U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #87, 00-08-28
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
798
U.S. Department of State
Press Briefing
MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2000
Briefer: PHILIP REEKER, DEPUTY SPOKESMAN
DEPARTMENT
1 Departure of Press Office Director Adam Ereli regretted; new
Director Chuck Hunter welcomed.
INDONESIA
1 US congratulates East Timorese on pending anniversary of their
independence vote; Good work of UN in East Timor also commended.
Sadly, 100,000+ refugees remain in camps; Recent militia activity
along border and inside East Timor is deplored; they must be
disbanded.
CHINA
2 McNeely book seizure, if true, is disturbing and contrary to
international covenants.
2-3 Three possible Americans were detained, released and are departing
country; US has no Privacy Act waiver.
3-4 Amb. Prueher visited Tibet Aug. 24-27, met with local officials,
discussed human rights issues.
CUBA
4-7 US today sent diplomatic note, urging 100+ exit permits for travel
to US be granted.
5,8 Annual migration talks have been postponed, not re-scheduled by Cuba.
5,8 US has strenuously objected to the talks' postponement.
5-8 Cuban regime practice, not US law, is reason for continuing exodus
from Cuba.
HAITI
9 Election procedures were seriously flawed. OAS sent a mission to
investigate.
9 Premature seating of legislators would call into question its
legitimacy.
PERU
9-11,13-14 Government has captured weapons originally sold by Jordan
years ago.
9-11,13-14 US has asked Peruvian government for information on the
investigation.
COLOMBIA
11-13 US supports Plan Colombia. Congress has provided $1.3 billion for
the effort.
AZERBAIJAN
14-15 Media law allowed shutting of newspapers if they have three libel
convictions in a year. It can lead to de facto press censorship,
and thus is inconsistent with international standards.
15 US urges safeguarding of rights of journalist detained in
connection with an airplane hijacking.
IRAQ
15-16 No-Fly Zones were created by UN Security Council resolution to
protect Iraqi people from their government. Coalition aircraft
strikes only occur in response to Iraqi threats. Every effort is
made to avoid civilian casualties.
FRY (MONTENEGRO)
16-17 US supportive of democratic forces within Montenegro.
BOSNIA
17 Sen. Dole opened Missing Persons Institute in Sarajevo today.
Institute was created by Pres. Clinton in 1996. US has given $8
million to further efforts to locate missing persons.
PHILIPPINES
17-18 US believes paying ransom for hostages is inappropriate. US will
not pay ransom, nor negotiate with terrorists. Release of some
hostages is a blessing.
BURMA
18-19 Aung San Suu Kyi and 16 supporters still in standoff with Burmese
regime at roadblock. We deplore regime's actions, flagrantly
flouting international human rights obligations. Sec. Albright
following situation closely. US has sent diplomatic note in
protest. US has been in contact with Red Cross to provide her
with food and water.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #87
MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2000, 1:45 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. REEKER: Good afternoon, everyone. Sorry for the slight delay. I
just want to start by welcoming to our briefing this afternoon some new
colleagues from the Bureau of Public Affairs. Carolyn Barranca, Jacqueline
Clark, Wanda Cooper, Charles Vella, and Abigail Morales have all come down
to see the fruits of their labors in terms of the most visible side of the
Bureau of Public Affairs.
I also want to take this opportunity to formally acknowledge with regret
the departure of my friend and colleague, Adam Ereli, who was Director of
the Office of Press Relations and is moving on to an assignment abroad.
But we're very happy to welcome Mr. Chuck Hunter, who will replace Adam as
the Director of the Office of Press Relations beginning this week.
And I do have one statement which we'll post after the end of the briefing
marking the anniversary in East Timor which will be celebrated this
Wednesday marking the first anniversary of the August 30th, 1999,
consultation organized and validated by the United Nations in which the
overwhelming majority of the people of East Timor resisted violence and the
threat of violence to vote for independence. So we wanted to congratulate
the people of East Timor for their long, difficult and courageous struggle
for independence, which is a year closer to realization.
We also commend highly the work of the United Nations, which is continuing
to oversee East Timor security and its transition to independence. But I
must note that, sadly, over 100,000 refugees remain in camps in West Timor
almost a year after the traumatic events that drove them from their homes.
They live in an increasingly precarious security environment and with the
second rainy season fast approaching, so we urge once again the Indonesian
Government to restore security throughout West Timor and to develop a
workable plan for the repatriation and resettlement of those refugees. The
United States and the rest of the international community stand ready to
assist.
Finally, I think I must note and deplore the recent militia activity along
the border and inside East Timor which has led to a series of increasingly
violence incidents, including the death of two UN peacekeepers. The August
30th anniversary may well tempt these militias or others to resort to more
violence, and I must reiterate that such violence must not be tolerated.
The militias and those that support them must be disarmed and disbanded.
We'll put that out in written form at the end of the briefing. With that,
I'm happy to turn to Barry Schweid.
QUESTION: A couple of things about China. One is the impounding of
books, apparently because there was a picture of the President with the
Dalai Lama. And to return to that evangelical Christian problem, now those
three American missionaries have been deported. I wonder if State had any
observations on either action.
