Visit the Antenna Mirror on HR-Net 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 #100, 98-08-21

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>


1050

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Friday, August 21, 1998

Briefer: James B. Foley

AFGHANISTAN / SUDAN: AIR STRIKES
1-2		Under Secretary Pickering's Statement on US Air Strikes
		  Against Terrorist Targets
2-5		Evaluation of Success of Operations / US is Bull's Eye for
		  Attacks / Tightening Security / Pakistani Claim of
		  Casualties in Pakistan / US Commitment to War on
		  Terrorism / Executive Order re US Policy on Assassination
		  / International Reaction / Osama bin Laden Earlier
		  Attacks / Russian Reaction 

VENEZUELA 5 Financial Situation 12 US Visa Denied to Hugo Chavez

MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS 5-6 Negotiating Efforts Continue / Secretary's Contacts

INDIA / PAKISTAN 6 Dep Secy Talbott's Upcoming Meetings & Meeting with Punjab Official Sharif

AFGHANISTAN / SUDAN: AIRSTRIKES 7 Assessment 12-13 US Evidence to Launch Air Strikes 13 Sudan Govt Responsibility for Allowing Terrorists to Stay / Bin Laden Links

EMBASSIES 7-8 Security Heightened / Increased Threats / Status of US Embassy in Albania / Status of Embassies Elsewhere

AEGEAN 8 Amb Miller's Visit to Turkey 8 Pesence of 6th Fleet 15 1975 Document on Cyprus

TERRORISM 7-9 Osama bin Laden: Not Specific Target / Whereabouts / Funding Organization / 13 Other Countries' Cut Funding 8 Obstructing Work of Terrorist Organizations 14 Distinction Between Political Views and Terrorism 15 Terrorist Camps in Philippines 16 Concern for Retaliatory Actions in US

AFGHANISTAN 9-12 Taliban Human Rights Record / Other Issues of Contention With US / Sanctuary for Terrorists / US Contacts with Taliban & Their Response / US Contacts With Other Groups

PAKISTAN 11 US Embassy Assistance to Private AmCits to Depart

JAPAN 11 Dep Secy Talbott's Meeting Today

TELECOMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE 15-16 Decision on Hughes Application

OAS 16 Candidate for Secretary General


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #100

FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 1998, 12:00 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department. I am pleased to introduce Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Thomas Pickering, who will have a brief statement and will take questions for ten minutes, fifteen at the very tops because he has a meeting to go to on the US action yesterday, the strikes against terrorist targets. I will then continue with the normal State Department briefing; but I must signal to you that those of you who are single-mindedly focused on our action yesterday might want to turn your channels, because at 1:15 p.m. the National Security Advisor is briefing at the White House again on this subject.

Ambassador Pickering.

UNDER SECRETARY PICKERING: Thank you, Jim, very much. The bombing of our two embassies in Africa painfully reminded Americans that international terrorism is a prevalent and pernicious threat to our national security. We have fought this threat for many years and in many ways, including diplomacy, the rule of law and serious actions such as we have taken yesterday.

We have also had several successes -- some are published, some are not -- apprehending terrorists wherever possible and putting them on trial, thwarting planned attacks and isolating state sponsors of terrorism. But as the President said yesterday, there are times when law enforcement and diplomatic tools are simply not enough.

Our strikes against terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan yesterday represent an intensification in our battle against terror. They reflect our determination to use whatever means we have to protect Americans and others from the threat. The main purpose of the strikes was to prevent further terrorist attacks against American targets, not a retaliation. However, as Sandy Berger explained, we took this action yesterday because we had information that a meeting of terrorists was to be held at the training camp on that day. We also knew that more attacks were being planned.

During the past two weeks, the United States received numerous threats to our citizens and facilities around the world -- some made furtively in telephone calls, other trumpeted loudly in public statements. We could not simply batten down the hatches and wait for the next attack to hit us. We had to act decisively.

We do not expect that these strikes will, in themselves, end the threat; but they are important because they clearly show that we are in this for the long haul. There may be more such strikes. We will act unilaterally when we must in order to protect our citizens. But we invite other nations of the world to stand with us in this battle because all nations are vulnerable to the threat of terrorism, as the history of this particular event makes clear.

We call on the international community to renew its commitment to this battle and to demonstrate that attacks like the recent embassy bombings will not be tolerated. I know that we are all united in our resolve, and I believe that we will prevail.

Thank you.

QUESTION: Are you in a position to evaluate the success of the attacks yet?

UNDER SECRETARY PICKERING: I'm only, George, in a very preliminary position. We have had some very preliminary information indicating that there was moderate to heavy damage to each of the targets. Not all of the target information is in; and I would really want to defer to my friends over at the Pentagon to give you their official and careful and studied reaction.

