Browse through our Interesting Nodes of Internet & Computing Services in Cyprus 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
Friday, 29 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 #135, 98-12-09

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>


912

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Wednesday, December 9, 1998

Briefer: James B. Foley

IRAQ
1		Difficulties UNSCOM Encountered with Inspections / Butler's
		  Announcement onInspections / Violations by Iraq
2		Awaiting Chairman Butler's Assessment / Issue of Military
		  Force
2-3		Resolutions / President's Remarks on Force / Authorization
		  for Use of Force / Berger's Remarks at Stanford on Iraq
3		US Policy on Keeping Troops in the Gulf / Sanctions /
		  Turning Point in Attitudes in Neighboring States of
		  Hussein / GCC Statement / Issue of Use of Force 
4-5		Support for Opposition Groups / Albright's Communication
		  with Other Senior-Level Government Officials / Remarks by
		  Secretary General Annan 
5-6		Suggests of Need for Further Security Council Authorization
		  Before Using Force / Comprehensive Review / Criteria of
		  What Butler May Report 

CHILE 6 Jack Straw's Decision on Extradition / Legal Proceedings of the UK / Judicial Reviews / Albright's Remarks on the Declassifying of Documents 7 Request From Spanish Judge of Documents / Spanish Judge's Request to Interview Michael Townley-Principles of Accountability, Rule of Law, and Pursuant of Justice / Respect for Chile's Democracy 8 When Will U.S. Take a Position on the Extradition / Issue of Setting Precedents / Appeals / Reviewing and Declassifying Documents 9 Moffitt & Letelier's Case and Relatives Calls for Justice / FBI Still Pursuing Case

CANADA 9 Faulder's Execution Case / Albright's Request to Bush for 30-Day Reprieve / Bush's Limited Authority on Clemency 10 Bush's Decision to Decline the Reprieve / No Further Appeals from Secretary Albright / ExactlyWhat Secretary Asked for in Letter / No Release of Letter / When Did Governor Respond to Secretary

PARAGUAY 10 Lino Oviedo

MEPP 10-11 Hunger Strikes and Riots Due to the Issue of Palestinian Prisoner Releases 11 Anwar Mohammed (American Citizen) Allegedly Tortured by Israelis / Consular Access 11-12 Issue of Violence and the Wye Agreement / Dennis Ross' Whereabouts / Wye Accord Doesn't Mention Release of Prisoners / Issue of Side Agreements / Issue of Types of Prisoners

EGYPT 12 Release of Hafez Abu Se'da and Human Rights / How and When Did U.S. Speak to Egyptian Government

LEBANON 13 Accusations that the U.S. Was Behind the Forced Resignation of Prime Minister Hariri

CYPRUS 13 Ambassador Miller & Richard Holbrooke's Trip to Cyprus

NATO 13-14 Ocalan Case / Issue of Terrorism and NATO

RUSSIA 14 Alleged Reliability Test of a Nuclear Weapon / Issue of Movement of START II Ratification / Albright's Announcement That She Will Travel to Moscow / START II and START III

BOSNIA 14-15 Reports of American Soldiers Detained / U.S. Says Soldiers Were Not "Detained"


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #135

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1998, 1:35 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department. I don't have any announcements for you today, so I'd be happy to turn to George Gedda for the first question.

QUESTION: Any comment on the experiences of UNSCOM in Iraq today?

MR. FOLEY: Yes. Of course we've just received reports that you equally have seen in the press about difficulties UNSCOM has encountered this morning in Iraq. As we, the United States Government, have repeatedly made clear, we expect Iraq to cooperate fully with UNSCOM; and that, indeed, is what they said they would do.

UNSCOM inspectors must be able to do their work unfettered. UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler has announced that UNSCOM is undertaking a series of inspections to test Iraqi cooperation. UNSCOM has a variety of activities underway, and we expect Iraqi cooperation across the full spectrum - from documents to inspections to interviews with relevant officials and whatever else UNSCOM feels it needs in order to pursue and complete its mandate.

We will want to hear from Chairman Butler about the results of these activities and his assessment of Iraqi cooperation. At that point, as we've indicated earlier in this week, we will make a judgment.

