Browse through our Interesting Nodes on Religion in Greece 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 #110, 99-08-24

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>


699

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X Briefers: JAMES B. FOLEY

NORWAY
1	Reported Refusal of Norway to extradite Drug Smuggler to US

FIJI 1 Reported Threat to American Installations

SERBIA (Kosovo) 2-3 Meeting Between Russian Officers and Local Albania Leaders Re Russian troops 11-13 Richard Holbrooke's Travel to Balkans/Assumes Duties as UN Ambassador Tomorrow

BOSNIA 3-4,6 Corruption Issue / Financial Losses

DEPARTMENT 4-6 US Foreign Assistance/ Goals and Objectives

IRAQ 7-8 Enforcement of the No-Fly Zone 8 Humanitarian Situation in Iraq / Sanctions 8-9 US Contacts with Iraqi Opposition

MEXICO 9-10 Expansion of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)

LIBYA 9,10 Non-Government Organization US-Libya Dialogue Group Meeting

INDONESIA 10-11 US Public Announcement on Situation in Indonesia

CHINA 14-17 Status of American Citizen Daja Meston's Detention and Hospitalization

KYRGYZSTAN 17 US Public Announcement Issued Yesterday

PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY 18-19 Report Regarding Chairman Arafat's Health

SOUTH KOREA/CHINA 19 Defense Ministers Meeting

NORTH KOREA 20 KEDO's Light Water Reactors

ISRAEL 20 Status of Samuel Sheinbein Case

TURKEY 21-22 Update on Earthquake Relief Efforts


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #110

TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1999 1:15 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: It's another slow news day, so I expect another lengthy, grueling briefing. I'm not going to add to it; I have no announcements.

QUESTION: We've got no questions so --

MR. FOLEY: Okay, enjoy your lunch.

QUESTION: I've got one. Do you have anything to say about Norway refusing to extradite this alleged drug dealer?

MR. FOLEY: I just saw the wire, coming in, that reported that. So I'm going to have to take the question. I imagine it's something that the Justice Department might comment on.

QUESTION: I did have a question, but I thought it had been taken care of.

MR. FOLEY: I'm not surprised.

QUESTION: Well, I thought privately - pretty much - cleared of the notion that there's been some trouble in Fiji, some threat to American installations. Can we put that to rest if it's not true?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, the report is not true about a threat to American installations. There were recent bombings in Suva over the past ten days, but we have no indication that the bombings are related to the United States or to our embassy in Suva.

At this time, the reasons for the bombings are unclear. Fiji authorities are investigating. As far as embassy security is concerned, in case you're interested, as we said back in January, security at the embassy has been enhanced as part of our worldwide response to the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania last year. The street in front of Embassy Suva was closed then by the Fiji authorities and it remains closed. So we have, in effect, the setback that you are very familiar with as a priority around the world. And we've taken a number of measures at embassies around the world to enhance security.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: I have a question about Kosovo. Have you been following the tensions between the Kosovars and the Russian peacekeepers? And has the United States tried to intercede at all through its back channel with the KLA?

MR. FOLEY: I don't know what you're referring to when you say "back channel."

QUESTION: The dialogue.

MR. FOLEY: We communicate with the KLA, certainly.

QUESTION: The dialogue between Mr. Rubin and Mr. Thaci?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I wouldn't characterize it in the way that you do. Mr. Rubin is on vacation at the moment, in any event.

Russian officers met with local Albanian leaders in the town of Orahovac today in an effort to resolve the situation and enable Russian troops to deploy. An advance team of Russian KFOR troops scheduled to take over patrolling from Dutch troops in Orahovac turned back yesterday after ethnic Albanians set up barricades of tractors, cars and buses to prevent them from entering the city. The barricades remain in place today.

As you know, that meeting today between Russian officers and the local Albanian officials did not resolve the situation.

Yesterday, Serb residents of Orahovac continued to hand over weapons to KFOR troops, turning in more than 500 small arms.

In terms of our view - the view of the United States - about how this situation should be resolved, we fully expect to see this situation resolved in a manner that results in the Russian troops taking over their area of operations in Orahovac.

In terms of our communicating with the KLA, we do that on a daily basis. I have no information to impart to you, but I am certain that we are communicating that view to them. The fact is that we believe that Russian troops will act even-handedly; they will fulfill their mandate in Orahovac, just as they have done elsewhere in Kosovo.

I would point out that only a few weeks ago, ethnic Albanian residents of Kosovska Kamenica were demonstrating similarly against the arrival of Russian troops in that area. Those protests have died out as the Russians have demonstrated that they are as committed as all other KFOR troops are to fulfilling the KFOR mandate and providing security for all the people of Kosovo, regardless of their ethnicity or religion.