QUESTION: You said that the attacks yesterday were not meant to provoke retaliation. However, wouldn't you say now that US embassies and facilities abroad are now going to become the bull's eye for possible terrorist attacks? And what can the US really do from preventing another fanatic from throwing themselves in front of an embassy?

UNDER SECRETARY PICKERING: Well, first, when two embassies are blown up and 250 people killed and thousands wounded, that is the bull's eye. We are the bull's eye; We have been the bull's eye. Failure to take steps to deal with this in all areas means, in fact, that we are opening ourselves up to be a bigger target and a bigger bull's eye. Clearly, it is important for us to act forcefully, when that is necessary, to deter future attacks against Americans wherever they may be, whether they are in embassies or travelers abroad.

The second point you have made is one that we have discussed and others have discussed from this podium at great length over the past weeks. We have, over the years, taken an enormous number of steps to tighten our security, to build secure embassies, to hire more people to be specialists in the security area, to purchase armored cars, to build barriers, to increase set-backs. We are continuing to do that and, as you know, a supplemental appropriation is being considered further to carry forward these kinds of steps. The truth is, obviously, that in life there is no perfect security; but it is incumbent upon the State Department and this government, working with the Congress, to do everything it can to provide the best we can for our employees and citizens who work in and use our facilities abroad. That is what we intend to continue to do, as we have over the years.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, have there been any complaints from Pakistan directly? We have had somewhat confusing reports of some Pakistani casualties. Do you know anything about that?

UNDER SECRETARY PICKERING: Yes, I understand that Pakistan at one point approached us and said that they believed there were Pakistani casualties in a village in Pakistan. Since then, I believe that they have retracted that particular point.

There may have been Pakistani casualties. One of the terrorist organizations, one of the organizations on our terrorist list, called The Harakat ul-Ansar, I believe issued a press statement early today saying five of their people were killed in a location near Khost in Afghanistan. We believe, in fact, that the Pakistani retraction of their claim that these casualties may have take place in a Pakistan village may well relate to this other claim of people being killed. So I believe that there is no damage that I know of up to this point inside Pakistan.

There clearly is, as I have said when I was asked the previous question, damage to targets, a number of camps inside Afghanistan. There may well have been members of a Pakistan terrorist organization on our terror list that appears to operate in Kashmir among them.

QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, there are some who say that when President Clinton and Secretary Albright said yesterday that they are declaring a war against terrorism, that this is, in effect, a change in US policy; that the United States is acting much more aggressively in comparison with the way it has acted in recent years.

UNDER SECRETARY PICKERING: I believe, Andrea, that we have seen in recent weeks the stepping up of really murderous attacks against Americans -- particularly official Americans -- in the course of this broad-scale murder committed against the citizens of the countries where we are located. I cannot but believe that this step-up in wanton destruction and killing represents a step-up in a conflict launched against the United States, a conflict that we have never sought; but a conflict that we will fight back against and that what Secretary Albright and the President said yesterday, represents an increased commitment of the United States. In that regard, we have always been committed in the war on terrorism, but there are reasons now why we must be increasingly committed.

I don't believe that's a change in the basic policy, but it is clearly a very, very serious stepping-up of our commitment to deal with people who would use terror -- that is wanton killing anywhere around the world -- to attempt to achieve one or a number of political or other objectives.

QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, given your response to that question, do you think it's time for us also to possibly change our law that says we can not go after and assassinate certain people? I mean, are we now in such a conflict that that policy should be changed?

UNDER SECRETARY PICKERING: I believe it's an Executive Order, in any event, but I'm not a legal specialist so forgive me if I have made the wrong approach. I believe that what we did in clear and careful daylight in good conscience on the question of assassination is, in my view, correct. It is our policy. Many have asked that it be reexamined. I am never against a reexamination of policy, but I believe at the moment it serves our national purpose as well. It distinguishes us from those who adopt assassination and terror as a weapon, and I distinguish that from our ability to use our military and other forces to protect our people against imminent attack and in self-defense wherever we are. I think those distinctions are clear. They are part, in fact, of the policy and the way we have acted over recent days.

MR. FOLEY: He just has time, unfortunately -- the Under Secretary has a meeting - for two quick questions.

QUESTION: There have been a number of groups of diplomats in the building over the last few days, I think, from the Arab diplomatic corps and perhaps today from the African diplomatic corps that have been meeting with officials here. What are they telling you about the reaction on a government level and also perhaps on the street level to the US actions?

UNDER SECRETARY PICKERING: I think on the whole, all around the world -- particularly the Secretary told me in her calls yesterday, she found wide understanding and support for the efforts we had to take. After all, many of the people she spoke with came from places that either recently or in the recent past had themselves been victims of terrorism; unfortunately, that's a wide net.