QUESTION: Are you saying that today's intended raid on - I guess it was the -- (inaudible) -- party headquarters was intended only as a test of cooperation, or was there evidence - do you have evidence that something incriminating might be there?

MR. FOLEY: You'd have to ask UNSCOM that question. I think they're the relevant authority; they're the ones pursuing the inspections. They can, if they so wish, address what it was specifically they were looking for. But we presume that UNSCOM indeed knows what it's doing, knows what it's looking for, and that its activities are wholly legitimate inside Iraq.

QUESTION: Jim, how serious does the Administration see this violation?

MR. FOLEY: Well, as I've indicated, we're going to await Chairman Butler's assessment before we arrive at our own conclusions, along with the other members of the Security Council. He as well as the IAEA are going to report to the Security Council on the status of Iraqi cooperation.

Certainly any incident, whether it involves the lack of cooperation on the provision of documents, whether it involves lack of cooperation on providing access to sites does not bode well for Iraqi compliance with Iraqi obligations under the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. We're withholding judgment, clearly, until we officially receive Chairman Butler's report. Such problems and such blockages as we have seen from Iraq - both in recent times and over the years - certainly doesn't bode well for Iraqi hopes to receive favorable treatment in the Security Council. I don't want to get ahead of what assessment Chairman Butler's going to make; I'm just giving you sort of a preliminary reaction to events as they unfold.

QUESTION: Can you say whether you think this opens the door wider for a military resolution to this problem?

MR. FOLEY: We've made clear - and I refer to you previous remarks of the President - that if Iraq does not comply with its obligations and if UNSCOM, indeed, is unable to do its job, the United States has the forces in the region necessary to respond. I can't be more specific than that for obvious reasons.

QUESTION: Is it still your point of view that the United States needs no further authorization from the Security Council?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I think we've made that crystal clear.

QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to Jack Straw's announcement in England?

MR. FOLEY: I think we're still on Iraq.

QUESTION: I wanted, if you can, to get into the inspection problems today in Lake's - excuse me - Sandy Berger's speech last night at Stanford. I trust you've seen that - a fairly comprehensive statement on our policy towards Iraq, apparently some changes in it as far as our opinion about how sustainable it is, economically, on our part; whether the US is willing to sustain it as it is, and whether the allies will support it in an ongoing way. Can you comment on the current policy now towards keeping troops in the Gulf, towards weapons inspections, whether that's going to go away, maintaining the sanctions --

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think it's not appropriate for me here in the State Department to comment at length on the National Security Adviser's speech, and I'd refer you to the White House for follow up questions on his speech. Broadly speaking, I think it's fair to say that his speech did not, in any way, indicate any lessening of US vigilance vis-a-vis Iraq, of US support for UNSCOM, and our belief that sanctions need to be and will be continued on Iraq for so long as Iraq has not met the terms of the relevant Security Council resolutions and complied fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA.

I think it's a truism, though, that as time goes on there is an evident danger of a slacking of international support. I'm not talking about US vigilance, but of international support for continuing with the robust sanctions regime. I think any observer in 1991 would have been hard pressed to predict that we would have been able to maintain broad international support for our policy of containing Iraq and maintaining sanctions over the seven-year period that ensued. In fact, I think this is testament to the ability and the force and the credibility of American diplomacy - that we've, through thick and thin, through ups and downs, have been able to maintain international consensus on our Iraq policy, as was evidenced in the latest crisis with Iraq in November, when Saddam Hussein found himself totally isolated internationally.

But I think, though, if you go back to the President's remarks at the time when the President announced that we were not going to be pursuing military action in view of Saddam Hussein's turn-around and resumption of cooperation with UNSCOM, the President discussed, I think, openly for the first time, our interest in seeing a post-Saddam Iraq and working with the Iraqi opposition. So the National Security Advisor's speech has to be seen in that line. I don't see that it broke new ground.

But I think we discovered in that crisis in November - and this continues to be the case today - that there had been a kind of turning point in Middle Eastern attitudes towards Saddam Hussein; a growing realization that his attempts to blame the United States for the problems of his country really were no longer credible. I'm talking about the opinion in neighboring states that he bore responsibility for the suffering of his people; he bore responsibility for this constant recurrence of crises between Iraq and the international community. Indeed, we saw that in the GCC statement, which assigned responsibility to Saddam Hussein for any consequences that would ensue from his failure to cooperate with the international community.