Finally, I would point out that Russian forces in IFOR and SFOR in Bosnia were met with similar skepticism on the part of some of the local populations there. We believe very strongly that the Russians have comported themselves very professionally and even-handedly throughout the time of their deployment in Bosnia. We see no reason to expect otherwise in Kosovo.

So our expectation is, while this stand-off continues, that it will be resolved, as was the situation in Kosovska Kamenica.

QUESTION: After ten years of sanctions against Iraq and 110 strikes this year alone --

QUESTION: Last week, the new UN High Representative, in an interview with French newspaper Le Monde, said that he thought the only long-term solution would be to put all the Serbs together in a protected enclave and that the inter-communal situation can never work. Do United States officials see that; do they agree that the inter-communal pattern of living between Serbs and Kosovars will not work?

MR. FOLEY: I've not seen the interview. It was with Mr. Kouchner, you're saying? As you know, there were proposals made, I believe in the meeting of the transitional council this week, by the Serbs in Kosovo that their population be moved into cantons in order to provide them with better protection. I believe Mr. Kouchner has even today spoken out against that proposal, spoken out against partition or de facto partition in Kosovo.

So I'm not familiar with the Le Monde interview, but I am familiar with his statements today and I believe yesterday as well.

As far as the United States is concerned, we've made it clear that we do not support partition in any form; and we, therefore, believe that cantonization based on ethnicity is a bad idea. It's in conflict with all that we're striving to achieve in terms of the unity and territorial integrity of a multi-ethnic Kosovo. So that is the view of the United States. As far as Mr. Kouchner's view, I'd have to refer you to him; but again, his comments today echo the ones I just made.

QUESTION: On Bosnia, has the money - that $500,00-odd that was supposed to be returned or repaid - has that happened?

MR. FOLEY: Well, again, the amount of US money in this bank - the BH Bank, I believe it's called - was only $1.1 million. As you know, there was press reporting that originally talked about the possibility of up to $1 billion in foreign aid having been lost or stolen in Bosnia. We researched the issue and published and strongly underlined our findings, which did not in any way support anything like those figures. Indeed, the amount of foreign aid - especially US aid - that we were able to identify that was subject to litigation, as I said, was $1.1 million; not $1 billion, not $20 million, not $4 million, but $1.1 million.

Of that, about $600,000 is in a State Department account for the embassy for local expenses and salaries and what-not that happens to be at risk because this bank is in difficulty. There's another account of $520,000 over which a court has decided that we should be repaid that amount. That is coming to a decision this week. I don't have the final disposition of the case, but it's before the courts. I think the bank has to transfer the money to us. If it doesn't transfer the money, then it will be subject to further litigation; namely, its assets will be at risk.

But as we've stated from the beginning, we will get that $1.1 million back. But I have no update in terms of whether the bank has repaid the $520,000 yet. But believe me, I asked about it today and it's something I'll follow up on every day this week.

QUESTION: Jim, do you have any comment on The New York Times editorial today saying that foreign aid is a good thing?

(Laughter.)

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not surprised. I think that The New York Times has been a consistent supporter of a strong American foreign policy. The New York Times editorial refers to the President's speech before the VFW a week ago, in which the President described foreign aid as our first line of defense, as that which we commit to spend overseas in order to prevent us from having to spend vastly larger sums in situations where diplomacy has not succeeded and we have to intervene in situations of conflict or disaster.

So I'm not surprised that The New York Times has underlined the fact of the really woeful inadequacy of the State Department budget and foreign assistance budget that has been reported out thus far by the Senate and the House. I think the editorial gives you some of the big ticket items that are vastly under-funded in the appropriations bills coming out of the House and Senate. I can go briefly through some of those items if you're interested, but I think the editorial references the Wye River agreement and it also references the severe under-funding of our contributions to international peacekeeping. But there are a whole range of accounts in the foreign assistance area, which we call a national security budget, which are severely under-funded.

As I think the editorial indicated, it's about to the tune of $2 billion. This involves severe cuts in our Middle East programs and debt restructuring; voluntary peacekeeping operations; the multilateral development banks; international narcotics and crime; the threat reduction initiative, which is so critical to achieving our non-proliferation objectives in Russia and the former Soviet Union; non-proliferation; anti-terrorism; de-mining and related programs; economic support fund; not to mention the State Department budget itself - our operating expenses. These cuts will damage our ability to secure our posts abroad, under-funds our vital infrastructure, communications in the State Department.

So there's a whole range of areas which I think, if examined carefully by the Congress, would be understood as important to the national security. So we very much hope that the Congress will listen to the President's message of last week and when they come back that they will rethink their approach to our budget and to our national security needs overseas.

QUESTION: There's been no change in the Wye River money, has there? Because Congress is not in session.

MR. FOLEY: Well, in the appropriations bill --

QUESTION: No, the conference.