I think that it is important to continue, obviously, to build a sense of solidarity and common commitment in this. Many have wondered about the Arab world. Bin Ladin is an Arab; he has been very carefully deprived of his Saudi citizenship. Nevertheless, if you look at the history of Bin Ladin, you will find the preponderance of his attacks, the large number of his attacks have been against Arabs and Muslims. In effect, they have a primary reason to join us in the battle because perhaps they have suffered more than others -- for example, his cooperation in the assassination attempt against President Sadat [Mubarak], an attack on the Egyptian Embassy in Pakistan, an attack on the Saudi National Guard training component which included both Americans and Saudis, and so on. We go over a long list. An attack on international peace-keepers or efforts to attack international peace-keepers in Somalia, all represent actions that he apparently has initiated or organizations that work for him have initiated.

QUESTION: One quick question. Given your call for international solidarity against terrorism, how would you respond to --

UNDER SECRETARY PICKERING: I'm sorry, I want to correct it. I was thinking Mubarak; I said Sadat. It is obviously Mubarak. I hope you will correct the record.

QUESTION: On your call to the world to stand with the US against terror, how would you respond to President Yeltsin's reaction to the US strikes?

UNDER SECRETARY PICKERING: Well, I think President Yeltsin's reaction, which I haven't seen in writing but have only heard reported in the press, needs to be looked at carefully. The Russians themselves, as we know, have been victims of terror from all sides in recent years and have spoken out against it and fought hard against it. We would hope that after President Yeltsin has had a chance to look at all the details of this attack, which obviously haven't reached him yet, he would take a different view. We were quite encouraged by the view that I heard reported this morning in the world press of his foreign ministry, which seemed to be at slight variance with what he had to say and, I think, somewhat more deeply concerned by terrorism and events in that region.

MR. FOLEY: Thank you very much.

All right, before you turn your dials we have about seven minutes but I will keep going because, as you know better than I, it's been a number of days since we've had an opportunity to brief on different subjects, which I hope you are interested in equally.

QUESTION: The press is full this morning of what's going on in Venezuela - - an economic crisis having aided Asiatic countries and Russia. Does the United States propose to do anything about Venezuela?

MR. FOLEY: Well, to be perfectly honest, I am not aware that there has been a major development in Venezuela over the last 24 hours. Certainly, the United States is very deeply and actively engaged in trying to contain the fallout of the Asian financial crisis. This is across the board, because we've seen a contagion affect elsewhere. But that certainly applies to South America and to Venezuela, in particular.

But insofar as your question relates to financial matters, I would have to refer you to the Treasury Department.

QUESTION: Do you have anything today on the Middle East peace? There was a wire story today that the Israelis have submitted a proposal to the Palestinians that includes a 13 percent territorial turnover.

MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, we've never - and I would urge you to check the record - I think we've been extremely consistent in not talking about the behind-the-scenes details of our negotiating effort and, indeed, what we know of Israeli and Palestinian negotiating efforts either with us, with each other or all together.

I think it is obvious that the United States continues to believe that it is yet possible to close the remaining gaps on the basis of American proposals that will enable the transition to accelerated permanent status negotiations. I'm not here today to signal optimism or pessimism; but it is inherent in our current stance that we continue to believe that it's possible to reach that agreement because we have not made a determination -- either private or public - that our efforts have reached the end of the road and that we'll have to draw the necessary conclusions. On the contrary, we remain in touch with both parties.

Secretary Albright spoke to both Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat yesterday to inform them, among many other foreign leaders, about the US military action. Without going into any details, they touched also on the Middle East peace process. Our negotiators have been in touch with both parties. I cannot give you any kind of detailed read-out of where we stand, but we are continuing to urge both parties to make every effort to close the final gaps. They are bridgeable, in our view, and they are not too distant from each other on outstanding points. Often the final inch is the hardest to cover in a negotiating effort like this.

Again, I'm not signaling optimism or pessimism, but continued determination on the part of the United States to see this through to success.

QUESTION: This is related to yesterday's events. The Pakistanis are expressing outrage over the bombings, and as I understand it, Strobe Talbott and Rick Inderfurth are due to meet with the Pakistani Foreign Minister on nuclear matters in London in a few days. I just want to make sure that meeting was still on. I don't know - maybe a decision was made to put it off until the situation calmed down a bit; because the Pakistani reaction was very strident yesterday and today. Do you have any comment?

MR. FOLEY: On the contrary, the issues that the United States has to discuss with both Pakistan and India are of paramount importance to the ability of the entire world community to get a handle on the problem of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These meetings - Deputy Secretary Talbott is scheduled to meet with Mr. Singh - Mr. Jaswant Singh -- here in the Department on Monday, and to travel to London to meet with the Pakistani Foreign Secretary, Mr. Shamshad Ahmad on Tuesday. These were meetings that were scheduled at the time of Deputy Secretary Talbott's visit to India and Pakistan around a month ago.