So we saw that kind of changing, shifting attitudes that indeed the plight of the Iraqi people was the responsibility of Saddam Hussein. We see growing conviction throughout the region that a post-Saddam Iraq would be in the interest certainly of the people of Iraq but also of the peoples of the region. National Security Advisor Berger spoke, I think, to some of those shifting attitudes. So I can restate for you what he said yesterday about our support for the Iraqi opposition, but you've heard it many times; I don't see I need to go over it once again.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - and may be reading to much into it, but he seemed to be saying that - and this would be the first time you all have said this - that the United States would be willing to use force to - pick a word - unseat, help replace, whatever word you'd like to use, Saddam Hussein.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'd really want to have the text before me. I read the section you mentioned, but I think it was a little more nuanced than that. The word "force" was used, but I really rather have that before me. Again, I refer you to the White House for the explicit commentary on what he said.

But he talked about -- I think you're getting at the fact that he talked about a couple of stages: one, we're working with them and helping them to unite and to agree on a common platform and a common strategy for producing change inside Iraq; and that we'll be willing to help them down the road as they grow in unity and grow in cohesiveness and grow in effectiveness. I wouldn't want to specify further. I'd refer you to the White House.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, but is the policy - policy is policy, whether it's you or Joe Lockhart or the President. Is the policy to use - over time - to use force to help the opposition?

MR. FOLEY: Well, that's not something that I'm in a position to lay out, specifically, in a public forum. We have received authority from the Congress - draw-down authority - to provide military equipment to the Iraqi opposition if we're able to identify groups deserving of the aid that meet certain criteria, and we intend to do so. Congress gave us 90 days, I believe, to go through this process. We intend to abide by the congressional mandate. To complete that process, I believe we're looking towards some time in, perhaps, mid-January to have completed that process.

QUESTION: That's a far cry from using force.

MR. FOLEY: Well, if you're asking me to lay out in specificity something that, frankly, is too sensitive to talk about in a public forum, I'm not going to do it.

QUESTION: A follow up to Sid's question in the last bit, Jim, can you tell us whether any of that draw-down authority has been exercised, either on the military equipment side or on the other side? I don't know what you call it - the political - getting groups, meeting with people.

MR. FOLEY: I don't believe so. We're currently engaged in identifying those groups, which meet the Iraq Liberation Act's criteria for support. We will present our findings to Congress, as I said, within the specified time frame.

QUESTION: Jim, can you tell us if Albright has had conversations today with Shelton and the President and Cohen about the situation in Iraq?

MR. FOLEY: I can't speak to her telephone activities today. I think her spokesman is traveling with her, and is perhaps addressing this as she travels -- she's currently in France -- but I'm not privy to that.

QUESTION: Two things, Jim, you said the United States doesn't believe that it needs any further action by the Security Council in order to take military action if it deems it necessary. Apparently, if I read the copy right, Iraq has seen some remarks by the Secretary General that they're interpreting in a different way. I'm curious of your assessment of what he has said. And the other thing was, you said -

MR. FOLEY: I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific, because I truly don't know what you're referring to.

QUESTION: I believe it was a speech by the Secretary General. Annan was suggesting that there would need to be further action by the Security Council before there would be military strike on Iraq.

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of what he said, but the United States' view that I state today is certainly not new and is not news to anyone that we believe - and we've said it all along - that there is sufficient authority to act and that we are prepared to act. We don't believe there's need for further Security Council debate or authorization. We made that clear. The Security Council itself is on record in resolutions going back to earlier this year - is on record warning Iraq of the severest consequences in the event of a failure to comply with its obligations.

QUESTION: And just one other thing - you said earlier that once you talked to Butler that you will make a judgment. Can you be just a little bit clearer on what you're talking about - a judgment on what? Is this a judgment on whether Iraq is cooperating; a judgment as to whether to begin the use of military force? Can you clarify it?