MR. REEKER: Let me begin regarding the reports of the book. That would
be Robert McNeely's book entitled The Clinton Years. We've seen those
reports that Chinese customs officials had seized copies of the book
because it had a photograph of the President with the Dalai Lama, and I
note that the reports cited the Chinese spokesman commenting that
politically sensitive materials are not allowed to be printed or exported.
If the report is true, then it is most disturbing. Seizure of books in
order to impose political or religious control violates international human
rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights which China has signed. I'll note that Article 19 of that
Covenant guarantees freedom of expression. So let me reiterate that if
these reports are in fact true, we view the seizures as violations of
guarantees of freedom of expression.
On your second point regarding the three individuals that we discussed a
little bit last week, as you noted, Barry, we do understand that all three
individuals have been released and are in the process of departing China.
But I have to note that none of the three has signed a Privacy Act waiver
and therefore, as you know, I am unable to release any of the individuals'
names or to confirm names that have indeed been reported in the press, or
to disclose their onward travel plans.
But I think, as I told some of you Friday, we discussed the US-China
consular convention, that provides that the host country notify us of
detained individuals as soon as possible, but within 96 hours, and in this
instance the three individuals were released before the conclusion of that
96-hour period.
QUESTION: On the book seizure part, is this something other than your
comment other than saying that you are deeply troubled - or it is
disturbing if it is true - is that the extent of how the State Department
will get involved in this? Is there any reason to think - or is there any
way for State to get involved in this case, or would it, in terms of trying
to get them un-impounded?
MR. REEKER: I think I have made the point our view of what it would be
if that were the case. I am not aware of - obviously, it is something that
we deplore. We don't believe that books should be seized in order to
impose some sort of political or religious control. But again, I am just
going on the reports that we have seen and what our observation would be
about that in terms of promoting compliance with the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights.
QUESTION: Does that mean that you - do you make the same observation to
the embassy here, or through the Embassy in Beijing to the Chinese?
MR. REEKER: I am not sure of any specifics. I think I have done it
right here, and you all will certainly do your part to show that as our
response at this point.
Still on this?
QUESTION: Yes, on this subject. It is reported further that these three
missionaries were beaten while in detention, that they were - that they had
their - their handcuffs were so tight that it cut off circulation to their
hands, that they were mistreated, badly mistreated. Now, these people as
American citizens, I take it, the State Department would have something to
say about that.
MR. REEKER: I just don't have anything more for you on it, Bill. I
don't have Privacy Act waivers from the individuals in question. I don't
have any details to provide you on that. All I can note for you is that
they were released long before the 96-hour requirement, and I understand
they are in the process of departing China.
QUESTION: There was a report yesterday that Ambassador Prueher is
touring Tibet right now, and this apparently coincides with a period of
crackdown on religious expression. And I'm wondering, doesn't this send a
message of business as usual to the Chinese regarding their conduct
there?
MR. REEKER: Well, I think just to go on the facts, Ambassador Prueher
visited Tibet from August 24th through August 27th. He is now back at the
Embassy in Beijing. This was, in fact, Ambassador Prueher's first trip to
Tibet and the first by a US Ambassador since former Ambassador Sasser
visited there in 1997.
While he was in Tibet, the Ambassador met with autonomous region and Lhasa
city government officials with whom he discussed human rights and other
issues. Some of the specific topics that the Ambassador raised include the
Tibet Heritage Fund, the Panchen Lama issue, and the issue of Ngawang
Choephel, the ethnomusicologist who has been detained there.
So, obviously, this visit provided Ambassador Prueher the chance to explain
our policy and the concerns we have directly to Tibet autonomous region and
Lhasa city government officials, and we will continue to pursue those
issues as we do in terms of raising them back in Beijing as well.
QUESTION: Still on China.
QUESTION: Can we stay, actually, on this - specific on Tibet?
MR. REEKER: Yes.
QUESTION: Did he get any response when he asked about the Panchen
Lama?
MR. REEKER: I don't have any particular readouts on his discussions that
were held there with autonomous region authorities or local city government
people.
QUESTION: Do you know how long his meetings were or what - I mean, was
it just one day?
MR. REEKER: No, I don't have any specifics. He was traveling in Tibet
for three days, from the 24th through the 27th, and is now back in
Beijing.
QUESTION: There is a report today in the London Telegraph about the
Chinese planning to send troops into the Sudan. Do you have any intelligence
on this, and can you comment on it at all?
MR. REEKER: I haven't even seen the report. I'm sorry.
QUESTION: I mean, if - could you - do you have a message you'd like to
send China?
MR. REEKER: I haven't seen the report, Eli. I wouldn't even begin to
comment on a report that I'm not aware of.
Anything else on China? Okay, we'll go over here, sir.
QUESTION: I'd like to ask you about Cuba.
MR. REEKER: Cuba, okay.
QUESTION: Specifically, the diplomatic note sent to the Cuban Interests
Section. I'm curious about the timing. Why has it been done now? And if
the answer is because it is happening now, does that mean that the State
Department does not think there were problems over the past six years since
this agreement was implemented?