So we see no reason and we don't see any evidence that the Indians and Pakistanis see any reason to postpone those meetings. We have important national security issues to discuss and a range of bilateral issues to discuss with them. These are critical meetings, and as we indicated at the time of Deputy Secretary Talbott's meeting, we hope that in the interim period between the meetings in the region and the meetings next week that both India and Pakistan would consider and be prepared to make forward steps in the direction of the international community's agenda for diffusing the situation caused by the nuclear explosions in South Asia in recent months. So those will continue.

It's also worth noting that the Deputy Secretary met yesterday here in the Department with Mr. Shabhaz Sharif, who is the chief minister of Pakistan's Punjab province, also the brother of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. They were meeting to discuss a number of issues, including Pakistan's economic difficulties and our continuing dialogue on nuclear non-proliferation.

I believe that President Clinton intended to be in contact today with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and I believe when Mr. Berger begins his briefing, a little over a minute from now, that he might be able to shed some light on whether that conversation has taken place yet.

QUESTION: What can you say about the whereabouts or condition of Osama Bin Ladin? And there are reports that a number of American Embassies have been threatened or there's fear of more attacks. What are you doing in that regard as well?

MR. FOLEY: Well, first of all, I think that the senior Administration officials - Secretary of State Albright, National Security Advisor Berger, General Shelton, Secretary Cohen - all made clear yesterday that in the wake of the strikes that it would take some time to assess the real and on- the-ground impact of those strikes. I don't believe that we're in a position to describe that - at least I'm not from this podium. I believe it's still premature today to shed much light on that; but again, I'd refer you to Mr. Berger's forthcoming briefing.

The second part of your question?

QUESTION: Well, there was a report today that the US Embassy in Tirana was - there was hard evidence that it was about to be targeted, and it was preempted. Is there a concern that this may be repeated elsewhere; and if so, what are you doing about Americans overseas?

MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, our diplomatic missions have been operating at a heightened state of alert since the beginning of the situation we faced following the terrorist attacks against our missions in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam. They certainly continue to operate at this level.

I could give you some kind of a run-down of the status of our embassy operations around the world if you're interested. Certainly, I am not in a position to talk about any specific threats that we receive on a day-to-day basis. We've made clear that in the wake of the bombings, there has been a significant up-tick in threats to our installations around the world. Some of this is, if you will, normal in the wake of terrorist incidents, but some of it was tantamount to credible information we have been receiving of direct and explicit threats to our installations. We have take precautionary measures as appropriate around the world.

In terms of the situation in Tirana, I would have to get that for you in a minute.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- the earlier question regarding the whereabouts of Bin Ladin, are you saying that you don't know because you haven't assessed the situation there? You don't know where he is?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think the senior Administration officials made clear yesterday that that gentleman was not a specific target of the attacks launched yesterday. The target was the terrorist infrastructure and the camps that he runs and controls in Afghanistan.

We had no specific information that I am aware of concerning his whereabouts. This operation cannot be - its success cannot be measured on the basis of that gentleman's particular fate. We believe we have sent a powerful message that the United States cannot have its embassies bombed with impunity, and that there is a price to pay for conducting terrorist operations against US facilities and US personnel. That message will have, we believe, a long-term effect; and we stand prepared, as was indicated yesterday, to act in the future as appropriate in the face of similar threats and terrorist actions.

In terms of your question about the status of our embassy in Albania, we temporarily suspended public operations last week, you will recall, at our embassy in Tirana because of recent declaration by Islamic extremists against the United States and its citizens, and because of the possibility that the US embassies facilities in Tirana, Albania, could be among the targets of a terrorist attack.

As Mr. Berger noted yesterday, we had specific information about specific threats. I can't, of course, discuss any details of those specific threats. But around the world, you are aware, that we closed our embassy in Kinshasa within the last ten days, I believe. That was in response to a deteriorating security situation there. We moved to what we call ordered departure in Pakistan - again, in response to specific threats; although our embassy and consulates remain open in that country. As we have briefed you, I think, ever since the bombings, our embassies have made tactical adjustments from one day to the next in response to either threats or in order to reassess the security needs of the embassy. In some cases we have had reduced staff or reduced hours; and in many of those cases, we were back up and operating on a full-time basis around the world. So that changes every day in connection with specific assessments of threats and dangers

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- on a grand tour by Thomas Miller to Turkey, since he gave up on the moratorium issue, due to the Turkish rejection?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have any information that I can share with you concerning Mr. Miller's visit to Turkey. It was a series of private diplomatic conversations, and I don't have a read-out of his meetings. I think the characterization that appeared in some press quarters about the results of this visit were erroneous. But I don't have a specific read-out for you.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - The Washington Post last Sunday that the 6th Fleet will intervene in volatile areas as Albania and Cyprus preparing for intervention in hoping the presence of US cruisers and destroyers will be sufficient to deter - (inaudible). We basically tell these people that we are watching you and we will know who is responsible for starting any conflict. It can have a very certain effect, just to have the U.S. standing on by the scene as a neutral - (inaudible) - to prevent a situation from spinning out of control. He also said in the Aegean, Turkey and Greece are fighting over the sovereignty of several islands, including Cyprus. Do these statements represent the US policy vis-a-vis to Cyprus and the Aegean?

