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

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #8, 00-02-03

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

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


1001

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Thursday, February 3, 2000

Briefer: James B. Foley

IRAQ
1-7	Diversion Of Russian Vessel by US Navy Ship Operating within the /
	 Multinational Maritime Interception Force / UN Security Council
	 Resolution 665 / Oil Smuggling 
8	US Iraqi / Kurdish policy
SERBIA/MONTENEGRO
7	Closing of Borders / US Aid to Montenegro / Prime Minister
	 Vujanovic Visit to Washington, DC 
AUSTRIA
8-11	New Government Coalition / Freedom Party Participation in
	 Government / US Concerns / Declaration on European Values 
RUSSIA (CHECHNYA)
11-12	Territorial Integrity of Neighboring States / Radio Liberty
	 Correspondent Babitskiy Exchanged for Russian Soldiers / Russian
	 Treatment of Noncombatants 
SOUTH KOREA
12-14	US-ROK Nonproliferation Discussions February 8 - 9 in Hawaii
NORTH KOREA
14	High Level Talks Scheduled in February / KEDO Turnkey Contract /
	 Construction of Lightwater Reactor Project / US North Korean
	 Framework / US Commitment 
DEPARTMENT
14-15	Russian Spy Case Investigation
HAITI
15	President Preval Visit to Washington, D.C. / Withdrawal of US
	 Troops / US Aid for Elections 
CHINA (TAIWAN)
16	Taiwan Security Enhancement Act
NORTH IRELAND
16	Suspension of Government
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
16-17	Israel-Palestinian Track / Peace Process

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2000, 1:50 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: I am pleased to be here for another on-time briefing on the part of your Deputy Spokesman. I know you have come to count on me in that regard. I do apologize, though, for the delay.

I don't have any announcements so, George, you've got the first shot at me.

QUESTION: Could you give us a rundown on the tanker that was detained in the Gulf?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I can. I think you'll find that the operational details will be made available at the Pentagon today. I don't necessarily wish to empty the room as I just begin my briefing, but I understand that P.J. Crowley's briefing would have begun a few minutes ago. So you may have to check with your colleagues about some of those operational details.

What I can tell you is that yesterday a US Navy ship operating within the MIF, the Multinational Maritime Interception Force, stopped a Russian tanker in international waters off the United Arab Emirates. As the multinational force has done for the last nine years, the tanker is being inspected to determine whether it is carrying contraband. I was informed before coming in here that the decision has been made by the MIF to divert the ship for further inspection but, again, I'd refer you to the Pentagon for up-to-the-minute details on the MIF's actions.

Under the authority of UN Security Council Resolution 665, the multinational force routinely intercepts and inspects ships to ensure compliance with UN sanctions on Iraq.

So that's the bare-bones answer, George. Do you have a follow-up?

QUESTION: Have you received a protest from the Russians?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we've seen public declarations out of Moscow in this regard. I don't know whether those have been conveyed through diplomatic channels in any kind of a formal way, but what I can tell you is that we have been in regular contact with Russian officials, both here and in Moscow, for almost one month on this issue. We have spoken with the Russian ambassador here in Washington several times in January prior to the interception of the vessel.

The focus of these discussions were suspicions that the MIF had regarding the activity of vessels belonging to certain Russian firms. The Russians have told us that this ship is privately owned and that an investigation on the Russian side is underway. The Russians have not provided us thus far with the results of their own investigation.

The Russian Government has also requested consular access to its Russian nationality crew on the tanker and consular access has been granted. We are working now to make the necessary arrangements.

QUESTION: Can you tell me, aside from this ship which has been seized and one other which was in the area - you said that you talked to the Russian ambassador several times in January.

MR. FOLEY: Right.

QUESTION: About this. Was this about these particular ships or other ships which were in the area and suspected of smuggling?

MR. FOLEY: I think it's the particular case we're talking about.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you say - you all brought out pictures on, I believe it was December 10th, showing a larger number of ships than usual - at Basra, I believe - that you believed were engaged in smuggling activity. Do you have any information about whether that up-tick in activity continues?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, that indeed is our understanding that that up-tick that we brought to your attention in December is continuing. I may have some information on that, if you'll bear with me for a moment.

The amount of illegal Iraqi oil smuggled by maritime routes has virtually doubled since the resumption of oil smuggling in late August of 1999. Now, this is indicative of Iraqi attempts to circumvent current sanctions that limit Iraq to the legal export of oil via the Mina al Bakr oil terminal. You remember during that briefing I pointed out the various locations, including the terminal and the tankers that were receiving off-loaded gas oil.