MR. FOLEY: As you know, Security Council Resolution 1194 envisages the possibility of a comprehensive review of Iraqi compliance and of sanctions. It's part of that resolution that a comprehensive review will be considered by the Security Council in the event that UNSCOM and the IAEA report to the Security Council that Iraq has resumed full cooperation. That's the report we await.

QUESTION: Can you tell us how quickly you expect to get the details from UNSCOM of what happened today so that you can make this judgment? Is it something that will happen within hours or does it require a meeting of the Security Council or what?

MR. FOLEY: I think there's a misimpression I need to correct on this score. There were inspections today. There appears to have been some kind of an incident involving one inspection. I would expect -- I believe Chairman Butler reports regularly - I'm not sure if it's weekly or bi- weekly - on the status of inspections. I expect he will report on the most recent inspections and perhaps on this incident. But that's a separate item from the report that he and the head of the IAEA will give the Security Council on across-the-board compliance, or lack thereof, that will enable the Security Council to judge whether or not to go forward with the comprehensive review.

QUESTION: Yes, but presumably you're interested in the first report that he --

MR. FOLEY: But when you asked a question about our judgment --maybe it was you or a colleague - our judgment on going forward with the comprehensive review will be based on those reports.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - on whether this incident today amounts to a violation of the agreement which Iraq made back last month?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we'll await Chairman Butler's report on that. I can't tell you specifically when he's going to report.

QUESTION: So are you referring to the final report, then, Jim, or to sort of the interim?

MR. FOLEY: You'll have to ask your fellow questioner. I'm referring to both, in effect. Certainly if he reports on sort of an interim basis on a given set of inspections or an incident, we'll study that report; and if we have something to say, we will. But we're also expecting Chairman Butler and the IAEA to report on the overall level of compliance.

Insofar as that is concerned as I indicated, that involves - I think President Clinton spoke about many different areas - five different areas of benchmarks he described. But certainly as far as UNSCOM is concerned, we're talking about access to documents; we're talking about access to sites for inspections; we're talking about interviews with officials. In other words, there's a panoply of criteria upon which Chairman Butler is going to report to the Security Council.

QUESTION: What's your response to the Jack Straw decision on the extradition process --

MR. FOLEY: Well, first of all - and this is important - we have not received or, indeed, reviewed the text of the home secretary's decision. We understand from press reports that he ruled that the crimes were extraditable, that the extradition request was properly authenticated, and that there were not sufficient compassionate circumstances to deny authority to proceed with consideration of Spain's extradition requests.

Now, under British law, this matter may be subject to further judicial review, and we certainly respect the British legal process.

As our statements have made clear, the United States values both the principles of accountability and justice, as well as those of democracy and the rule of law in Chile.

QUESTION: Do you think this decision could be accelerated in some way the declassification of documents by the United States?

MR. FOLEY: I think it's important to understand that in effect this decision is in many senses merely the start of what's going to be a continuing legal process on this issue in the United Kingdom. I'd refer you to UK authorities, who might be able to tell you just how long this possibly could be drawn out. But my understanding is there are many stages to come.

As I said, the home secretary's decision is subject to judicial review. In any event, the case is now going to be going to the courts for extradition proceedings. There are multiple rights of appeal at every stage of the extradition process. At the end of that process, if he's found extraditeable, the home secretary would have a final decision as whether to actually send him to Spain or not. That decision by the home secretary also is subject, potentially, to judicial review.

So this is a potentially lengthy process that has only begun, in effect, today. It doesn't, to answer your question specifically, therefore, influence directly the speed at which we're able to proceed with our review of documents in this area. Let me just reiterate what Secretary Albright said recently - that the State Department will continue declassifying and making available documents in this area; and we will do so as rapidly as possible as part of an Administration-wide coordinated effort. That effort is underway, although we do not yet know how long it is going to take.

QUESTION: Last week you said that the Spanish judge hasn't requested any documents. Has he requested any documents - have you received a new call requesting more documents from him?

MR. FOLEY: The Spanish judge requested documents in the past and we have furnished those. I'm not aware that there's been a new request.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - December 4 via Interpol on the Foreign Affairs Ministry has submitted you all a request for further information about --

MR. FOLEY: Well, that's news to me, and I'll look into it for you to see if I have any information for you. But we will treat that as seriously as we've treated previous requests from the Spanish judicial authorities.