MR. FOLEY: I've not seen those comments; I'd refer you to the Pentagon.

QUESTION: Jim, do you have anything on reports that the US is seeking to cut off funds that Bin Ladin - investments that he may have in this country? And are we encouraging other countries to also cut off investments that may exist in their country?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have specific information about your question. But as you know, within the last year Secretary of State Albright made a series of specific determinations, identification of terrorist organizations. Those determinations by Secretary Albright enables federal authorities to do a number of things to hamper and obstruct the work of terrorist organizations here in the United States, notably in the area of financial efforts to obtain funding for terrorist organizations.

So insofar as Bin Ladin is a known terrorist, supporter of terrorism, financier of terrorism, certainly any activities that his organization is conducting, however indirectly, in the United States would be a matter of high priority scrutiny by federal authorities.

QUESTION: But this would also be investments that he might have - part ownership of a bank, of a company of - I mean, I'm not saying that they exist, but there are also those kinds of investments rather than the fund- raising kind.

MR. FOLEY: I'm afraid that's not an area of expertise that certainly I have. I would have to refer you to law enforcement. It's obviously a complicated issue insofar as financial transactions can be hidden and obscured and operate in indirect ways. I would refer you to the Justice Department.

QUESTION: Could I ask you, though - part of my question was whether this building is asking other countries to also seek to cut off funds that may be existent of his in their country.

MR. FOLEY: We maintain very vigorous cooperation with like-minded governments around the world on the terrorism issue. Secretary Albright, I think, has stated very forcefully in the last 24 hours that a new era, in effect, is upon us; and that on the one hand it's imperative that the American people understand and prepare themselves for facing this kind of a threat into the 21st century for as long as it's necessary to face the threat. But it also requires that government agencies, in cooperation with foreign governments, work together to stand down and defeat this menace.

The terrorists themselves tend to be multinational. They have networks that span nations and span the globe. So democratic governments who support the rule of law need to cooperate likewise.

QUESTION: The Administration has been engaged in efforts for some time to try to persuade the Taliban to restrain Bin Ladin. Ambassador Richardson said he raised this when he was there in, I think, April. What is yesterday's action going to do to this? Will it make such cooperation more or less likely, if indeed there ever was any such cooperation or any prospect of it?

MR. FOLEY: That's very hard to judge. Certainly, the Taliban has a very sorry human rights record. I think Secretary Albright termed it abominable in some respects - especially their treatment of women. We have a number of areas of profound disagreement with them on the issues also of narcotics and, obviously, of terrorism. Frankly, we've not seen any evidence of a willingness on their side to deal with the problem of terrorists who find refuge - and not only refuge, but a sanctuary for the infrastructure of terrorism -- on their territory.

It is true, as you point out, that Ambassador Richardson was there in April and placed this issue squarely on the agenda. The Taliban, I believe, would like to be considered in a better light by the international community. Secretary Albright stated very clearly in Africa on Tuesday that they have zero chance of entering the world community of civilized nations unless they do improve their human rights record and unless they do cease to harbor terrorists.

We also have firm views on the nature of the political conflict and the civil conflict in Afghanistan. We believe very strongly that the only route to stability and good governance in Afghanistan is via the creation of a broad-based government. As you know, we support UN efforts in this regard.

QUESTION: Have you raised this issue with the Taliban since Richardson's visit?

MR. FOLEY: I could say that we've raised it with them in a very public way. In both Dar Es Salaam and in Nairobi, Secretary Albright, in response to questions, stated very clearly that if the Taliban wanted to begin the process of international acceptance - and again, I'm not referring to the political set-up, but merely to their aspirations to be viewed differently - then they had to cease harboring terrorists. We obviously saw no positive response to that.

QUESTION: No, I'm aware of that; but have there been any contacts privately with Taliban --

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of such.

QUESTION: But it happens sometimes, though, right?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we in the past have had diplomatic visitors who traveled to Afghanistan, to Kabul, and were able to communicate from time to time with authorities there. So I can't rule out that there haven't been contacts of that nature since April. Obviously, Ambassador Richardson's visit was a high-profile visit.

QUESTION: One more question. Can you help us - can you tell us anything about what the Taliban's response has been when this issue has been raised?