MR. REEKER: Well, I think to directly answer the latter part of your
question, we have had concerns about the agreement and our concerns have
been voiced frequently over those six years, certainly from this podium,
and we've had lengthy discussions about that.
Just to go back and review what a number of you have called about based on
some press reports, we did today deliver a diplomatic note to the Cuban
Interests Section here in Washington, and to the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs in Havana from our Interests Section there, urging the Government
of Cuba to assist in reuniting families by granting exit permits to Cuban
nationals with valid US documents for travel to the United States. And we
provided them in that diplomatic note a list of cases where individuals
that have valid travel documents, US entry documents, have been unable to
travel due to the Government of Cuba's refusal to issue exit permits.
And we want to draw specific attention to those cases where families are
needlessly separated due to the arbitrary Cuban policy. We have provided
the Cuban Government with a sort of snapshot of the cases that we're aware
of, and that list, that snapshot, contained over 100 individuals who have
been denied exit permits since May. Of those cases, I think at least 16
are cases of separated immediate family members; there are 17 cases that
are denied exit to medical professionals who had appropriate US documents;
and in one the applicant has insufficient funds to complete the exit
application process. And there were a number of people denied exit visas
for undisclosed reason.
In looking at your question of why today, I think it is an issue that we
have raised over the past five years in a series of migration talks. We
have frequently asked the Cuban Government to take the necessary steps to
allow families to reunite and end the torment that they go through because
of this policy.
We think that they need to issue exit permits to all those individuals who
have valid US entry documents. And at various times we have offered
specific instances to them, as we have gain today, where families were
separated by their policies. We have never received a comprehensive
response from the Cubans, just a continuation of their present policy.
We expected to have migration talks this summer in our continuing series of
talks, and we were going to raise this again in that forum. But,
unfortunately, the Cuban Government chose to delay those meetings since mid-
June, and we have informed them that we strenuously object to the
postponement of those meetings, and we are fully prepared to proceed with
these semiannual talks as scheduled because we see this as a very important
issue.
We think the continued discussions between our two countries on migration
matters are important to prevent the needless loss of life at sea, and
important for ensuring the safe and legal, orderly migration that is called
for under the accords.
QUESTION: When the Cubans postponed, or said that they weren't going to
be coming to the - I think it was June 27th and 28th meetings --
MR. REEKER: Sometime in June, yes.
QUESTION: They said it was because they were "preoccupied" with the
Elian Gonzalez case. I am wondering, in your communications with the
Cubans, do they still bring this up as a reason for - and as I understand
it, these talks have not been rescheduled.
MR. REEKER: No. I mean, we have made very clear that we are prepared to
begin immediately those talks and, as I said, registered our strenuous
objection to the fact that they postponed those talks. We think it is very
important to proceed with that.
I think you have all noted that there has been in increase in rhetoric
since that time and since they postponed that about the Cuban Adjustment
Act, and I think it is important to note that the Cuban Adjustment Act has
been a law of the United States since 1966. So it is somewhat unacceptable
that the Cuban Government has just recently decided to use the Cuban
Adjustment Act as a scapegoat for their own internal problems.
Obviously US laws are decided by the American people and the American
Congress and those are not subject to any sort of negotiation or debate.
We note - and I think we have discussed from here, and certainly I have
read a lot of media reports about it - that the Cuban migrants who are
interdicted at sea do not cite the Cuban Adjustment Act as the reason that
they are seeking to leave Cuba. Their stories are really an indictment of
the Castro regime and its economic, social and political failures, and the
impact that these failures have on the lives of the average Cuban
person.
It is a failure of their system, and the oppressive policies that the
Castro regime carries out, and frankly a failure to live up to their
international agreement on these migration accords. Again, our policy, in
terms of immigration, is one that encourages safe, legal and orderly
migration. Cubans can legally migrate to the United States through various
programs that we have discussed here, including refugee admission and the
diversity lottery. And those are the types of issues that we want to
discuss and encourage the Cubans to return to this.
QUESTION: I just want to get an answer to the Elian question. They
haven't - that has kind of dropped off the radar screen? They are not
bringing that up?
MR. REEKER: I am not aware of specific issues regarding Elian. As you
will recall, our response to the Elian issue was very much in keeping with
law and family reunification.
QUESTION: Right. In terms of the migration and the reason that they
have postponed - that being the reason that they did not want to have the
talks on the 27th and 28th?
MR. REEKER: I think now we're waiting for continued - and this is why we
went ahead with this diplomatic note today because we haven't gotten a
response from them on proceeding with those talks.
QUESTION: What is the point of having new migration talks if the Cubans
aren't keeping the deal you've already got with them on that subject?
MR. REEKER: Look, our point is to reiterate once again, as I think I've
done here this afternoon, what our position is on migration. And certainly,
as I also indicated, this rhetoric we see from Havana in terms of blaming
the Cuban Adjustment Act, a law which we've had in place for 35 years, is
somewhat unacceptable - completely unacceptable, in fact - to us, and they
are simply using that as a scapegoat to cover for their policies, which are
the ones that are resulting in casualties at sea, suffering of people, the
people's desire to leave the country. And we want to see them discuss and
implement what they have agreed to in terms of these migration things.