In the meantime, we are beginning to proceed with our own review of documents with a view toward seeing which documents we'll be able to release in the interest of shedding light on the human rights abuses that occurred in Chile.

QUESTION: The Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon apparently reported that he's also requested to interview Michael Townley, former agent of the Dina. Is that something that the State Department would be open to?

MR. FOLEY: I didn't hear - who is he?

QUESTION: Michael Townley -- he was a former agent of the secret police under Pinochet. He reportedly has requested an interview with him as well. Is that something you --

MR. FOLEY: I have no information on that.

QUESTION: I don't understand the statement that you made that the United States values justice - I'm paraphrasing - the United States values justice and as well as democracy and the rule of law. Are you saying that there's a possible contradiction between those values - justice and democracy?

MR. FOLEY: No, I think Spokesman Rubin has addressed this issue at length in the last few weeks. We believe there are different - and not necessarily conflicting - principles at stake in this whole case. They involve the principle of accountability and the rule of law and the pursuit of justice, and they involve respect for the Chilean political process, which produced a transition from authoritarian rule - a rule characterized by serious human rights abuses -- to democracy. We respect all of those principles, and we respect Chile's decisions in this area.

QUESTION: When do you think the US is going to be willing to take a position on the extradition - when in this process?

MR. FOLEY: Well, first of all, I indicated, we have not seen the decision; we have not studied the decision. I'm not aware of official reactions yet from the governments of Chile or commentary from the governments of the United Kingdom and Spain. So certainly it's very premature for the United States to comment at length.

As I said, this is just the start of a continuing legal process that could take some time; and really nothing, in effect, in terms of the making of law, making of international law, potentially has been decided at this stage. So it's really not relevant for the United States to comment at this stage on the case.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - no precedent has been set in terms of international law. Are you saying that because of the appeals process?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay, so you're not saying that this decision in and of itself doesn't set a precedent?

MR. FOLEY: I'm saying that the question of whether under the Spanish extradition request, Mr. Pinochet is extradited by the United Kingdom to Spain, is not a settled matter. This is going to be a lengthy process as I understand it.

QUESTION: And what would be your concerns - or should I say, what precedent is it you would be concerned about being set in this case?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not in a position to comment on the possible implications of the case when, as I indicated, we're not at a point yet where anything definitively has been decided.

QUESTION: I'm confused now. You said the State Department will continue declassifying and making available documents - how does this square with the back-track last week on releasing documents and just reviewing them rather than releasing them? Will you release them, or will you just review them, or are you --

MR. FOLEY: Well, the Spokesman certainly drew a distinction between conducting the review and making the declassification decision; but by past practice, we certainly have done both. We have reviewed documents and we've declassified and released them. I don't want to predict -- and he was careful, therefore, to draw the distinction what the specific decisions may be. We're talking about potentially thousands and perhaps many more documents. So, it's just hypothetical at this point. Our record is such that we have reviewed and we have declassified and we have released documents in this area previously, and we're hoping to be able to do so again in furtherance of the Secretary's commitment.

QUESTION: How seriously are you taking the request that the American citizens -- members of these families - people were killed - Americans killed in Chile, asking the United States Government to initiate a judicial process, I guess, against Pinochet?

MR. FOLEY: Well, you're talking about a particular case - the Letelier and Moffitt case. We sympathize with the pain and anguish of the victims relatives, who were on Capitol Hill this week. While the Pinochet case raises many complex issues, the Administration has taken steps to play a constructive role, as I've indicated, in terms of our commitment, to review documents with a view towards declassifying and releasing them.

With respect to the Letelier and Moffitt murders in Washington, we believe that, as a violent, criminal act on US soil against victims that include US citizens, that that bombing merits special attention by the United States. The FBI and the Department of Justice have pursued this case vigorously over many years to bring to justice those responsible. We support those efforts fully.