MR. FOLEY: As I understand it, their response was essentially - I'm talking about the April visit of Ambassador Richardson - was essentially non-committal. I believe in a press conference following the visit, the US officials who participated in the visit indicated that the Afghans spoke about their traditions of hospitality that were important to them, but that the tolerance of terrorist activities were outside the bounds of those traditions.

Our officials pointed out to them that our information indicated that indeed those traditions were being violated, and that it behooved them to look into the matter and ensure that terrorists were no longer able to operate from their territory.

As I said, essentially, though, it was a non-committal response which had no apparent follow-up either.

QUESTION: They didn't deny that there were terrorists there?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that they made a specific denial, but I think it was implied in their response.

QUESTION: Have you talked to the Taliban since the attacks yesterday?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that. We certainly don't have any US Government personnel able to talk to them in Afghanistan today.

QUESTION: No, but there is a representative in New York.

MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, the United States participates under the UN aegis of talks - I believe it's a six-nation group in New York that meets periodically to discuss the UN's efforts to promote broad-based dialogue and information of a broad-based government. I'm not aware that group has met in recent days.

QUESTION: Is the US Embassy in Pakistan making any additional efforts now, since the attack, to help private Americans in Pakistan leave or are things basically just that you issued your warning and do what you want?

MR. FOLEY: Well, whenever the United States urges Americans to avoid travel or to consider departing a country, we try to ensure by every way possible that message is carried to American citizens in any country to help facilitate departures as well. As you know, we facilitated the departure of a large number of American dependents and official personnel from Pakistan, as well, as I mentioned, from Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and from Albania in recent weeks.

QUESTION: Private Americans - are you also facilitating their departure?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I believe that has been an ongoing matter ever since we issued that caution.

QUESTION: Do you have any comments or could you give any details of Deputy Secretary Talbott's meeting with the Japanese Deputy Foreign Minister Tamba?

MR. FOLEY: I understand that the reason that Under Secretary Pickering could not linger longer here was, indeed, to meet with the Deputy Foreign Minister of Japan. I haven't spoken to Deputy Secretary Talbott, so I don't have a read-out yet. Perhaps we'll be in a position to shed some light on their meeting following the meeting or on Monday.

QUESTION: Has the United States been nurturing a relationship with the anti-Taliban forces? Did they give any response yesterday to the bombing in Afghanistan?

MR. FOLEY: Well, the United States does not support any faction in Afghanistan as the government of Afghanistan. As I stated somewhat ad nauseam, we believe there needs to be a broad-based government that encompasses all relevant factions and groups within Afghanistan. That, indeed, is the only route to stability and a better life for the impoverished and beleaguered people of Afghanistan.

I'm not aware that we've been in direct contact with other Afghan groups since yesterday's strikes. As you know and as I mentioned, we don't have diplomatic personnel in Afghanistan. So I'm not certainly aware of any contacts. It's only been 24 hours since the strikes, in any event.

QUESTION: I'd like to ask another question about Venezuela. Commander Hugo Chavez, who's getting an ever-greater lead in the presidential polls down there, has been denied a visa by the United States. He's been making some friendly comments of late. I just wondered whether there's any change in attitude about that.

MR. FOLEY: No, that was in the news three or four days ago. We did look into that question, and I have an answer for you. I'll be glad to get it for you after the briefing.

QUESTION: On the missile attack in Sudan, what proof do you have that plant actually was manufacturing precursors to the VX nerve gas? What proof do you have that the plant was financially connected to Bin Ladin?

MR. FOLEY: Well, that's something that I cannot answer from this podium because it involves intelligence matters, and we never comment publicly on intelligence matters. I think you can be certain that if the United States acted as it did in this instance, that we had very convincing evidence both of the nature of the terrorist infrastructure, camps, meetings that were taking place in Afghanistan, and also the nature of that so-called pharmaceutical plant. To the extent possible, we will be sharing information with interested governments.

The United States would not take such a significant step lightly; we very carefully weighed the evidence. As you know, there is legitimate frustration on the part of people around the world, including the American people, at the fact that it often takes a very long time to get to the bottom of terrorist attacks, and that the chain of evidence, as Mr. Berger said yesterday, can sometimes lead in different and even conflicting directions. There was a case this year, I believe, of a rendering to justice of a terrorist involved in the bombing of an airliner in the Pacific that took place - an attempted bombing - that took place in 1982. That was 16 years of painstaking effort, investigative and diplomatic, in order to achieve that result.

When we were confronted with intelligence information that was convincing to us, that pointed first to Mr. Bin Ladin's involvement in the horrendous attacks in our embassies in Dar Es Salaam and in Nairobi, when we were confronted with convincing evidence that further attacks were planned - and I might add parenthetically that while we have intelligence information to this effect, the whole world has the public proclamations of Bin Ladin and his organization both taking responsibilities for the bombings and threatening imminent new attacks - we had no choice but to act.