Obviously, we have stressed the point that Iraq is able to gain more from the profit of illegal sales since they go directly to the Iraqi regime; they're not controlled, by definition, by the United Nations. We believe the recent surge in smuggling activity can be attributed, at least in part, to the increase in the price of oil that obviously increases the profits that smugglers enjoy and also more money for the Iraqi regime. So, yes, we've seen a significant up-tick in this kind of activity over the last several months.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary talk about this in her meeting with Putin?

MR. FOLEY: Well, as I said, we've been discussing this issue with Russians in Moscow and here in Washington at a variety of levels. I'm not going to go into the details of her meetings in Moscow.

QUESTION: Jim, there's another regime that benefits from the smuggling, and that's the one that controls the waterways that these ships go through - and that's Iran. And I wondered if you all have asked Iran to clamp down on this, if you've made any sort of protest to the Iranians.

MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, all countries are bound by the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, are bound to respect and, indeed, to enforce the sanctions regime. The United Nations is aware that the smugglers route often hugs or goes along the Iranian coastline, and it's our information that the UN Sanctions Committee has raised this issue with Iran in the past and we expect that it will be doing so again.

I have, by the way, just I think a little bit more in the way of statistics about the nature of the up-tick, again in response to your question. Illicit oil exports via the Persian Gulf averaged about 50,000 barrels a day for much of 1998. Oil smuggling increased sharply in the Fall of 1999 and has now reached about 100,000 barrels a day.

QUESTION: My first question is: How do you know that? Is that because it's been confiscated?

MR. FOLEY: Well, this is, obviously, the responsibility of the multinational force to enforce the embargo and enforce the sanctions, and they are able to make determinations on the basis of the observations they make and on the basis of their inspection and boarding activities.

I can give you some figures, if you're interested, in connection with the kind of work that the multinational force has been performing. Since 1990, the interception force has queried more than 28,000 vessels. This is done by radio. They have boarded more than 12,000 vessels and diverted 700 for violating UN sanctions. I may have statistics covering the last year, if you'll bear with me again. In 1999, there were 2,422 queries, 700 boardings, and 19 diversion to various ports of call.

I might add also that this is not the first case of an interception of or diversion of a Russian vessel. The facts in this regard are the following. Russian-flagged vessels have been implicated in the illegal export of Iraqi oil in the past. This is not a new event but it is unusual in the sense that we've not seen very large numbers of violators and a significant pattern of such activity. It's not new; it is somewhat unusual.

Again, the MIF routinely intercepts ships of any nationality suspected of carrying contraband. The last time a Russian-flagged vessel was boarded was on the 31st of August, 1998. The last time there was an actual diversion of a Russian-flagged vessel was on January 5th, also in 1998.

QUESTION: You said that you've been talking to the Russian ambassador and other Russian officials about this for over a month and talking about these specific cases, or in a sense that's what I thought you said.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: And so if you've been tracking this for a while, I mean, was there a conscious decision made to wait until the Secretary had left Moscow before boarding the ship?

MR. FOLEY: No, not to my knowledge. Again, this is something that has been tracked, but this is an operational question. I'd have to refer you to the Pentagon. But the multinational force acted when it was in a position to do so, is my understanding.

QUESTION: Are there any countries who can tell you that you also have this kind of contact about suspicious vessels?

MR. FOLEY: What was the first part?

QUESTION: Other countries, perhaps, besides Russia? You only gave us Russia as the name of a country which you have boarded and intercepted.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I gave you statistics about large numbers of queries, of boardings and of diversions. I don't have a breakdown on the nationality of the flags of the various vessels.

You know, I think it's important to stress here that these are, in many cases, vessels that employ flags of convenience, and you can't necessarily point to a given flag and assume that a particular government is responsible for what's going on. And in fact, even when you're talking about the littoral states - I think I made this point in December - some of this activity can occur unbeknownst to them.

It's the job, obviously, of all nations to meet their responsibilities under Security Council resolutions, including the littoral states. As I noted a few minutes ago, this Russian flagship is privately owned and we, again, have not drawn the conclusion that the Russian Government in any way is supportive of efforts to smuggle or to overcome or subvert the sanctions regime. But this is something that they told us that they're looking into. And as I said, we'd not been informed of the results of their own investigation.