MR. FOLEY: Yes, but under the separate bills, the House would cut 80 percent of what we asked for.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- $1.2 of the $1.6?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, $1.2, I believe. The Senate cuts 100 percent. So we're just out of business in the Middle East under the current circumstances.

QUESTION: There's no way the conference is - well --

MR. FOLEY: We hope that in conference they will revise upwards significantly and meet the President's request.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the editorial mean the hatchet is now buried?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think it's important to stress that although in this business, the relationship between government and government spokesmen and the press is inherently one of - how shall I put it - help me --

QUESTION: Adversarial.

MR. FOLEY: Adversarial, thank you; I was looking for a nice word.

QUESTION: Collaborative?

MR. FOLEY: It's not normally collaborative; although we're all --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. FOLEY: Symbiotic, yes. That's your word, Sid.

(Laughter.)

Especially in - and sometimes we get angry at each other because you print things we don't like; we say things you don't agree with. That's the nature of our relationship and of the business. So these things happen every day; you have your frustrations, we have ours. That's just the price of doing business.

But this was a different order of problem, because the effects of an incorrect story or an incorrect implication in the story - that, namely, up to $1 billion, and one network reported more than $1 billion in foreign assistance, was stolen or lost - is so pernicious, so damaging to the case that the President made a week and a half ago that the Congress is under- funding our national security needs in the area of foreign affairs, that we had to speak out. We had to urge that the record be rectified. I salute The New York Times for making clear on Friday that they weren't talking about $1 billion in foreign assistance. They whittled it down to about $20 million, which, of course, as I've made clear, we dispute because we only have $1.1 million in a failed bank. But it was a helpful rectification. So I salute them for it.

However, it remains the case that the original story in that paper was reproduced all over this country; reproduced on two or three of our major television networks; reproduced in major newspapers around the country. The fact is, as Mr. Rubin indicated last week, we are hearing from Congress, we're hearing from citizens. The story is believed across the country that we lost $1 billion in our foreign aid overseas. The story is not in any way true, in any way, shape or form; we've made that clear. The New York Times has recognized that the way the story was written could have led to that conclusion. I would, therefore, urge, as a public service those news organizations that reported incorrectly the original story to correct the record today. It's very detrimental to the interests of the American people that that incorrect information remain unchallenged out there.

QUESTION: The same subject. President Izetbegovic has said he's going to sue The New York Times for libel as a result of that story. I wonder whether, in your investigations of that story, you were able to clear - looked into whether he was involved in this alleged graft, whether you saw he might have been involved; whether you think he might ought to step down?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that we have any information in that respect. What we did last week - and, of course, the story appeared on Tuesday - so we spent Tuesday afternoon and all day Wednesday, I think, putting together the facts of the case; and we're still working on it. But we were focusing on what we knew about US assistance and, to some degree, about international assistance. But certainly, we wanted to be very thorough to make sure that our assistance moneys had not been stolen or lost.

Let me say, in echoing what The New York Times said on Friday, the premise that corruption is a big problem in Bosnia is one that we fully share. I think Jacques Klein himself has spoken to this problem, stating that it really does cast a shadow over the ability of Bosnia to transition to self- sustaining growth and to stability in the longer term. It's a very, very serious problem. So we wanted to make - we always make certain, especially in a country that does suffer the problem of corruption, that we do know where our aid or assistance money goes. It's precisely in those circumstances where the monitoring is most intense so we can make sure that our assistance - much of which goes to the private sector that we're trying to encourage; a private sector which itself is most penalized by instances of official corruption - that we see the assistance we give goes to a private enterprise, is used for the purposes intended. We're able to monitor that very, very carefully.

QUESTION: Two subjects, also for a slow news day. Iraq. Jim, have the French recently renewed their concerns to the US Government over the continued US-led bombing raids over Iraq?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that we've been in diplomatic contact with France on this particular matter involving the no-fly zone and no-fly zone enforcement. I think that on the part of Paris, there has historically been a concern that the no-fly zone enforcement, or the whole entire issue of Iraq, be treated in such a way as to preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq.

Let me say for the record that we completely agree with our French allies that that is a very important principle that we thoroughly support the continued territorial integrity of Iraq. So on that question, I think there's no daylight between us.

In terms of our enforcement of the no-fly zone, however, we believe that our enforcement is something that flows out of Security Council resolutions from the time of the Gulf War; that it's intended to protect the people of Northern and Southern Iraq from depredations by Saddam Hussein; and that the actual use of force that has occurred with some regularity since December in enforcing the no-fly zone is wholly the responsibility of Saddam Hussein, who is clearly attempting to shoot down an allied aircraft and, therefore, is challenging the aircraft, endangering pilots, illuminating aircraft, and our pilots are responding in self-defense.