And of course, the facilities in Sudan were something that we've had under scrutiny for some time. They were connected with Bin Ladin. We believe very strongly that it was his intention to acquire chemical weapons capability, and we felt it was imperative to act in this case.

QUESTION: There was an impression, I think, a couple of years ago that Sudan was actually cooperating in the fight against terrorists - especially following its cooperation with French authorities in turning up Carlos and also in the sudden movement of Bin Ladin from the country. Was that a false impression?

MR. FOLEY: Well, it's premature to speculate on whether the government of Sudan itself had any link with the bombings that took place in East Africa, certainly, until our investigation is completed. So we're not making that accusation. However, we believe that the government of Sudan bears much of the responsibility for allowing known terrorist organizations to operate on its territory.

We have on numerous occasions urged Khartoum to cease its support for terrorists and their activities, and this to no avail. We reiterated that message in a meeting between Assistant Secretary Rice and the Charge d'Affaires of Sudan here in the Department yesterday.

It is true, as you state, that the government of Sudan asked Bin Ladin to leave in 1996. But facts are fact, and it's a fact that Bin Ladin continues to maintain an extensive network inside Sudan, including links, as I said, to the targeted chemical weapons facility.

QUESTION: Another question about Bin Ladin. You've mentioned that he's a known terrorist, a known supporter of terrorism and that there's convincing evidence that he was involved in the attacks on the US Embassies. But you're not saying that he was a target yesterday in the US military strikes; why not?

MR. FOLEY: I think Ambassador Pickering responded to a question earlier about an Executive Order that governs United States activities in this regard, which we respect. We do not target individuals. Individuals may find themselves unlucky in a given circumstance, but I can assure you categorically, as General Shelton and Secretary Cohen stated yesterday, that individuals as such were not targeted. That one in particular, we, to my knowledge, did not have specific information about that gentleman's whereabouts either.

We were targeting one of the biggest, most important terrorist camps in the world. We knew where it was; we knew what operated there. We also had information indicating there was going to be a meeting of a significant number of terrorists also. We wouldn't shed any tears for terrorists who would be victims of any such response. I think it's vital to understand and to underline the fact that there is a fundamental difference between sponsoring terrorism and fighting terrorism. It's the difference between lawless and lawful behavior; and you cannot in any way compare the deliberate and evil determination on the part of terrorists to target innocent civilians not only in our embassies in East Africa, but given the magnitude of the explosion, the civilians - the African civilians - in surrounding buildings. You cannot compare that in any way; it doesn't belong in the same universe with lawful defensive action to fight terrorism.

QUESTION: Secretary Cohen did say yesterday that Bin Ladin had declared war, by his actions, on the United States, and indicated that could make him a target not for assassination but for a response.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think Secretary Albright would have no quarrel with what Secretary Cohen said. She has stated very forthrightly in the last 24 hours that we are facing a new kind of threat; that we have crossed a certain threshold; and that, in some sense, this is a picture of the kinds of realities that we're going to have to deal with moving into the next century.

I think she also, though, underscores another important point that's very important for the American people to understand, which is that the United States is strong. We are targeted because we are strong and because of what we stand for in terms of the rule of law and democratic values. We have all the capability and certainly the will in the world to persevere and to prevail in this struggle. It's not a struggle that we have chosen. The war reference is one that was initially made by the terrorists themselves, who declared war on the United States - both officials and civilians, without distinction.

I can tell you one thing - that the United States, as it proved yesterday, is not going to stand around and do nothing when faced with acts of war, if you will, that follow up upon declarations of war. We will act, when we have convincing evidence, to respond to such attacks

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - the strike -- declare war against fanatical Islam - (inaudible) --

MR. FOLEY: No, I think we made very clear, first of all, that the United States, which is a country of many religions, including many millions of devout Muslims, is a country which has immense respect for the holy religion of Islam around the world. We think it is particularly cynical that terrorists who are murderers would try to cloak themselves in the name of religion. But we draw a distinction, though, very much - in answer to your specific question - between what you called, your word not mine, "extremists" and terrorists.

One can hold any range of political views. Certainly, the United States would be the first country in the world, given our traditions of political tolerance and freedom of thought and expression, to acknowledge the right of peoples all over the world to hold their views. Where the distinction comes is with terrorists who try to legitimize and justify their actions on the basis of religion, on the basis of politics. You can't justify murder of innocent civilians in the name of religion or politics.

QUESTION: What about the Muslim fundamentalists - (inaudible) - by the President in his message?

MR. FOLEY: As I said, I would draw a distinction between words, thoughts on the one hand, and actions. What we acted against yesterday was terrorist action.

QUESTION: On Cyprus --

MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry, I have to move on to someone else.