QUESTION: You called the denial of the permits arbitrary. Do you mean
by arbitrary - see, arbitrary has various meanings. Willy-nilly, or do you
mean they have created specific categories? I mean, do you see a
pattern?
MR. REEKER: As I indicated, there are some cases that we highlighted in
today's diplomatic note, for instance, that are immediate family members
that are separated and have the appropriate papers to come under the legal
process to the United States to join their family members here in this
country.
There are also a number of cases that have been denied as medical
professionals, for instance, denying those people in particular. One
applicant that we highlighted was denied on the basis of insufficient funds
to proceed with the process. They charge exorbitant fees to process these
exit visas that they require. All of that, we think, is not within keeping
with the spirit of the accord, and that's what we want to discuss with them
and that is what we have outlined in our diplomatic note to them today.
QUESTION: I understand what you're saying. You're saying that families
are separated. No, but I'm trying to see if the State Department has any
feel for why (A) is permitted to leave and (B) isn't. I mean, are they
just arbitrary and they just flip a coin?
MR. REEKER: As I indicated, I think medical professionals, for instance,
are not allowed to leave.
QUESTION: Well, that's not arbitrary. That means they're going at it
their way.
MR. REEKER: But I think a number of them appear to be arbitrary. We
can't account for the reasons of them, or those that we may not be aware
of. There are people that are interdicted at sea who are forced to try to
flee through dangerous means who have the appropriate documentation to come
to this country, who have followed the process, and the Cubans are not
keeping up with their end of the process in terms of working through
these.
QUESTION: Just a couple more quickies. The losses at sea. There were
brothers that lost their lives. Does the State Department have any tally
or any approximation of how many people, having been denied permits, went
off on their own and lost their lives?
MR. REEKER: I don't. And I think that's almost an impossible thing. We
can only guess at the number of people who have lost their lives because of
the refusal of the Cuban Government to proceed in the normal, appropriate
manner. And obviously there have been some cases that we're aware
of.
QUESTION: All right. Now they say - last one, I wonder if you have an
answer to their allegation that your policy is discriminatory; that, first
of all, they don't use the word "luring" but the US holds out benefits to
Cubans who can make it here that the US does not extend to any other Latin
American immigrants; that you encourage them to jump into the water if they
can't get a legal way out, and that you're discriminating in favor of these
people.
MR. REEKER: I think, Barry, I answered that quite a bit when I was
talking, following one of the other questions in terms of their rhetoric
about the Cuban Adjustment Act which, as I said, has been United States law,
the law of this land, since 1966. And for them to recently decide to use
that law as some sort of scapegoat or excuse for their internal problems,
or to suggest that people are leaving because of the law, is absurd on the
facts.
As I indicated, and I think a number of journalists have been involved in
talking to people who have left who have been interdicted at sea, and they
have not cited the Cuban Adjustment Act. What they have cited is freedom.
What they have cited is the regime of Castro and his economic and social
and political failures as their reasons for wanting to leave.
QUESTION: So what happens to people that have visas but not exit permits
when they get picked up at sea?
MR. REEKER: I'd have to review the process there.
QUESTION: You don't know if they are allowed in? Are they sent
back?
MR. REEKER: I'd have to double check with the process on that. I
believe people that have the appropriate permits --
QUESTION: If they have a US visa but no Cuban exit - in other words, if
they do what you're saying that people are forced to do and they are picked
up at sea, they get sent back even though they have a US visa?
MR. REEKER: I'll have to check for you on that, Matt.
QUESTION: When was the instant of the two brothers who lost their
lives?
MR. REEKER: I'm not sure I have exact details on that specific incident,
but I know I read about it certainly in press reports. No, I don't have
anything specifically on that, Betsy. I'd be happy to check our press
files on that, too.
QUESTION: Members of the Haitian senate are being sworn in.
MR. REEKER: Are we done with Cuba?
QUESTION: Actually, one more quick one.
MR. REEKER: Sure.
QUESTION: Is the problem more acute now, or was this note sent because
of the canceled meeting in June?
MR. REEKER: Well, I think again, as I indicated, it is something we have
been raising for a number of years ever since the '94 accord. I don't know
if I can categorize or indicate specific acuteness; it's just that we were
expecting to discuss this in these talks; they were scheduled to take place
in June; the Cuban Government canceled those and has refused to reschedule;
and so we've taken the means of a diplomatic note to make our views very
clear.
Anything else on Cuba? Then we'll switch to my friend's question on
Haiti.
QUESTION: I remember back when these elections were run, you called them
fraudulent or something to that effect. Well, now that these people are in
power, as it were, how are you going to deal with them? Are you going to
recognize them as being members of the Haitian Government? Are you going
to deal with them?
MR. REEKER: Again, just to recap on what we had discussed about the
situation, the method that was used in counting and determining winners in
the senate seats in the recent legislative elections in Haiti was seriously
flawed. Because of this flaw and other deficiencies, which were carefully
documented in fact by the electoral observation mission of the Organization
of American States, we called on Haiti's political and civil society - and
the UN and other international organizations did the same thing - we called
on them to address the flawed vote count and some of these deficiencies.