QUESTION: You mentioned about diversions. What happens when it is proven that it is smuggled oil? Is it confiscated then?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, my understanding is that the contraband is confiscated. The proceeds of the contraband are deposited into UN accounts.

QUESTION: Where does the diverted oil go?

MR. FOLEY: What was the question?

QUESTION: The oil that is smuggled, where is it sold? Where is it off- loaded?

MR. FOLEY: It's off-loaded I think in a number of the littoral states along the Persian Gulf.

QUESTION: Is anyone aware where this ship was going? And then I have another question too.

MR. FOLEY: You'd have to ask the Pentagon if they have that information.

QUESTION: And the figures you gave, does that cover only illegal exports by sale, or does it also cover the fairly extensive, I believe, shipment exports through - across the land border to Iran which are then shipped from Iranian ports?

MR. FOLEY: I'd have to take the question. I'm not sure if the figure encompasses merely that transported by sea or whether it captures all of the illegal smuggling that is occurring.

QUESTION: So you're leaving open the possibility that this Russian vessel was working on behalf of another foreign company or a foreign government?

MR. FOLEY: I didn't say that at all. I said that the Russians have told us that this is a privately owned company. They're investigating on their side the suspicions that we brought to their attention. I have not said anything about whether they're under the authority of a foreign government or not. I don't see how you would draw that conclusion.

QUESTION: You said earlier that the Russian Government was supportive of this activity.

MR. FOLEY: No, I said that we've not drawn that conclusion.

QUESTION: So then why is it wrong to draw - to speculate at least that this vessel was operating on behalf of another - of a foreign government, non-Russian, or a foreign non-Russian company?

MR. FOLEY: I wasn't implying that this vessel was under the authority of any government, be it Russia or another government. I think the fact of the matter is that as I indicated, that a lot of this illegal smuggling occurs on the part of, on behalf of, private interests, private smuggling interests that use flags of convenience.

QUESTION: Not to establish where you think the oil goes when it's being smuggled, you said to the "littoral states", so I don't understand why "littoral states" were important.

MR. FOLEY: The oil eventually disappears into the international marketplace. You lose trace -

QUESTION: The tank is monitored -

MR. FOLEY: Do you have a question?

QUESTION: You said the tankers were being monitored. So they're presumably being monitored to their final destination. It's their final destination which I'm asking you about.

MR. FOLEY: Of this particular ship?

QUESTION: Of the ships that are being monitored.

MR. FOLEY: I don't have a list of all the littoral states. You can take a look at the map. They're along the Persian Gulf is normally where they're often located.

QUESTION: Sorry. I'm not trying to be disingenuous, but you're saying that the ships are being monitored to their final destination, presumably. I don't understand why ships should take crude oil from Iraq and sell it to littoral states. I mean where is the market? Where are they selling it to?

MR. FOLEY: I don't really understand your confusion here. The gas oil is taken out of Iraqi waters. My understand is that these tankers hug the coastline, and they off-load where they can at points of convenience.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) send oil, for example, to a littoral state in the Gulf? It doesn't make sense.

MR. FOLEY: Well, but they're able then to take possession of it and sell it on the open market.

QUESTION: Okay. So are we saying that littoral states are taking part in the smuggling operation?

MR. FOLEY: I think you weren't listening to me a few minutes ago. I repeated what I said in December, which is that our understanding is that basically much of this occurs unbeknownst to many of the littoral states. That's not necessarily always the case. That's why it's necessary to remind the littoral states of their responsibility. The UN Sanctions Committee has done that in many cases. We have done so bilaterally as well.

QUESTION: Is Iraq understood to be getting the full amount of - is this a black market in that they're underselling this oil and, therefore, getting only a fraction of what a country - a producer would get on a legal market, or are they just getting whatever any country would typically expect to get for a shipload of -

MR. FOLEY: Well, you can take the global figures that I mentioned. We believe the smuggling is in recent months occurring to the tune of about 100,000 barrels a day. And that, I'm told, equals in the vicinity of $25 million a month. But obviously if you're dealing with middlemen, rogue tankers that are off-loading this stuff and selling it on the market, you have different levels of middlemen - the transporters, those who are buying it, those who are then taking it and selling it perhaps through second and third parties - that the profits may be eaten away as you go.