QUESTION: Yes, on Cyprus, regarding the 1975 document on Cyprus, saying that the Turkish forces must remain on the island and the - (inaudible) - that should be established, I was told by the Department of State source on condition of anonymity that the so-called document does not exist, it's fabricated and, obviously, it was planted in the Greek paper Vema. Even the White House characterized this as alleged. Could you please take a position, for the record, to clarify this?

MR. FOLEY: I have no information on an alleged document from 1975, as I indicated to you, I think it was a week or so ago that the question was first raised.

QUESTION: You said the strikes were against terrorist operations, specifically in Afghanistan because there was going to be a congregation of terrorists there. There have been reports that Bin Ladin has terrorist camps in the Philippines. Why wasn't that struck?

MR. FOLEY: As I think was very clearly indicated yesterday, we had information indicating the possible imminence of an attack sponsored by Bin Ladin. Our action yesterday was designed in part to disrupt his terrorist capabilities. We have cooperative relations with friendly governments around the world. That is not the case in Afghanistan, where they don't even have a government that we recognize. The authorities, such as they are, are unwilling to exercise their responsibilities to crack down on terrorists who are using their national territory as sanctuary.

In the case of the Philippines and other countries - friendly, democratic countries - we have excellent cooperation on a range of issues, including counter-terrorism. I can't respond specifically because I'm not aware of that report of camps there. But we do know that Bin Ladin has been involved supporting terrorists in the Philippines and, indeed, in many other countries around the world. I can tick off a number of names, if you wish. But that doesn't ipso facto mean that where he's active, governments are not working to combat him.

QUESTION: On another subject, Jim, has the United States made any decision regarding Hughes Electronics and its bid for a license to go ahead with a --

MR. FOLEY: I didn't hear --

QUESTION: Hughes Electronic -- has the US made a decision on an application by Hughes Electronic to go ahead with a new telecommunications satellite deal with China?

MR. FOLEY: I have to take the question and look into it. I believe we had something on that about a week ago. But I have to beg your indulgence; in light of the bombings of two weeks ago and events of the last 24 hours, we've sort of - my book here is at least half devoted to those events. I believe we have something on that from last week that I could get for you after the briefing.

QUESTION: Are you just as concerned about the threat of terrorist retaliation domestically as you are about it overseas at this point?

MR. FOLEY: Absolutely. That's not to say that we see a particular threat domestically, but we take all threats seriously. And certainly in the wake of the decisive action that the United States took yesterday, it's something that law enforcement, in cooperation with relevant federal agencies, needs to keep under the highest watch.

I think Mr. Berger indicated yesterday that the FBI will be - and I'm sure by now has been - in touch with local law enforcement to apprise them of the need for whatever precautionary measures might apply. It's not a Department of State responsibility as such domestically, but I understand the FBI is fully seized with it.

QUESTION: Are additional attacks possible?

MR. FOLEY: Well, if they were I would be the last person in the world to answer that question, I can assure you. I believe that Secretary Albright and others yesterday made clear in her comments to the American people that we had to steel ourselves for the longer run - impossible to say for how long. We're confident that we're going to win this battle because we prevailed against lesser opponents throughout this century.

But she, I believe, specifically indicated that we cannot rule out the possibility of retaliatory action. I think some people have asked questions -- and I think legitimate questions - whether we believe that our decisive action might trigger retaliatory action, as if to question our action in the first place. I think Under Secretary Pickering made very clear that in our view, the worst kind of signal that you could send to terrorists was not to respond, especially on the basis of the evidence that we had. In any event, we had information that they were planning further attacks regardless of whether we responded.

The fact that we responded so decisively is a categorical demonstration that terrorists have no sanctuary, and that we will go after them as necessary and that we won't be intimidated. I can't signal what might or might not happen; but certainly we hope that to some degree, the operations yesterday succeeded in disrupting their capabilities. In answer to an earlier question, I indicated that it's still too early to be able to assess the actual impact of the strikes. But we certainly remain prepared to respond in the future; absolutely.

One more question.

QUESTION: On a different topic, related to the Organization of American States, the Colombian Government yesterday nominated Caesar Gaviria to run for a second term of Secretary General of the OAS. Is the US satisfied, pleased with Mr. Gaviria work for the last four years at the OAS; and would the US support that candidacy?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we've worked very productively with him, with Mr. Gaviria in his capacity as Secretary General of the OAS. It certainly would be very premature, however, to speculate on our part about the succession at the OAS.

My understanding is that there are no officially declared candidates for the post at this time, and that there are unlikely to be officially declared candidates until several months before the election, which will take place at the OAS General Assembly next June - June of 1999. So as I said, we regard it as really premature to take a position at this time.

Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:55 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 Thursday, 3 September 1998 - 14:54:32 UTC