Subject: * U.S. State Department about Turkey * (fwd) From: Stratos Safioleas U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 95/03/20 DAILY PRESS BRIEFING OFFICE OF THE SPOKESMAN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING I N D E X Monday, March 20, 1995 Briefer: Christine Shelly TURKEY Report of Turkish Incursion in Iraq ..................2-7 --Secretary Christopher Contact with Turkish FM ......2,4 --Potential Impact on Operation Provide Comfort ......4 --Possibility of Violation of International Law/ U.S./State Department Position ...................3,4-5,11 --Possibility of Use of U.S. Arms ....................6,11 --Definition of Protected Zone .......................3 FORMER YUGOSLAVIA Situation/Fighting Update ............................21 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING DPC #37 MONDAY, MARCH 20, 1995, 1:12 P. M. (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) Q Christine, what has the State Department been telling the Government of Turkey about the Kurdish situation? MS. SHELLY: We have reports that the Turkish troops have crossed into northern Iraq over the weekend in an operation directed at the Kurdistan Workers Party, the PKK, at the camps along the Iraqi-Turkish border. The operation is reportedly supported by artillery, armor, planes and helicopters. The Secretary was called this morning by his counterpart in Turkey. He was informed of the operation. In response to receiving this information, the Secretary expressed his very strong hope that the Turkish operation would be of limited duration and limited in scope, and that everything possible could be done to protect innocent lives. Q Is it a reasonable expectation that that type of offensive would not bring large civilian losses; that even if you're sympathetic to the operation, that there would be a lot of people hurt who shouldn't be hurt? MS. SHELLY: As is very often the case in that type of operation, it's very difficult at times to avoid civilian collateral damage. Certainly, we are very mindful of the fact that the PKK is a vicious terrorist organization which itself is very guilty of human rights violations. Nonetheless, we hope and expect that recognized standards of human rights will be observed in this and all other military activities in the area. The Turkish Government has assured us that it will make that effort to try and avoid civilian casualties, and they have also informed us that the operation is taking place away from major concentrations of refugees. Q Christine, is this supposedly a protected zone? Isn't the United States and its allies involved in trying to protect this from outsiders coming in and bombing and blowing things up? MS. SHELLY: It is supposed to be a safe zone, as you're aware. It's not the first time that such incursions have happened. The most recent one which appears to have occurred of this size was October, 1992. When operations of this type have taken place before, the Turkish forces have withdrawn from northern Iraq relatively rapidly. We certainly hope that this will be the case this time. And even with the announcements of their own actions underway, the Turkish Government has continued to state its support for Iraq's territorial integrity. Q If Saddam Husayn had 35,000 troops rolling into this zone in the southern part of the northern zone, would that be acceptable to the United States, saying that they were going after terrorists? MS. SHELLY: To make the comparison between the two I don't think is a valid one. Any troop movements or concentrated troop movements by Saddam Husayn or Iraq would obviously be of concern to us. I think it's a difficult situation for the Turks. They face attacks on their own territory, and they also face all of the problems associated with PKK actions against them. But, again, it's a situation where I think you have to couple the threats which the PKK represents with the very obvious human rights considerations as well. I'm sure that the Turkish Government will be very mindful of our views on this, as well as the views of the international community as they conduct this operation. Mark. Q Christine, just to follow that up, isn't it really a fact that in this case the word "protection" means protection against Saddam Husayn and the Iraqi forces and not protection against Turkey? MS. SHELLY: I don't think it's really my role to stand here and define the protection. Certainly the Iraqi actions against Kurdish concentrations of the population are also very well-known, and they're also obviously something that we consider to be another indication of the lack of respect for human rights by Saddam Husayn and his regime. Q To follow that up, does the United States view -- take the position that it has to allow Turkish activity in the Kurdish zone as a condition for -- as a price for future Turkish cooperation in the protection zone? MS. SHELLY: No, that would not be our position. Q Isn't this type of incursion a violation of international law? MS. SHELLY: I'm not a lawyer. I'd have to check and see what the lawyers would say on that. Q It's pertinent because you're condoning it, and you could possibly be condoning a violation of international law. MS. SHELLY: I didn't condone it. I acknowledged that it was going on, and I also stressed what we've said in response to the Turkish Foreign Minister's information being passed to the Secretary. We also are aware of the fact that operations of this type have taken place before. But I certainly don't think that what I said condoned it. Q In his conversations with his counterpart, did the Secretary ask if they asked Iraqi permission for this incursion -- this operation? MS. SHELLY: I don't know. I don't have any information on that specific point. Q Is Operation Comfort affected in any way by this? MS. SHELLY: Operation Comfort takes place in cooperation with the Turkish Government, and of course the other coalition partners. There are not any operations today as a result of the Turkish military activities in the area. We do remain concerned about