But, nevertheless, we believe this is an important and serious violation of the sanctions regime; that the money that Iraq gets, whatever portion of that figure is in a given instance, is money that goes directly to the Iraqi regime. It's not controlled by the United Nations and, therefore, can more easily go toward the nefarious purposes that the Saddam Hussein regime is using its revenues for.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, a follow-up. The reason that hugging the coast is important is because that is how you get through the embargo, is that right, and that's how you get through the net?

MR. FOLEY: I believe that the MIF - and you'd have to ask the Pentagon - operates in international waters.

QUESTION: On another subject, the Serbians report that they have closed their border with Montenegro and are halting all trade between the Republic of Serbia and Montenegro. Have you heard that? Is that to be a topic of discussion between the Secretary this afternoon and the Montenegrin official?

MR. FOLEY: What I have heard is that you were going to ask the question and, therefore, we're aware of the press report in the last few minutes before I came out here. It's not something that we're able to verify. We've just heard that there is a media report that this has happened, but we're not in a position to confirm that at this point. So I'm going to have to take the question and we're attempting to follow up on it.

QUESTION: Well, on a more general question on the same subject, the United States has been giving, I guess, $15 million in various forms of aid to Montenegro in the last year, $7 million the other day, $8 previously. Is the United States interested in weakening the links between Montenegro and Serbia?

MR. FOLEY: No. We are interested in providing significant support to Montenegro in its efforts to serve as a model of democracy and good governance in the FRY, in its efforts to implement economic reforms and increase the economic opportunities of the people of Montenegro - again, serving as a model to the people of the FRY at large as to how a government committed to democracy and reform can benefit its people and can allow its people to benefit from assistance and integration with the international community.

That is what motivates our strong support for the reform government of President Djukanovic and, in that regard, I think you're aware that the Prime Minister of Montenegro, Mr. Vujanovic, who is here in Washington, is meeting Secretary Albright this afternoon. She will be reiterating our support to Montenegro.

QUESTION: About Iraq, last week, The Washington Post articles claim that when you squeezed Iraq and the Iraqi Kurdish areas became as an independent Kurdish state and they have their own money, they have their own flag, they have everything which the state has it. And did the United States change the Iraqi Kurdish policy?

MR. FOLEY: No, of course not. No, we continue to support the territorial integrity of Iraq.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the possible formation of a new Austrian Government that includes the Freedom Party? The Office of the President - evidently there's a wire story that says that the government will be sworn in tomorrow.

MR. FOLEY: Well, we've been very clear on this matter, as I said on Tuesday, and I think Secretary Albright spoke to this important issue when she was in Croatia yesterday. We've been very clear that we were very concerned about the possibility that the Freedom Party would join in a new government in Austria. If this report is borne out of the president's intention to bless the formation of such a government, our concerns obviously increase.

I don't believe that the story is finished, though, at least in terms of constitutional procedures in Austria. First of all, this report of the president's intentions needs to be confirmed. Secondly, if that happens, I believe the parliament will need to act. And so in some sense, we're not going to be able to comment about something that hasn't happened yet, but I can, for your benefit though, restate our concerns given the profound worries that have existed in Europe, in the United States and around the world, about some of the statements that have been made by the Freedom Party leader in connection with the Nazi era that are deeply disturbing. We have significant concerns about this potential development. As you know, Secretary Albright spoke with the Austrian Foreign Minister and emphasized the importance of democratic values and Austria's commitments to pluralism and tolerance, and we are in close touch with our European friends and allies on this issue.

I would note that the two parties that may form the government have issued a declaration of commitment to broad democratic principles and values that form the basis of our partnership with Europe. I think that this declaration is a reflection of the very strong international concern that has been expressed so far and, yet, we believe that actions are indeed more important than words. However nice words may appear to sound, we are going to be watching very, very closely how events unfold in the coming weeks, days and months. And I think it's fair to say that Austria will be under an international microscope in the coming weeks - days, weeks and months - precisely because of the deep concern and, indeed, stake that the international community has in a viable democratic system in Austria.

Let's remember that the health and well-being of democracy in Austria is important to the people of Austria. We recognize that. I think Secretary Albright yesterday in Croatia noted that the Austrian people have a right to participate in free and fair elections, have a right to vote, and have a right to form their own government. No one is questioning that. But the international community, though, has a legitimate interest in the nature of democracy in a fellow democracy, and that is increasingly true around the world as democracy takes hold in various parts of the world. It is especially true in a part of Europe that spawned the most unspeakable atrocities known to humankind in history in that part of the world. And therefore, the concerns of the international community, including those of the United States are legitimate, and they are profound.

