming evidence - can I follow up here? The
overwhelming evidence is that every political prisoner, including all the
Americans, have been tortured and forced confessions. The Amnesty
International informed the Department of State in 1994, asked for
representation. Nothing was done. These three testified that nothing was
done. You have five - we have names of five more who are undoubtedly - in
fact, we know -- were tortured and forced confessions and the Department
has done nothing on them.
What is the ground rule for working with Israel on this subject? Is the
Secretary of State going to raise it with the Prime Minister?
MR. FOLEY: That's a lot of questions. First of all, I reject your
sweeping characterization of Israeli policy in this regard. Our human
rights reports does speak to our concerns about some Israeli practices in
this area.
QUESTION: Including torture?
MR. FOLEY: Secondly, your characterization of the three who gave a press
conference last week, and who came in to visit us on Friday, is also
incorrect. As I stated on Thursday, one of the three requested that we not
intervene. In one case, we did intervene. He claims he testified that his
medical needs were met following the intervention of US authorities.
In the third case, we have a difference of view. I understand when the
gentleman was here on Friday, he indicated that we had failed to act on his
request to intervene. Our records show differently: that he had requested
that we not act. I believe while he was still in detention he was supposed
to get back to us with the written affidavit, which we got on Friday, and
had not received from him in the many months either when he was still in
Israel or had returned to the United States. That's the information I have
on the case.
QUESTION: Can we get out of the Middle East? East Timor? (Inaudible.)
MR. FOLEY: Sure. Yes.
QUESTION: How do you assess the results of the -
MR. FOLEY: From a variety of sources, both from our embassy reporting,
from press reports, from the statements by Mr. Jamsheed Marker, the UN
Secretary General's Special Representative - all indicate that the UN-
administered vote in East Timor was a success, with approximately 90
percent of those registered casting ballots. That is really an
extraordinary figure, and shows the enthusiasm and commitment of the people
of East Timor to undertake this democratic consultation.
Security concerns did lead to the temporary closing of a small number of
polling stations. But the reports we have indicate that none of these
interruptions interfered with individuals' ability to vote. I think I heard
Mr. Marker state that, in fact, that no one had been disenfranchised.
Tragically, one UN employee, who was a locally-hired East Timorese
individual, was killed during the voting and two others were injured in the
same incident, which marred what was otherwise a generally peaceful day.
The United States welcomes this successful vote, noting that it is a very
important step in the UN-administered transition of East Timor to a new
status. As we move into the next phase, which is the vote-counting itself
-- which I believe begins in about two days -- we call on all sides to
accept the results of the poll, regardless of the outcome, and to exercise
restraint.
Again, you've had three critical phases all along in this consultation
process in East Timor. One was the vote and, aside from this tragic death,
it appears to have been a successful vote. Second is the vote-counting,
which must go forward in an orderly, peaceful and credible and transparent
manner. Thirdly, you have the aftermath of the vote and the vote-counting;
namely, the period of transition to whatever the people of East Timor have
decided will be their future status, be it a status of autonomy within
Indonesia or a status of independence.
Again, we deplore the killing of the UN employee and the wounding of two
others. We note that in these next phases - vote counting and transition -
that Indonesia retains the responsibility for maintaining order. And we
remain concerned about the potential for violence; in particular, the
government of Indonesia should prevent armed militia from resuming their
activities.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on allegations of money laundering by
high officials in the Russian Government, and suggestions that IMF funds
might be among that?
MR. FOLEY: I didn't hear the latter part - suggestions that --
QUESTION: That International Monetary Fund moneys are among those that
are being laundered?
MR. FOLEY: I have little to add to what we said last week, which is that
this is a serious matter, and it is being investigated by relevant
authorities, and we don't comment on ongoing investigations. But, of
course, we are concerned by the reports that we've read about the type of
corruption that might have been involved. We expect that the IMF, for its
part, is examining closely its lending to Russia, to determine whether or
not there has been any diversion or corruption in that respect. But I have
no information to impart to you, first of all, because I don't have it;
it's with the law enforcement community. And secondly, it's a general
policy not to comment on ongoing investigations.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on a meeting taking place later today with
the Japanese State Secretary of Foreign Affairs - Mr. Takemi?
MR. FOLEY: I'll have to get an answer for you. I wasn't aware of the
meeting, and so let me find out who he's meeting with and what we can tell
you - if not this afternoon, then maybe tomorrow.
QUESTION: Jim, can I follow up on the Russia money laundering?
MR. FOLEY: Sure.