We note that several people have been convicted in connection with that murder, including two Chilean intelligence officers, who are currently serving sentences in Chile. We have made clear for years our condemnation of human rights abuses by the Pinochet regime, both within and outside Chile. We understand that the Letelier-Moffitt investigation is open. We fully support efforts that may be made by the Justice Department to pursue the case further. We would be supportive of any decision by the Justice Department, as I said, with respect to further investigation and, if appropriate, prosecution. I would refer you, however, to the Justice Department for further comments on this ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: On another international judicial matter, whereas the one we've just been talking about apparently has some ways to go, the one in Texas - the case of Mr. Faulder -- is apparently nearing an end. Today the clemency board voted to reject the appeal. I wonder if the State Department has any news or any update on the position taken in the request of Secretary Albright to Governor Bush. Has there been any further correspondence, or can you give us an update?

MR. FOLEY: Yes. As has been reported in the press, Secretary Albright asked Governor Bush to give serious consideration to the Canadian Foreign Minister's request for a 30-day reprieve to ensure that the board -- and the board is the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles - to ensure that the board has adequate time to consider the issues.

Faulder is seeking commutation of a sentence to life imprisonment. The Canadian Government has supported the petition, and was concerned that the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles would not have sufficient time to consider it.

Now, it's our understanding that Governor Bush has limited authority with respect to clemency, but he does have the ability to grant a 30-day reprieve if he thinks that the board needs additional time. Now, in the event Governor Bush has declined, in this case, to grant the reprieve because he believes the board has had sufficient time to consider the case.

QUESTION: Will there be any further appeals by the Secretary?

MR. FOLEY: No, no; I think there's been some misunderstanding. In the press it's been reported that the Secretary asked the Governor for a 30-day reprieve. But what she did was ask that he ensure that the board had enough time to consider the complex issues in the case. She, in this light, asked the Governor to consider granting a 30-day reprieve if he felt, as I said before, that the board needed extra time.

The Governor has assured us that the board has had ample time to consider the issues at stake in this case, and we defer to his judgment. We have no reason to think that the board did not give adequate and serious consideration to Mr. Faulder's case.

QUESTION: Are you going to release the Secretary's letter?

MR. FOLEY: We don't normally release her private correspondence.

QUESTION: When did the Governor respond to you? How did he respond?

MR. FOLEY: He wrote to the Secretary.

QUESTION: When did he do - when was that letter received?

MR. FOLEY: I believe it was within the last few days; I don't have the exact date. If we can get that, I will but --

QUESTION: Okay, what was the time difference between her letter and his letter?

MR. FOLEY: Oh, I believe it was a matter of perhaps five or six days.

QUESTION: On Paraguay, what is the US position in the case of Paraguay's former army chief and coup leader? Should he go back to prison, as the country's supreme court has directed? The President is refusing.

MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the issue that you raise.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. FOLEY: What is the name of the gentleman?

QUESTION: Lino Oviedo. You don't have anything on that?

MR. FOLEY: No, I don't. I'll check to see, if you want to come up afterwards.

QUESTION: Could I ask a related humanitarian - in fact, a double one on prisoners. Sheik Yassin has gone on hunger strike now in the Palestinian area, while there are hundreds if not a large majority of the 3,800 Palestinian prisoners inside Israel in hunger strike. There are difficult riots on the West Bank, which the Department of State knows is related to the release of prisoners -- criminals versus political prisoners in Israel. Is the Department at all considering trying to dampen this issue down before the arrival of the President? That's the first question. The second question has to do with an American citizen prisoner, Anwar Muhammed, from Miami, who was arrested five days after the Wye River Conference was signed. He was tortured for 30 days and was finally released without any charges being filed on Monday. Is the Department inquiring about Anwar Muhammed's ability to leave Israel and come back to the United States? I understand one organization is asking the President to pick him up and bring him back, similar to the Pollard request. Does the Department have any comment on that?

MR. FOLEY: Well, it's interesting, you raise the case of an American citizen arrested overseas because, indeed, in relation to the previous question about the Canadian in Texas, that highlights the fact that we attach utmost importance to consular access, and we believe that's a principle that ought to be respected in this country and that we expect other governments to respect around the world. We've undertaken significant outreach efforts to the American states - the 50 states - and law enforcement community throughout the country to apprise them of American obligations to provide consular access. So I can give you some of those details, if you're interested, in a later round of questioning.