OAS sent a fact-finding mission, you will recall, to Haiti from August 17th
through the 20th, and I'm not sure where we stand on reviewing the report
of that fact-finding mission. That was a mission, by the way, that was
invited by the Haitian authorities to help resolve some of the problems
that stemmed from the disputed senate results. So I'm not sure where we
stand on the seating of these individuals today. I believe that was
scheduled to take place today, but I haven't seen confirming reports. I
would note, as we did previously however, that the premature seating of a
parliament would be regrettable and would call into question certainly the
legitimacy of the new legislature.
QUESTION: Does that mean you don't recognize them?
MR. REEKER: I don't have a report yet on the stand there, but our
position was that seating these people prematurely would certainly question
the legitimacy of that legislature. I think we have noted now for a number
of weeks, the OAS has noted, the flaws that were there in the counting and
some of the other deficiencies that we noted in the election there. And
the Haitians have had plenty of time to try to address those issues and we
call on them to continue to do so.
QUESTION: Is there US concern over the recent sale of weapons by Jordan
to Peru? Apparently, some of them ended up in the hands of the FARC in
Colombia.
MR. REEKER: Let me review where we stood on that. There were a number
of reports about that last week, and I believe that Under Secretary
Pickering took a question about that at a briefing he did last week on the
President's upcoming trip to Colombia.
It was Under Secretary Pickering's understanding at that point that the
Government of Peru had captured a significant number of weapons which had
been identified as being from stocks that originally were sold by an East
European country back in the Communist days to the Jordanians, and which
the Jordanians believed they were selling legitimately to a different Latin
American country, to Peru, which have one way or another ended up in
Colombia. We have asked the Government of Peru to provide us further
information as they continue their investigation into this matter, so we'll
have to see what the actual reports are that we get on that.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- over the weekend, and this has caused a lot of
turmoil in Peru and the foreign affairs minister of Peru has - this is an
official version of his statement says that the US believes - has admitted -
that selling weapons from the Jordanians to the Peruvians was illegal, and
he even quotes an official here to the State Department, Mr. Phil Chicola.
Was the sale legal or illegal?
MR. REEKER: I think I indicated to you everything that I know about it,
and that we have asked the Government of Peru to provide us more detail and
further information as they proceed with their investigation of that. I
don't have any definitive comment on that until we know all the facts, or
are able to discuss that. So we will be waiting in coming days as we get
reports and more information from the Peruvian authorities.
QUESTION: But Ambassador Pickering did say that the sale was illegal -
was - I'm sorry - legal?
MR. REEKER: I think I reiterated to you exactly what Ambassador
Pickering indicated. Our information and understanding was that weapons
had been identified from stocks that were sold by an East European country
in Communist days to the Jordanians, and which the Jordanians believed they
were selling legitimately to Peru and somehow these ended up, one way or
another, in Colombia. That is our understanding of the situation, and what
we are doing now is waiting for full details and information from the
Peruvian Government, which is carrying out its own investigation of this
incident.
QUESTION: Let me reiterate another question I posed last week regarding
people who are involved in this trafficking. Does the US Government know
so far of any Peruvian officials, notary officials or Peruvian individuals
conducting this arms --
MR. REEKER: I don't have any information on that. What Undersecretary
Pickering said last week reflects our understanding of the situation in
regards to this case. And we are waiting, as I indicated, for further
details from the Peruvian Government about that, and I just don't have any
other information.
QUESTION: How long are you going to wait on this?
QUESTION: -- is selling the Peruvians?
MR. REEKER: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: Has the Jordanian Government been - any questions put to the
Jordanian Government?
MR. REEKER: I am not aware of that. I see this as a Peruvian issue, and
we have asked the Peruvians to provide us more information as they get it
from their investigation, and that is what we will be waiting for.
QUESTION: But they can't keep track of their weapons. I don't know what
kind of a candid answer you would expect.
MR. REEKER: We will be waiting for the information they can provide
us.
Was there anything else?
QUESTION: How long are you going to wait for this answer? Because, I
mean, again --
MR. REEKER: I am not going to try to predict the Peruvian investigation
or their steps. Obviously we will be talking to them both in Lima and here
in Washington.
QUESTION: The foreign first minister is talking specifically about Mr.
Chicola having told him that the sale was --
MR. REEKER: I'm afraid I am just not aware of those conversations. I
haven't seen specific reports. I haven't discussed it with Mr. Chicola. I
did check on the issue. I reviewed what Undersecretary Pickering said last
week, and our point was very much that we want to wait until we have all
the facts. And we will obviously work with the Peruvians to --
QUESTION: Will you take the question on Mr. Chicola so that I can call
you back later?
MR. REEKER: We will have to check on that. I think you should direct
your question perhaps to Mr. Chicola.
Anything else on Peru? Yes.
QUESTION: Peru or Colombia? But I want to know what does the Department
think about the position of Fujimori against the Plan Colombia?
MR. REEKER: Boy, that is a broad question, I guess. We have discussed
that, I think, at some length. Ambassador Boucher discussed that a bit
last week. I think our position on Plan Colombia is extremely well known.