QUESTION: I know you don't talk politics in this room, but a few
Republican presidential candidates have criticized the Administration, in
particular Vice President Gore, over this alleged money laundering case,
saying that the Administration and Gore ignored warning signs that Russia
was in trouble; that the Administration and Gore were not sensitive to the
levels of corruption that potentially was going on; and that Gore, in
particular, was too willing to take pledges of reform. How do respond to
this criticism?
MR. FOLEY: I think the criticism is very misplaced. First of all, we've
always been aware that corruption is a major problem in Russia; it's a
problem in virtually all communist countries in transition to democratic
rule, and to the free market. The very period of transition has been rife
with possibilities for corruption, and we've never discounted that
possibility; it's something we take very seriously, and monitor as best we
can. But the Vice President himself has a long-standing commitment to
working on this problem - to reducing this problem - and in fact has used
the Binational Commission, which he co-chairs, to advance programs that
combat crime and corruption, and he took a proactive role in encouraging
high-level Russian participation in February in the anti- corruption
conference.
I think one point ought to put some of this debate into context, which is
that US bilateral assistance was not provided as cash but as technical
assistance and training, on a whole range of issues having to do with good
governance and better economic management and the transition of a communist
society to a society governed by the rule of law in a free market, which
has been a very difficult transition, as we know. But US assistance has
involved training on issues like tax reform, commercial law, development of
an independent judiciary, small business development, private ownership of
property. These are all, as I said, transitional issues. It's hard to call
Russia, in these areas, a success. But it's important that Russia has
embarked on the journey to democratic governance and the free market
economy, as rocky as that has been.
But US assistance has been provided, not as cash, but as technical
assistance precisely to help combat problems such as corruption, which
afflicts this post-communist society. Of course, significant elements of US
assistance have gone towards meeting our national security needs in the
area of denuclearization, and bringing Russia's nuclear arsenal under
control and in reduced amounts.
QUESTION: Jim, just to follow, do you believe - you say that corruption
is a problem in Russia. I just would ask: Is corruption a problem at high
levels or the highest level of the Russian Government, in that the Russian
mob or the Russian mafia has some control of that government, do you think?
Do you believe that?
MR. FOLEY: Well, those reports which indicate that the investigation is
focusing on all levels demonstrates that the investigation is serious. We
would take any evidence of high-level corruption seriously. It would be
very disturbing. But we've been very careful -- as we are, not only in this
context, but in any other context -- that when an investigation is ongoing,
it's important not to leap to conclusions at this stage. We will obviously
be in a better position to know more when the investigation has run its
course.
QUESTION: One more time. Were the State Department and Vice President
Gore aware that this investigation into alleged money laundering was going
on?
MR. FOLEY: You'd have to ask the Vice President's office in terms of
whether the law enforcement authorities kept the White House informed about
the progress of their investigation. I don't have that information.
QUESTION: This building was kept in touch?
MR. FOLEY: I'd have to get an answer for you on that.
QUESTION: Was the Secretary of State informed?
MR. FOLEY: I'll take the question.
QUESTION: OK.
MR. FOLEY: Well, you were rumbling, Matt, so - rumble goes first.
QUESTION: Sorry, but it's OK. The State Department's ace legal adviser is
in Beijing again, for meetings today and tomorrow on the restitution --
MR. FOLEY: He's our only legal adviser.
QUESTION: He's an ace legal adviser, right? Anyway, so I'm just wondering
--
MR. FOLEY: He's an ace legal adviser - David Andrews, for the record.
QUESTION: Yes, exactly. What do you expect out of it? Do you expect a
resolution to the whole compensation, not just the --
MR. FOLEY: On the issue of humanitarian payments to the families --
QUESTION: I know that's done.
MR. FOLEY: -- and the victims, that not only was agreed, it's - the
moneys have been transferred.
QUESTION: That's not what I'm talking about.
MR. FOLEY: I'll get that for you after the briefing. I had that last
week. But what he's gone to Beijing for, is to begin to discuss, with his
Chinese counterparts, the issue of property damage. And so --
QUESTION: Do you expect a resolution - I mean, I guess these talks are
today and tomorrow?
MR. FOLEY: I don't know if we would expect a resolution this week on
that; he's hoping to advance the ball. Obviously, I think it's probably a
very complicated issue, so I wouldn't want to predict that they're going to
reach any agreements this week. I just don't know about that. But they're
discussing both - obviously the tremendous damage or the destruction of the
Chinese Embassy - the mistaken destruction of the Chinese Embassy in
Belgrade and also property damage to US diplomatic installations in China.