But certainly in this case, I would have to assume that our consulate in Jerusalem has had access to this American citizen. I'm not familiar with the case.

QUESTION: Only after 30 days of torture, which has been confirmed.

MR. FOLEY: Because I'm not familiar with the case, I'd be happy to look into it after the briefing.

QUESTION: Would you take the question?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

In terms of your larger question, we have spoken previously about the issue of prisoner releases within the framework of the Wye Memorandum. The Wye Memorandum is the governing document in this area, and I don't need to restate our view on this. We believe, whether it's involving prisoner releases or all the other elements of the Wye agreement, that the agreement needs to be respected and implemented by both sides, according to the time table.

We've made clear that our view is that the Israelis have done in the first stage what they said they would do at Wye. So we're not going to revisit that issue or reopen that issue. We recognize that the Palestinians have serious concerns about the issue of prisoner release. There are channels of communication; there are channels of discussion that were established by Wye. We urge the Palestinians to use those channels to raise their concerns with the Israelis.

Our view on violence is that there is no place for violence in the Middle East; there's no place for violence between the Israelis and Palestinians. The two sides have agreed to a process of settling their differences, of achieving a permanent peace and a solution to the problems that divide them; and that's at the negotiating table. There is no hope for achieving anything but backward steps on the streets. So we urge all sides to exercise restraint; to realize that negotiations offer a legitimate pathway to peace, to reconciliation, and to the satisfaction of aspirations. That has been proven recently at Wye, which was a significant step forward. We now are in the phase of the beginning of accelerated permanent status negotiations.

That's why it's all the more important to continue implementing Wye as envisaged. Ambassador Ross has been out there. I believe he's returning tonight. Aaron Miller is remaining behind to help the parties continue to deal with the issues that arise concerning Wye implementation. But the only avenue to success is, indeed, implementation.

QUESTION: I have another question about Middle East human rights. Are you familiar with the case -

QUESTION: One more on Wye -- does the Wye Accord - well, the Wye Accord -- at least the part you've chosen to release - doesn't say anything about prisoners. That's a point of fact. The side agreements - can you say what the side agreements say about the type of prisoners that are to be released? When you say that -- when the US says Israel has met its obligations up until now, do you mean that they have met the obligations to release 250 prisoners, or they've met their obligations on what types of prisoners to release?

MR. FOLEY: I wasn't at Wye. I've not seen all of the documents you're referring to, but I had been reliably informed that the Israelis have done what they said they would do at Wye. My understanding is that covers both the numbers and the types.

QUESTION: Another questions about - human rights question in the Middle East. Are you familiar with a group called the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, which has-and one of its principle officers has been jailed by the Egyptian Government on charges of slander, contact with foreigners and other charges. Are you familiar with that case?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I am; however, there's been a development, apparently. We welcome the decision by the Egyptian government to release Hafez Abu Se'da, head of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights. We urge the government to close the file on charges against this respected organization, which reported on police brutality in the village of al Kush and to improve the regulatory environment for all NGOs so that they can do their work without harassment.

QUESTION: How and when did you ask the Egyptian Government to respect these organizations' ability to carry out their -

MR. FOLEY: Well, we're in constant contact with the Egyptian Government through diplomatic channels.

QUESTION: Can I try one more about the Middle East? In Lebanon, there's been a lot of ink spilled in newspapers about how the United States was behind what's called the force resignation of Prime Minister Hariri and the change of government to Prime Minister Hoss. Has the United States taken any view on these changes within the Lebanese Government?

MR. FOLEY: None whatsoever. To quote secretary Albright, who's used the un-diplomatic term "hogwash" in other contexts -- let me repeat it in this context. We categorically reject any suggestion that the United States played a role in the recent governmental changes in Lebanon. Such reports are false and without basis. Political decision, such as the choice of a new prime minister, are an internal issues for the Lebanese people to decide themselves. The United States is committed to working with the institutions of Lebanon as institutions and with those who are heading them.

Cyprus?