QUESTION: In that regard, since you mentioned that the parliament has a role in this and the president has a role in this, what would the United States recommend to either the parliament or the president to do? I mean, you've expressed concerns. As you said, actions are more important. What actions should they take?

MR. FOLEY: Well, it's not incumbent on the United States or anyone else to dictate as outsiders what specific steps that the government of Austria, the Austrian body politic, the people of Austria should take. I think that is clear, that they have the right, as Secretary Albright indicated yesterday, to make their own choices. But the international community has its own rights, indeed its own obligations in this regard, to be on the watch, to be vigilant, to be concerned in this event about the fate and the future of democracy in a fellow democracy in Austria.

So we are going to watch very carefully what they do. No one is telling the people of Austria what to do, but we're watching to see what the impact of the choices they make will be. And as we've indicated over the last several days, while it's premature to talk about our actions at this stage, we will determine what steps are appropriate based on what happens. And so we're going to be watching that closely in the next several days.

QUESTION: A couple of things on that. One, given the fact that just hours after the Secretary spoke with the foreign minister, he agreed to form this coalition with the Freedom Party. Do you have any thoughts on that? I mean it sounds like Schuessel completely ignored what the Secretary had to say, and I'm just wondering if he didn't care what she had to say. Do you have any comment on that?

And secondly, I'm kind of confused about your actions-speak-louder-than- words thing. I mean, it seems to me that what Haider and the Freedom Party have done is only speak words. And you say they certainly haven't gone out and actually done anything that's anti- Semitic or pro - I mean, any physical action. So when you say that you believe that actions speak louder than words, it gets back to Jonathan's question of yesterday or two days ago, of what can they do to make themselves acceptable if they haven't done anything except for speak words which most people find objectionable?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I hope your colleagues won't object if I take five or ten minutes to answer what is a very lengthy, multi-part question. First of all, in terms of the Secretary's conversation with Foreign Minister Schuessel, several points.

First, she certainly spoke very vigorously on behalf of the United States. Others have spoken out as well, including the European Union, including Israel, others around the world. We recognize that Austria will make its own decisions. We have a responsibility to state our view, and that's what the Secretary did.

Number two, I think you've seen that, indeed, there has been a declaration by the parties of their fealty to international norms, to democratic principles. And I believe that, as I said, that the concern expressed by the international community is reflected in that statement that came out the other day.

In terms then leading into your next point about that declaration which does involve words to this point and not actions, I fail to see the connection or the point or the conclusion that you're drawing from what I said that actions speak louder than words. The fact is that words that have been uttered by Mr. Haider on several occasions have caused deep concerns, precisely because they occur in a context in a region which saw the most unspeakable barbarity of man to man in recorded history. And anyone who in any way, however cavalierly, however much someone may retract or apologize for statements that in some sense minimize or trivialize or explain away those unspeakable events of 50-some years ago, is bound and will and does cause deep concern.

Now, actions, as I said, are more important than words. The words have caused concern. The words may indicate the direction that people may take in practice, the actions they may take. That's why we're going to be watching very carefully because, given what happened in Europe 50-60 years ago, I think it is an obligation of the international community to be vigilant, for its ears to perk up, when things are said which can trivialize some of those things that happened 50-60 years ago. And, therefore, we're going to be very vigilant in watching how events unfold.

QUESTION: Does that mean, then, that the US is concerned that if the Freedom Party gets into power that we're going to see - that we may see - that there is a danger of a repeat of what happened 50 years ago?

MR. FOLEY: Well, you're leaping to conclusions. You're putting words in my mouth that I did not utter. We have reason to be concerned. For us to spell out specifically bad things that might happen would be both pointless and irresponsible. The people of Austria have been committed to democratic norms and principles, and we expect that commitment to continue to demonstrate itself in not only words but in actions in the months and years to come.

QUESTION: A couple of questions on words and deeds and so on. You brought up the question of this declaration twice, but on neither occasion did you actually welcome it in any way. I mean, you obviously are willing to condemn previous statements. Why are you not prepared to welcome a declaration renouncing those statements?

And, secondly, since we're talking about actions, what does the State Department or the United States think of Dr. Haider's record as governor of the Canton of Corinthia where he has, in fact, been in an executive position for some years?

MR. FOLEY: I can speak to the record of foreign governments in their foreign policies. That's the job of the State Department. I don't have a scorecard or an analysis of his domestic program in the state of which he's governor. I can't answer that question. That's now where our concerns lie.