QUESTION: Venezuela: You last spoke - you expressed concern on Thursday
about - that the government would stick to democratic procedures --
MR. FOLEY: Right.
QUESTION: Quite a lot has happened since then - the confrontations. Has
your concern deepened over the weekend?
MR. FOLEY: We are watching the events in Venezuela with growing concern.
The dispute between the National Constituent Assembly and the Congress has
become an obstacle to the mandated task of defining institutional change.
We hope that all parties will come to agreement about how to exercise power
during the tenure of the Constituent Assembly, and to assure the
establishment of a constitution that preserves Venezuela's long-standing
democratic tradition.
As I said last week, we have been very mindful of the fact that Venezuela
has, through legal means, embarked on constitutional change, and this not a
matter for the United States to intervene upon. It's a matter for
Venezuelans to determine their own future themselves. We, as well as the
other members of the hemisphere, have a stake in the preservation of
Venezuela as a functioning, credible democracy; and therefore the statement
I made last week was an expression of our concern that, as the Constituent
Assembly commences its work and begins to elaborate institutions for the
future, that those institutions retain the checks and balances and the
essence of a democratic form of government. That is a matter of principle.
But this current standoff - if you will - between the Constituent Assembly
and the existing Congress, as I said, is an obstacle to the mandated task
of defining institutional change. We hope that this can be worked out
satisfactorily to all parties in conformity with the Constitution. We
understand that, actually, there were arrangements that had been agreed and
that the Church had played a helpful role in promoting such an agreement
towards the end of last week, and then problems arose in the last few days,
and we hope those problems can be eliminated, and that they can reach
agreement to move forward.
QUESTION: To follow that, do you think that either side has violated
democratic practice in the way they've --
MR. FOLEY: If you saw what I said last week, I indicated - and I was
careful to indicate that we believed - our judgment was that the procedures
that had been followed thus far were legal in the formation of the
Constituent Assembly by a referendum. But let's be honest, though. A
constituent assembly has awesome powers to shape the future of Venezuela
and shape its institutional makeup, and our concern is that its democratic
essence -- in substance, as well as form -- be preserved, both for the
people of Venezuela and for the people of the hemisphere.
QUESTION: The government of Hugo Chavez respond to your deep concerns
saying that the United States has to worry about its own problems, not
about Venezuelan democracy. How do you get that response from the Chavez
Government?
MR. FOLEY: I think what I said previously sort of anticipates your
question, because I made clear that these are decisions for Venezuelans to
make, not for the United States, and nothing I said indicated otherwise.
But we, along with many other governments and peoples in the hemisphere,
all have a stake in a democratic hemisphere, and have a stake in the
continuation of the momentum in favor of democratic change and democratic
consolidation in the hemisphere. So as friends of Venezuela - as friends of
a democratic Venezuela - we express that concern.
QUESTION: Following on that, have there been discussions between the
State Department and some of the other countries in the region specifically
been about Venezuela in the last few days?
MR. FOLEY: I have nothing specific to report. It wouldn't surprise me,
though, if Venezuela hasn't come up in our diplomatic discussions with
other nations in the hemisphere. That would be -- not abnormal.
QUESTION: Does the US have a preferred solution?
MR. FOLEY: I think I've made very clear that we're not in the business of
micro-managing the -
QUESTION: No, no, no - I'm not suggesting that -
MR. FOLEY: Oh, you mean in the current standoff?
QUESTION: Yes, exactly. I mean, is there something other than peaceful --
MR. FOLEY: No, I believe that the Church has been involved in trying to
brokering a solution, and again, we trust this a matter that Venezuelans
can resolve themselves.
QUESTION: If US investments in Venezuela were affected by constitutional
change, would the US take a more interventionist approach - a more active
approach?
MR. FOLEY: We don't answer hypothetical questions. We've not seen that
that is a risk or a danger, and I wouldn't expect it to materialize. We
certainly wouldn't - we would hope that it would not materialize. I think
Venezuela recognizes that, in a globalized economy, that Venezuela will
grow and gain economically by remaining integrated and open in the world
economy.
QUESTION: On Albright's trip - would it include Turkey?
MR. FOLEY: I have nothing for you on that today.
QUESTION: You're not ruling that out, though?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not ruling it out. I don't have anything to announce,
though.
QUESTION: Don't you have any comment on the commitment of the United
States to East Timor in 1975? According to several documents, the United
States supported for the - (inaudible) - regime when he decided to send the
troops to East Timor. So do you have any comment on that?