We want to support the Colombians in their plan. We are very concerned
about the ramifications of the narcotics trafficking on our own concerns,
certainly for Colombia, certainly for the region there.
Because of that, our Congress and our President have signed legislation to
provide $1.3 billion for that. We have a number of other concerns within
that package, in terms of human rights and democracy in Colombia, and we
stand very much behind that. And the President and the Secretary of State
will be visiting Colombia, as you know, on Wednesday.
QUESTION: Yes, but do you have anything particularly in the opposition
of Fujimori? Why is he taking this position?
MR. REEKER: I think you need to ask him that. I can't speak for
him.
QUESTION: And just one last question about Colombia. What are the
things that President Clinton is going to talk about human rights with
President Pastrana?
MR. REEKER: We had a fairly lengthy briefing on Friday at the Foreign
Press Center. I would be happy to get you that transcript, and also the
White House will be discussing anything further on the President's
trip.
QUESTION: Phil, I mean, I don't know if you just don't have an answer to
this but, I mean, surely you can't be pleased by the fact that he has come
out against - or at least expressed very serious concerns about --
MR. REEKER: Matt, I think our position on Plan Colombia is evidently
clear, and I think --
QUESTION: We know your position on Plan Colombia is evidently clear, but
we are talking about the Peruvians now.
MR. REEKER: Right.
QUESTION: The Secretary was in the region, went around looking -
MR. REEKER: That's right.
QUESTION: And not Peru, but looking for support for the region.
MR. REEKER: Which she got.
QUESTION: Yes, she did. But she didn't go to Peru. And Fujimori has
now come out and
said --
MR. REEKER: There are a number of other countries she didn't go to,
either.
QUESTION: I know. I am not going to get into that. But Fujimori has
come out basically against Plan Colombia.
MR. REEKER: I heard that from your colleague.
QUESTION: Exactly. So I don't think - it is not an illegitimate
question to ask what your reaction to that is.
MR. REEKER: My reaction is to explain why we are for Plan Colombia and
what our feeling is, and why we think it is good for the region, for the
United States, for Colombia, and why we have supported that very much. And
that is the message that the President and the Secretary will be taking to
Colombia.
I am not going to get into a habit of trying to review and parse every
statement that comes out from every leader in the region on this. Our
position on Plan Colombia is very well known and very evident, is something
we believe strongly in, and we are going to follow through on it.
QUESTION: One last thing on a Plan Colombia issue and the fact that -
are you aware that the Peruvians are saying that the arms given to the FARC
were traded for cocaine? Is the US Government aware so far about that?
Was it a swap of armament against --
MR. REEKER: Again, on this issue of the arms that the Peruvian
Government captured - if we want to call it that - I just don't have any
more details on that for you. I think Under Secretary Pickering indicated
what our understanding of that situation was, the origin of those arms, and
that is as much as we have now.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- understand incorrectly. The Peruvian
Government hasn't said that they have captured anything. Everything was
dropped in parachutes to the Colombians from what - a reading of Mr.
Pickering's statement is that the Colombians have captured scores of
armaments.
MR. REEKER: Yes.
QUESTION: Who captured?
MR. REEKER: Look, we are not down there. We were not involved in this.
Okay? That is point number one. So what I am trying to do is reflect on a
number of your questions and others who were asking about Under Secretary
Pickering's comment on Friday in a briefing he gave where he was asked
about the situation. And he reiterated, it was our understanding that the
government had captured a significant number of weapons that have been
identified.
My understanding - that was the Government of Peru. If those were - in
fact, if it is another situation you are discussing, then I will be happy
to go back and look into that. But we were asked about Under Secretary
Pickering's comments, and he indicated our understanding that those were
weapons that had been identified as being from stocks sold by an East
European country, back in the time of Communism, to the Jordanians; the
Jordanians believed they were selling legitimately to Peru, and somehow
ended up in Colombia.
QUESTION: So, basically, the bottom line is the US takes no position on
the legality or otherwise of the sale until they have had --
MR. REEKER: I don't have information on it.
QUESTION: Well, either you take a position or you don't --
MR. REEKER: Our understanding was that the Jordanians were involved in a
legitimate sale.
QUESTION: Tell us what the Jordanians believe. I mean, and --
MR. REEKER: That is our understanding, and until we have more information
from the Peruvians - which we have asked them to provide us as they proceed
with their investigation - I don't have anything further to say. I can't
go beyond that.
QUESTION: Are you asking the Jordanians also, or are you just going to
rely on the Peruvians?
MR. REEKER: I will be happy to check into that and find out.
QUESTION: Well, Ned Walker was in Jordan. Did he discuss this at
all?
MR. REEKER: I am not aware of that. I think Ambassador Walker was on a
particular mission, and I am not aware of this issue at all. I just don't
have anything further on that. I will continue to look into it for you and
get more details, but until we get the information that we have asked for
from the Peruvian Government, I am just not going to have anything
else.
QUESTION: Three months before the parliamentary actions in Azerbaijan,
the government started to crack down on independent media. Do you have any
reaction on the arrest of a prominent Azeri journalist, editor of the
leading opposition newspaper?