QUESTION: Yes, Ambassador Miller and next week, I believe, Mr. Holbrooke is going to go to Cyprus. What's the purpose of this visit other than to - do they have any connection with the Russian S-300 missile subject?

MR. FOLEY: Special Cyprus Coordinator Tom Miller will visit Cyprus on December 10 and 11 as part of a general trip to the region. While in Cyprus, Ambassador Miller will consult with US Ambassador Brill and with the Deputy Special Representative, the UN Secretary General Dame Ann Hercus. Mr. Miller's consultations with Dame Ann underscore the strong US support for the Hercus shuttle talks and the United States' continuing close coordination with the United Nations in its efforts to achieve a reduction of tensions on Cyprus and progress towards a lasting settlement.

Following his discussions in Cyprus, Ambassador Miller will join Special Presidential Emissary Richard Holbrooke in Istanbul on December 12 and 13, where they will participate in the meeting of the Bi-Communal Brussels Business Group. The two of them will then travel to Athens December 14 to meet with senior Greek officials. Ambassador Holbrooke will return to the US December 15; Ambassador Miller will return on December 16.

QUESTION: Another subject - yesterday NATO, the ministerial meeting in the final communique, they promised to fight the terrorism. Do you think they have any understanding about this terrorist, Ocalan's, case in the NATO meeting?

MR. FOLEY: I hesitate to comment on the NATO ministerial. I wasn't there; Spokesman Rubin was with the Secretary, and they're now in France. I haven't spoken to them directly. I've seen the press reports on the reporting. But one of the press reports was a text of Secretary Albright's press statement and question and answer session with journalists, following the NAC meetings yesterday.

She was asked the question of terrorism. As I recall from the transcript, she indicated that this is a constant theme; it's something that the Alliance has agreed to discuss and work on, but that it didn't come up in the context of discussions yesterday.

QUESTION: Tuesday, Russia carried out a reliability test of a nuclear weapon. They're calling it a mock nuclear explosion because they're saying it didn't release radioactive substances. Do you have anything on this; and do you have anything further if there's been any movement with START talks?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have any information for you and certainly any comment on the reported test. I just have nothing for you on that.

In terms of the status of START II ratification, the draft bill of ratification is currently being reviewed by the heads of the various Duma factions. They are scheduled to report back to the Duma council next week.

The government and Duma leadership hope to have a vote on ratification before the end of the year.

QUESTION: On that point - if you could just clarify a comment - the Secretary said today that she's going to be going to - that she'd like to go to Moscow in January, and she'd like to begin negotiations on START III. It was a little unclear whether she would go to Russia if START II had not been ratified. Can you clarify that at all?

MR. FOLEY: I've not seen the text of what she said. I just couldn't comment on it. I'm aware she said something about a possible trip to Moscow. I can't tell you whether it's something that is scheduled or not.

I mean, certainly the US looks forward to the ratification of START II so that we can begin negotiations on START III.

QUESTION: Did you see the report of some American soldiers who were briefly detained in Bosnia by Serb forces in the last few days?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I've seen that report. The United States considers force protection and the security of its soldiers as the highest priority mission in Bosnia. The US SFOR officer and his assistant were conducting a meeting with senior Republika Srpska military officials in accordance with their normal duties at the time of the arrest of General Krstic on December 2. When their meeting concluded, the American military personnel were only delayed in their departure for a short period and not detained, as was reported. The delay was because the Bosnian-Serb general in charge wanted to ensure that the safety and security of the US soldiers was adequate.

The Bosnian-Serb general in charge acted properly, and his actions were reasonable under the circumstances. The American soldiers were not threatened by the RS military and were not treated improperly.

US SFOR officials in Bosnia have followed up in Bosnia on this situation with the appropriate Republika Srpska civilian and military authorities to ensure that no threatening activities or untoward actions are taken against any US or other SFOR personnel as a result of General Krstic arrest.

The US would like to reiterate that SFOR's actions to apprehend persons indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia are meant for those persons only, and are not directed against any ethnic community or government in Bosnia or in the region. They are directed only at bringing indicted war criminals to justice. All Dayton signatories have an obligation to cooperate with the ICTY in this essential effort.

Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 2:20 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, 10 December 1998 - 1:04:39 UTC