What was your first question?

QUESTION: Why you're not welcoming the statement --

MR. FOLEY: Well, we've taken note of the statement, but given our concerns, what we're interested in is what happens. As I said, a statement of commitment to democratic norms, to international standards, to human rights, is something that ought to be taken for granted on the part of all functioning democracies, and words are useful. And, certainly, we believe that positive commitments in that regard reflect the strong concerns that the international community has voiced in the last days. But for you to suggest that our concerns would evaporate simply on the basis of a statement is not credible.

QUESTION: Recently at the CIS meeting there seemed to be a warming between the countries of the Caucuses, that is, Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. And President Shevardnaze made the proposal to have Prime Minister Putin chair the meeting. Everything seemed to be very friendly.

Did the Secretary on her visit get the impression that relations between the countries in the Caucasus, aside from the problem in Chechnya, are much better and that, therefore, less of a danger of a conflict in Chechnya possibly spilling over; whereas, five months ago there were accusations between Georgia and Russia on who was, you know, providing arms to the rebels?

MR. FOLEY: You're right. There were concerns expressed in the region at various moments or various points of the Chechen conflict about a possible spillover, about violations of borders in the region. We were encouraged by the fact that Acting President Putin himself, I believe, unless it was Foreign Minister Ivanov - I'd have to check the record - but one of the two gentlemen made some rather explicit statements about a month or so ago in regard to the territorial integrity of neighboring states, the commitment not to allow the conflict in Chechnya to spill over. And as I said, we were encouraged by those comments.

As you know, there were reports maybe a month or so ago of potential spillover or of some activity that occurred cross-border. I've not seen any such reports in recent weeks, and we do trust that all the states of the region recognize that this is a bridge that should not be crossed. It's not in anyone's interest for this conflict to spread, especially beyond international borders.

I don't have a specific readout of the Secretary's conversations in Moscow to the extent that they did cover the topic of the Caucasus. I do know that the Secretary, with Foreign Minister Ivanov, did discuss the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and the efforts of the Minsk Group to promote a peaceful resolution to that conflict. But I'm not aware that any problems in the Caucuses were discussed or whether there was any problematic dimension to the discussion.

QUESTION: As long as we're in the Caucasus, do you have any guidance or update on the latest turn of events with RFE correspondent Babitskiy?

MR. FOLEY: I do. I have a bit of disturbing information in that regard, if you'll bear with me one moment. We understand that the Kremlin press spokesman announced today that Russian authorities exchanged Radio Liberty journalist Andrei Babitskiy for three Russian soldiers in Chechnya on February 3, today. We are urgently following up on these reports and are seeking facts and clarification from the Russian presidential administration.

If this report proves true, it would raise very serious questions about Russia's adherence to its international commitments regarding the treatment of noncombatants. In a statement condemning the purported exchange, Radio Free Europe - Radio Liberty President Thomas Stein raised serious concern about the well-being of Mr. Babitskiy before the exchange took place. We are going to continue to follow this situation very, very closely and seek further information from the Russian authorities.

QUESTION: Are there any precedents to this that we can go back to historically?

MR. FOLEY: I'd have to check the record. This, as I said, is a disturbing development if true, and I'm not aware of any precedent to it, no.

QUESTION: Are you suggesting that the Russians picked up Babitskiy as trading material for the prisoners?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't think we're in a position to speculate on what the rationale for this could have been. It's simply an unacceptable action that reportedly has taken place and that we're following up on.

QUESTION: There is some indication that he, Babitskiy, may not have been opposed to this deal. Does that in any way -

MR. FOLEY: If the facts turn out to be happy facts, and this transfer or exchange - I'm speaking very hypothetically now - leads to his release and he declares himself and is in a position freely to declare himself pleased that he has been released and is in good shape physically and able to resume a normal life, that's again a hypothesis and is a different matter. Right now, all we know is what has been reported, and it is disturbing.

QUESTION: Can you confirm reports that South Korea and the United States will meet in Hawaii next week to talk about South Korea's missile plans?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, if I can come back to that in a second, I had something on that the other day. I believe that is true.

QUESTION: I have another question. What can you tell us about what they agreed at the last round, and did they agree - did the United States agree in principle that South Korea could extend its range to 300 kilometers?