MR. REEKER: Yes, in fact, I did see some reports on that and checked
with our embassy. As I understand it, the Azerbaijan media law authorized
the court decision to close an independent newspaper called Uch Nogta, and
there is a provision in the media law that enables the government to close
media outlets that have lost three libel cases in one calendar year.
In this respect, we feel that the media law falls short of international
standards because it can result in de facto government censorship of the
press. And we find it disturbing, the development which you outlined, in
light of the upcoming parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan. So we are
urging the Government of Azerbaijan to reconsider its decision to seek a
court order to close that newspaper, Uch Nogta.
QUESTION: This is also a question about the closure of the newspaper. I
ask about the arrest of editor of the opposition newspaper which happened
last week.
MR. REEKER: I will have to check into that for you and see. I wasn't
aware of the specifics on that.
QUESTION: On this, on the law, you imply by saying that the law which
allows for newspapers to be shut if they have three libel convictions in a
year against them, that implies that you don't think that the Azerbaijani
judiciary is independent. Is that a correct conclusion?
MR. REEKER: No. What I indicated was --
QUESTION: Well, you said that could lead to government control, which
tends to imply that you are saying that the government --
MR. REEKER: It can result in de facto censorship of the press. I am not
trying to do anything beyond that, except to note that we find that that
part of the media law is inconsistent with international standards.
QUESTION: It would be inconsistent anywhere, even in a country that has
got a more advanced judicial system.
MR. REEKER: I am not trying to make any broad observations on anybody's
judicial system. What I am saying is there is a provision in their media
law in Azerbaijan which enables the government to close a media outlet
which has lost three libel cases in a calendar year. And in that respect,
the law is not within keeping with international standards because, in
effect, the government can exercise de facto censorship.
In response to your question, which I wasn't fully grasping, we did look
into that. This involves the attempted hijacking of a flight by Azal
Airlines on August 18th. And I understand the government of Azerbaijan is
currently investigating the hijacking, but that a newspaper editor, Mr.
Rauf Arifoglu, was detained by authorities on August 22nd last week as part
of this investigation because he had allegedly been contacted by the
hijacker before and during the hijacking attempt.
So we do want to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to ensure that the
editor's rights are protected during the investigation and that the
investigation take place in full conformity with Azerbaijan's law and
international standards, and we are urging all parties to avoid politicizing
this case.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MR. REEKER: Yes. Does anybody else have Azerbaijan? No?
QUESTION: No. All right. My question concerns the Iraqi Government's
letter that had been circulated to the UN, around the UN, about US and
British war planes in 18,000-plus sorties killing 311 Iraqis and 927
wounded by these air actions. What is the US response to that accusation?
MR. REEKER: I am not aware of the specifics of a letter, but let's take
this opportunity to review the issue of the no-fly zones. As I think many
of you know, and we have discussed at great length, the no-fly zones in
Northern and Southern Iraq were established to carry out the vital UN
Security Council resolutions, in particular 678, 687, 688, following Iraq's
use of military aircraft in support of large-scale repression of its own
civilian population. Following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, which was
following Iraq's own invasion of Kuwait, those no-fly zones remain in place
to monitor Iraq's compliance with international community requirements, as
reflected, again, in UN Security Council resolutions, and to deter
repetition of the Iraqi repression against their own people.
The coalition strikes in the no-fly zones are only taken in self-defense in
response to Iraqi threats to our forces which are enforcing and patrolling
those no-fly zones. If Iraq would cease its threats, coalition strikes
would cease as well. We make every effort to avoid civilian casualties and
damage to civilian facilities. Iraq often positions their air defense
equipment near civilian areas in their own effort to make civilian
casualties more likely. And again, if Iraq would cease threatening our
aircraft, which are there to enforce UN Security Council resolutions, then
our aircraft would not need to threaten their sites.
QUESTION: Phil, a quote from the letter once again says, "We would hold
all Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti regimes fully responsible for the prolonging
of the most comprehensive blockade in the history - in the world," it says,
"and for repeated barbaric attacks against Iraq," which sounds like a
direct threat against Saudi and Kuwait again, once again, going back to the
reasons that there was a war in the Gulf: the threat of Iraq to Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait. Is that correct?
MR. REEKER: I am not familiar with this letter. I am not going to try
to start commenting, and I just don't think we want to take up everybody's
time to look at what the Iraqis have to say in another one of their sort of
lengthy commentaries on the situation. They know very well the situation.
They understand what they need to do. If they want to have sanctions
removed, they need to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. It is
as simple as that.
QUESTION: Are you saying that this letter - this particular tactic -
should be discounted generally?
MR. REEKER: Again, I am not aware of the letter. I think we have said
all there is to say in terms of the position of the UN and the isolation of
Saddam and his destructive regime.
Moving on - or is there more on Iraq? My friend from Reuters, welcome
back.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask, the fears of Belgrade possibly intervening in
Montenegro, have they reached a sort of higher level that something might
happen in the coming days or weeks? And are you aware of a report in the
London Times this morning that an aircraft carrier had to cancel an
exercise in the region? I don't have more details than that about
this.