MR. FOLEY: You know, I have enough difficulty commenting on events in
1999, not to commence a historical review of policy 20-some years ago. I'm
afraid I can't help you with that. It might be preferable to deal with 1975
than 1999, but I'm not going to do it now.
QUESTION: North Korea. Tony Hall said this morning in Seoul that signs
were good that if the North Koreans got some food aid, or if they were
promised an easing of sanctions, that they'd basically kind of forget the
fact that they even had a missile to test. Do you have any reaction to
that, or is this just - I mean, if you don't have anything more than what
you've said over the last few weeks --
MR. FOLEY: I don't, I don't. As you know, food aid is something that we
have provided, upon appeal by the World Food Program. We regard it as a
humanitarian issue, and on that basis we provided it. As you know,
Ambassador Kartman is going to meet with the Korean Vice Foreign Minister
in Berlin beginning, I think, September 7.
We're going to use those talks to stress the advantages to the DPRK of
taking steps to improve its relations with the US and the international
community, based on the ideas that former Secretary Perry's been working
on, that he presented when he was in Pyongyang.
QUESTION: On the same topic, guys, has there been any feedback from the
South Koreans on their diplomatic offensive to Japan, to China, on the
matter of the North Korean missile testing? Have we heard anything from
that?
MR. FOLEY: Well, the US and the South Koreans continue to pursue parallel,
coordinated approaches designed to improve relations with the DPRK and
enhance peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. I think President
Kim's article, that appeared in an American newspaper today, clearly spells
out the benefits that could flow from North Korean willingness to follow
this positive path.
You raise a different perspective - that of another missile test. We've
made clear our position on that issue many, many times. I don't think I
need to repeat it for you, about the kinds of consequences that were to
ensue if there were one. But we, on the other hand, prefer to focus on the
possibility that we can have a different kind of relationship with North
Korea, that meets our concerns and that opens the door to a better kind of
relationship.
QUESTION: So there's nothing to report about the --
MR. FOLEY: No.
QUESTION: A couple of things on North Korea. Some well-informed sources
say Dr. Perry has, in fact, finished and presented --
MR. FOLEY: That's not my information, no.
QUESTION: Secondly, the South Koreans seem to be getting quite excited
about the Berlin meeting, saying it might be a turning point in relations
between North Korea and the outside world.
MR. FOLEY: Well, it was you or somebody who tried to pin me down on that
when I announced the meetings last week. I indicated that this was part of
our ongoing contact with the North Koreans; that the idea for such a
meeting was discussed in August in Geneva, between the US and the North
Korean sides. We regard it as positive that the US and North Korea are
going to meet, and want to continue these discussions. I wouldn't rule out
future meetings as well. I wouldn't want to attach a specific expectation
to that meeting, though, at least in advance of the meeting.
QUESTION: You want to discourage excessive optimism about breakthroughs
and --
MR. FOLEY: I think we've had enough experience in this particular area to
know that it's slogging, progress is slow. But we are hopeful that we can
achieve progress in defining a different relationship between North Korea
and the United States and the international community, and one which
improves the prospects for the people of North Korea, and which allays our
serious concerns about security issues.
QUESTION: Last week, General McCaffrey - (inaudible) - says Cuba is
working fine with the United States in narco-traffic --
MR. FOLEY: Cuba is working what? I didn't hear you.
QUESTION: Fine in the fight against drugs. Do you consider Cuba's fight
against drugs as an ally, or that Cuba is an ally of the United States in
the war against drugs?
MR. FOLEY: I would never use the word "ally" and the United States and
Cuba in the same sentence. If it's in our national interest, because we
suffer greatly from the scourge of narcotics consumption in this country,
if it serves our interest to fight that scourge, to work on a practical or
pragmatic basis with other countries in the world, we will do so, because
that's in the interest of the American people.
Is that it?
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Wait, I'm sorry, one more question. Regarding President
Clinton's possible decision to pardon some imprisoned members of the FALN,
did this building issue any report on this?
MR. FOLEY: I can look into it; that's not a State Department issue.
QUESTION: Do you know when the last time the group was considered a
terrorist organization by the US? Do you know when it was taken off the
State Department list?
MR. FOLEY: We judge foreign terrorist organizations here in our annual
report.
QUESTION: Right, it's never been on the --
MR. FOLEY: The State Department deals with foreign governments.
QUESTION: I know.
(The briefing concluded at 2:00 P.M.)
|