MR. FOLEY: Well, that's part of the - connected to the first question. So when I get the information I needed - it could happen any second - here we have it. The United States and the Republic of Korea will be holding nonproliferation discussions in Hawaii on February 8 through 9. As we've done periodically since 1995, we're going to be discussing issues related to the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. The US delegation will be led by Assistant Secretary Robert Einhorn and, on the South Korean side, by Director General Song of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

We expect the two sides will discuss a full range of nonproliferation issues including technical missile issues following on from the last round of nonproliferation talks in November. I don't want to comment further on the meetings, they haven't taken place yet, and these are meetings that we don't normally talk about publicly given the sensitive nature of the subject.

I can tell you that in the context of our very close relationship with the Republic of Korea, we regularly consult on the best means of insuring adequate deterrent capabilities on the Korean peninsula. In this connection, we share the Republic of Korea's concerns about the threat posed by North Korea's missile activities. We have always stressed with the South Koreans, and will continue to, our desire to cooperate with South Korea to insure adequate Republic of Korea defense and deterrent capabilities while continuing to promote our regional and global nonproliferation objectives. I couldn't answer your specific second question.

QUESTION: Can I ask in a slightly different way a slightly different question? What does the United States think is an appropriate limit for the range of South Korean missiles?

MR. FOLEY: I know whenever the subject comes up it's in your best interest to try to press me and Mr. Rubin on the details of our discussions - of our frank, private and collegial discussions with our South Korean friends. We don't do so. We think it's, as I said, a sensitive issue but it's also one that we think we can advance best by doing it privately.

As I said, we are sympathetic to the defense requirements of our South Korean allies and we cooperate with them on their defense needs, but we also have an interest in ensuring that their defensive capabilities are also in conformity with global and regional nonproliferation objectives. Beyond those two principles, we've never gone in terms of the particulars.

QUESTION: Well, I hope the choices of venue for these meetings wasn't determined by anything other than the fact that it's halfway between the two countries and not the fact that it's winter in both Seoul and Washington. My real question is have the North Koreans yet said who they are going to send for these high-level talks?

MR. FOLEY: No. As we indicated I think at the close of the last round of Ambassador Kartman's talks in Berlin, we expect to have another round with the North Koreans, I believe in New York, at the end of this month, February. We expect that the high-level visit will take place about a month after that, and we will learn from the North Koreans at some point who the - the identity, rather, of their high-level visitor, but that has not been communicated to us yet.

QUESTION: Have you seen the statement out of Pyongyang in which they accuse the United States of being the principle cause to the delay in the construction of the light-water nuclear reactor?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I have seen that. You know, we've covered this ground on previous occasions. This is not the first time. I can tell you that the United States and its partners in KEDO are working actively to meet all of their obligations under the Agreed Framework. Indeed since KEDO signed a Turnkey Contract in September with the prime contractor for the light-water reactor project, construction can now proceed steadily.

As you know in terms of the financing of the construction of this light- water reactor, Japan has pledged the equivalent of $1 billion towards that project. The Republic of Korea has pledged to fund 70 percent of the construction costs of the light-water reactors. The legislatures in both countries have approved funding for the light-water reactor project. The procedures for disbursement have been finalized, and this all assures that construction will continue to move forward.

We believe the light-water reactor is a critical element of the US-North Korean Agreed Framework which we believe the framework remains the most viable way to contain the North Korean nuclear program.

Groundbreaking took place on the light-water reactor in August of 1997. There's been site preparation ongoing since that time. You'd have to check with KEDO on the particulars of that.

Our commitment as the United States to this effort is in a different area. The burden-sharing agreement achieved at KEDO does not contain a commitment for US contributions to the light-water reactor project as such. Our contribution under the burden-sharing agreement is to provide funding for the supply of heavy fuel oil and other KEDO needs which we have been meeting.

QUESTION: The FBI earlier this week released a tape showing quite explicitly how Mr. Gusev, who has now been deported for spying, set up his operation here and also laying out the probably scenario that someone inside helped - someone who has been inside the building has helped to place the device. And I'm wondering your reaction to this release and whether you believe it compromises the security of this building that something like this would point out vulnerabilities in it and if there's been any further action on - you can't tell us if it's under investigation, but any further guidance on the case.

MR. FOLEY: Are you asking whether we have a problem with the FBI's cooperation with that program? The answer is no.

QUESTION: I don't suppose I'd get an answer to something that blunt.

MR. FOLEY: No, I'm giving you an answer. No.