MR. REEKER: I am afraid I am not even aware of that report. I'm sorry,
I don't have anything further. I think our position on Montenegro is well
known. Our support for democratic forces there, and the fact that NATO,
and certainly the United States, watches very carefully developments there,
and any threat to the security of the region would be viewed with extreme
concern.
QUESTION: Ex-country. Can you tell us more about the Commission for
Missing Persons and the Missing Persons Institute, which Bob Dole is
opening today in Sarajevo? What is the US contribution, and what kind of
staffing are we going to provide?
MR. REEKER: Sure. I think, as a number of you have read, and as you
indicated, Terri, Senator Robert Dole left yesterday for Bosnia, Kosovo,
Croatia, and Slovenia. And while he is in Bosnia, he will visit Sarajevo,
where he is opening the Missing Persons Institute. I believe that may have
already taken place there today.
He is expected to meet with Jacques Klein, the Special Representative of
the United Nations Secretary General, there in Bosnia, and with other
officials. Senator Dole, as you may know, is the Chairman of the
International Commission on Missing Persons, which was created by President
Clinton in 1996 at the G-7 Summit in Lyon to help resolve the humanitarian
concerns of family members of those missing from, or as a result of, the
Bosnian war.
The concerns of the families of the missing naturally continue to be
something that we take very seriously and are an important element of
Bosnian affairs. The United States has given the International Commission
on Missing Persons $8 million since its creation back in 1996; and
specifically to the Institute, which Senator Dole has opened today, the
United States has contributed $500,000.
So the Senator's trip is designed to help publicize and assist the creation
of Bosnia's own domestic capability of dealing with the concerns of the
family of the missing, and we are very pleased and proud of our contributions
to that.
QUESTION: So we don't have a major day-to-day role in running the
Institute, or --
MR. REEKER: No, my understanding is that the Institute is a locally-run
institute, but obviously today, and with the opening of this, we expected a
lot of international and local attendance, which underlies the significance
we place with it. Ambassador Miller, our ambassador to Bosnia, was also
present, and a number of the other board members were there.
QUESTION: Can you comment on US-Israeli talks regarding the PHALCON sale
to India?
MR. REEKER: No, I am afraid I can't. I will have to check into that for
you. I don't have anything on that.
QUESTION: I'm wondering if you - last week, the comments that Richard
made last week about paying ransom for hostages. In light of that, if you
have any comment on the release of some of the hostages from the Philippines.
And if that - obviously it is a good thing that they have been released,
but is that good thing kind of tainted by the fact that there are these
reports that the Libyans paid millions of dollars for their release?
MR. REEKER: Well, I can just echo what Ambassador Boucher did say last
week - I believe it was last Tuesday - that we don't think payment of
ransom for hostages is appropriate. We are against it. We always have
been, and we will continue to be. Our policy is very clear. The United
States does not make deals with terrorists. We will not pay ransom, we
will not change policies, we will not release prisoners or make any other
concessions that reward hostage-taking. Doing so only encourages
additional terrorism, and therefore endangers innocent people.
QUESTION: And on the release of the hostages?
MR. REEKER: Certainly it is a blessing to see those people released
after the ordeal they have been through. I think it illustrates what I
said, that innocent people are endangered, lives are lost, because of
terrorism. We certainly talked about that at great length, and our view is
that dealing in terms of ransom or other concessions is not the way to
go.
QUESTION: One more thing, on Burma. Do you have anything new to say to
the Burmese officials who are still keeping Aung San Suu Kyi and her car
outside of Rangoon?
MR. REEKER: Well, further to my statement from Friday afternoon, where
we deplored the Government of Burma's refusal to allow Aung San Suu Kyi and
other National League for Democracy leaders to travel freely in their own
country, I would say that we are monitoring this extremely closely. We
understand that Aung San Suu Kyi and approximately 16 of her supporters
from the National League for Democracy are still locked in a standoff with
Burmese authorities.
The group is attempting to travel to a township in the Rangoon division,
just south of the metropolitan area of Rangoon, and police have set up a
roadblock and will not allow the group to continue. So again, we deplore
the attempts to restrict the movements of Aung San Suu Kyi, and the refusal
of Burmese authorities to allow her to travel flagrantly violates
international human rights instruments which guarantee freedom of movement.
And we urge the Burmese authorities to engage in a dialogue, uphold their
international obligations and have a dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi and the
democratic opposition.
We are watching this very closely. Secretary Albright has been monitoring
this very closely as we get developments from our Embassy in Rangoon. We
have joined other members of the international community in condemning this
attempt by the Burmese authorities to restrict Aung San Suu Kyi's freedom
of movement. And as I indicated, our Embassy in Rangoon has been following
this very closely and delivered a diplomatic note to the Burmese Government
protesting its actions.
We have been in touch with the Red Cross, and others to help facilitate the
delivering of food and water and medicines to the group, and we are going
to continue to press for access to her. We are very concerned about the
welfare of Aung San Suu Kyi, and we understand that although Burmese
authorities have prevented her from receiving supplies at first, she has
received food and water, but her personal physician was prevented from
seeing her. She has been stopped just about a 10-minute drive from
metropolitan Rangoon, and obviously we want to see her released immediately.
Thanks.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:40 P.M.)
|