the potential impact of the Turkish operations on Operation Provide Comfort's ongoing security and humanitarian relief programs. These are concerns that we have expressed to the Turks. We have been able to confirm that the official Americans who are involved in this relief effort are safe and accounted for, and we're also seeking to contact the NGOs in northern Iraq. Q What is your understanding of the specific reasons why this incursion took place at this size at this time? MS. SHELLY: I think that's a question that's probably most appropriately addressed to the Turks. I don't know specifically if the Turkish Foreign Minister indicated why he felt that it was necessary to move at this precise time. But I think in any case, all of the factors concerned certainly affected the timing of the Turkish decision. Q Did the Secretary not ask why this ally that we give millions of dollars to every year did this at this time? MS. SHELLY: I don't have other specific details related to his conversation to share with you at this point. Q Christine, that's germane to any legal -- any international legal question, because there is a principle of "hot pursuit," and it would be interesting and probably significant if the Turks gave some -- made out some case for provocation that they had to go across the border in hot pursuit to right a wrong. So it isn't a Turkish question. The United States -- you say you haven't condoned this -- you're certainly very sympathetic to what the Turks have done, and again I would like to raise Sid's question. You have a legal adviser and the question would be: Are the Turks acting in compliance with international law? And, if so, how do you justify a border crossing? MS. SHELLY: On the legal point, I don't think it's the job of the Spokesman to just offer an opinion or do an off-the-cuff on violations of international law. Let me take that particular part of your questioning under advisement, and I'll check with our legal adviser on that particular point. Q Let me ask you something related, because there has been increasing activity by the Kurds against the Saddam Husayn Government, and that's not something that displeases the State Department, as long as it doesn't divide Iraq, as I understand it. Does this Turkish operation -- how can this operation be kept separate from that? Doesn't this muffle what the Kurds are doing against Saddam Husayn? I mean, how can you divide that territory so neatly and approve of one thing while another thing is going on that you have mixed feelings about? MS. SHELLY: But I haven't said that we approve that. Q I know you haven't from the podium, but you know and I know - - MS. SHELLY: I have acknowledged that it is going on -- Q -- that the U.S. Government approves of the Kurdish resistance, because they see that as one of the -- in fact, that's what you briefed King Fahd about, so he knows it if we don't -- because one of the things you want -- and that's part of your description, and your happy description -- the State Department's, I mean -- of Iraq being unstable. You're sort of hoping it will get so unstable that Saddam Husayn will go away, and the Kurds happen to be the cutting edge right now, even more than the Shi'ites. Doesn't this interfere with that type of situation, which the State Department isn't unpleased with -- displeased with? MS. SHELLY: Barry, I think that that's going to require me to take a little more comprehensive look at the Kurdish situation in the context of Iraq, so I'd like to come back to that. Q Did the Turks use American arms in their incursion? MS. SHELLY: I don't know. I don't have information on that. Q Can you check? MS. SHELLY: I'll check. Q Because I believe under American export control conditions, there are certain things they cannot do with the American arms legally, and maybe you could get a determination whether this is the case. MS. SHELLY: I will check into that point. Q Christine, you said that you did not condone what the Turks are doing, but you also are pointedly not condemning it as well. Is that correct? MS. SHELLY: What I have done is indicate to you the manner in which we were informed, and acknowledge our understanding of what it is which is going on, and also indicate the expressions of concern and hope regarding how this is handled that was relayed by the Secretary. I think that's what I would like to leave it at. Betsy. Q How would you interpret the fact that neither us nor the Red Cross nor anyone else has been able to talk with the Americans that have been held in Iraq now for a week? MS. SHELLY: We, of course, do not have any official presence in Iraq. As far as we know, the two individuals in question are being held in Baghdad. We certainly regret very much the fact that to our knowledge the ICRC, as well as the Polish authorities -- who, I think as you know, are our protecting power in Iraq -- that they have not been provided access to the two individuals who are being held. We think that having access to them, especially by the ICRC, is certainly well-established international practice. We certainly think it is highly regrettable that they have not let those who might seek to have contact with them have that contact. Q Do you see any evidence that they may be trying to hold out for sanctions relief in holding these people? Other countries, including even the Pope, have said that they think it's time to lift some of the sanctions. Do we think that this may be tied? MS. SHELLY: It may be, as far as Iraq's own thinking. They may think they might have something to gain in trying to link their release to the easing of sanctions. We've certainly seen that as one possible theory. It's certainly not our view at all. The detention of American citizens is strictly a consular matter. It should not be linked to the sanction question or any other question. All indications surrounding the events of this was that the incident was entirely a result of innocent mistakes. We believe that it should be resolved expeditiously based on humanitarian grounds and on those grounds alone.