QUESTION: No answer? No reaction?

MR. FOLEY: No, not the lack of an answer. No, we don't have a problem with the FBI's cooperation with that program. In terms of the investigation itself, it's ongoing. And all the questions that you're interested in are ones we're interested in. That's what the investigation is investigating in terms of the spy incident that took place here, and it's ongoing.

My understanding is that conclusions have not been reached. I did check, having seen the report, because the report indicated that the investigation is reaching certain conclusions or pointing in certain directions. I'm told that that's not really true, that it's ongoing and the conclusions have not been reached.

QUESTION: The President of Haiti is in town and is meeting with Deputy Secretary Talbott this afternoon.

MR. FOLEY: Right.

QUESTION: Can you say anything about what's going to be discussed at that meeting? Will it have to do mainly with the - this is a bad word - but abandoned withdrawal - not abandoned - withdrawal of US troops from Haiti? And also, if I might make a plea to the number two in the State Department for his schedule to be formally listed especially if he is meeting Heads of State.

MR. FOLEY: You are in fine fettle today, I must say, Mr. Lee. In terms of your second point, I take note of it. I'd be glad to look into it for you.

The President of Haiti, Rene Preval, is in Washington. He came here today to participate in the US Congressional Prayer Breakfast. He was supposed to meet with the President briefly afterwards. I refer you to the White House on that. He is meeting I believe this afternoon with Deputy Secretary of State Talbott, whom you elegantly referred to as the number two. He's also meeting with the President's Special Assistant Senior Director for American Affairs Arturo Valenzuela and our special Haiti coordinator Don Steinberg.

Among other issues, the US officials will express support for Haiti's democratic process and assistance for Haiti's upcoming elections. There have been obviously technical difficulties as we get closer to the elections, but we believe Haiti is continuing to make significant progress in preparing for legislative and local elections that are scheduled for March 19 and April 30.

QUESTION: Do you have a figure on how much money the US has supported -

MR. FOLEY: About $20 million.

QUESTION: Is that just this year or in the last election?

MR. FOLEY: Well, it's in connection with preparation of the elections. I don't know when the moneys have been spent in terms of Fiscal Year 2000 versus 1999.

QUESTION: The Secretary had lunch with Senator Biden. Can you tell us whether she asked for his support against the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act?

MR. FOLEY: I have not spoken to the Secretary about the lunch. As I was coming out here, that lunch was ongoing and I will try to get some sense of the agenda. This was obviously a private meeting among US officials of different branches. If there's anything I can tell you about it, I will, though.

QUESTION: Did you know that Deputy Secretary Talbott was also supposed to meet with a Belarusian leader today, Sharetsky?

MR. FOLEY: I believe he was.

QUESTION: Do you have any other details?

MR. FOLEY: No, I don't. I'll look into for you. I'll be glad to. Thank you.

QUESTION: There seemed to be several peace processes collapsing once again. The Brits are about to announce -

MR. FOLEY: Matt, there you go again.

QUESTION: -- that the Northern Ireland Government is going to be suspended. That's one. And then the Palestinians are saying that there's a crisis with the talks in the process with Israel, and the Israelis are now saying the deadline of the 13th is not going to be met. On either of those, do you have anything new to say?

MR. FOLEY: Any other good news questions, Matt?

QUESTION: No, that's it.

MR. FOLEY: On the first one, we've just heard this report coming in. I have nothing for you on the Northern Ireland situation. Obviously we'll hope to be in a better position to comment on it as we learn more.

On the Israeli-Palestinian track, we always said that meeting, the February 13th deadline, was a formidable challenge. Obviously, we're very close to February 13th and it remains formidable, if not more formidable, than the last time Mr. Rubin called it formidable. The important point, though, is that the Israelis and the Palestinians are committed to serious negotiations to address all the permanent status issues. Regardless of the date, we believe there is a solid commitment on both sides, and we expect those negotiations to continue.

Ambassador Ross is in the region. He's keeping touch with the parties. I would expect before he departs the region that he will have a meeting with both sides together to assess where they are. And we are very committed on our part to do what we can to help that process forward in agreement with the parties.

So yes, it is a process that has its ups and downs, and this is inherent to a process that aims to solve once and for all the issues dividing the Israelis and Palestinians. We expect it to be hard, but we also expect that the parties will hang in there, and we will do so ourselves. Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:45 P.M.)


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

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.01b run on Saturday, 5 February 2000 - 1:01:08 UTC