QUESTION: Just on that note, if I could just follow up, in terms of - this is not new, either, obviously. Some people who are sort of with the Iraqis stepping up their attempts to hit an allied aircraft in the no-fly zone, it seems to be happening more and more lately. More and more people are coming forward - critics, analysts and the op-ed pages - sort of questioning the whole sort of US approach to Iraq; saying it's at a stalemate, it's not working, inspectors haven't been in there since December. There are reports that the sanctions are causing some damage in some areas of the country. What do you say to those critics, who really say that this policy is not working and it's time for a full review of the approach to Iraq?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I certainly don't agree with the basic premise that the policy is not working, and I've said this before. If you asked Saddam Hussein does he think American policy is one that he likes or doesn't, I'm sure he doesn't like it one bit because he's still very much contained, unable to threaten his neighbors, constrained in his ability to threaten his own people - at least in the north and south of Iraq - still subject to sanctions and, therefore, very much a contained threat in the region.

We would share the concern of critics over the fact that we have not had weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq since the end of last year; that is a significant concern. Therefore, we are pushing strongly in the Security Council for a resolution which protects the integrity of the inspection regime, which continues to ensure that Saddam Hussein's imports are monitored, scrutinized and approved carefully by the international community so that he's unable to import elements that can bolster his weapons programs.

But we very much want to see progress in this area because we believe that the best way of ensuring that the international community has a handle on his programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and is, indeed, in a position to disarm those weapons and programs is to have inspectors on the ground in Iraq. We are striving to achieve that in the Security Council, but we're not willing to sacrifice the integrity of the program. We're not willing to see "Potemkin" inspectors or inspection regime. We don't trust Saddam Hussein and, therefore, we are moving forward with those concerns very much in mind.

QUESTION: Will the sanctions have caused the doubling of the infant mortality since ten years ago? And people even in Great Britain, like George Galloway, are intending to send a tour bus to protest against the sanctions. Now the sanctions the United States has installed another regime in Iraq, but so far we didn't see any results. Is there any other way to deal with the regime of Saddam Hussein; and are there any efforts to escalate these strikes since we have seen 110 strikes this year alone?

MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, in terms of your question about the humanitarian situation, we have a very clear view of this, which is that the problem of malnutrition and the humanitarian crisis in Iraq is the responsibility of Saddam Hussein. We enabled the oil-for-food program to go forward. It took a long time to persuade Saddam Hussein to allow that to go forward. The problem is that if the United Nations is authorized to feed and care for the people of Iraq, then he loses his best argument, his best propaganda tool for arguing in favor of lifting the sanctions.

In this regard, if you're looking for something that can improve the situation, I think that Saddam Hussein ought to heed the report issued by Secretary General Annan last week, in which he called for Iraq to do more to help mothers and children under the oil-for-food program. For over a year, the UN has urged Iraq to use oil-for-food revenues to purchase special nutritional supplements targeted at vulnerable groups. But despite its promises, Iraq ordered only one of these items in the last 15 months.

In light of the recent UNICEF report on the child mortality rates in the regions controlled by Saddam Hussein, Iraq should, indeed, redouble its efforts to provide nutrition and humanitarian assistance to the innocent victims of his regime.

But again, the UNICEF report underscores the success and efficiency of the oil-for-food program in the northern regions of Iraq, where the child mortality rates have fallen to below pre-Gulf War levels. In the south and central regions, where Saddam Hussein controls the territory, medicine and humanitarian assistance sits in warehouses while child mortality rates have doubled.

QUESTION: The INC was supposed to have its general assembly to get a new umbrella organization launched by mid-July. It hasn't happened. Can you tell us what's going on there; and are you trying to persuade them to speed this process up? Because it doesn't look too good.

MR. FOLEY: Well, here, because, to be perfectly honest with you, I'm just back after having been absent for quite a number of weeks. I am not up to speed on our contacts with the Iraqi opposition and the efforts to get that assembly underway. So I'd like to take the question and come back to you if not this afternoon then tomorrow on it.

QUESTION: Do you have anything about the Syrian transfer or the purchase of the Chinese missile technology?

MR. FOLEY: I've not heard that story. Maybe after the --

QUESTION: It's a Washington Times story.

MR. FOLEY: I've not seen it. Maybe we can talk afterwards and we can look into it and get back to you.

QUESTION: I hesitate to bring this up --

MR. FOLEY: Then don't bring it up.

QUESTION: -- after it's been denied. But I have to because - on the beautiful island of Malta, there are apparently US and Libyan academics meeting to discuss normalization of ties. I'm just wondering if the State Department (a) knows anything about this; or (b) has any comment on it.

MR. FOLEY: I think we do know something about it and what we can say about it will be brought up to me in the minutes to come. So I'll come back to you.

QUESTION: The government of Mexico, through the embassy here in Washington, is calling attention of the Clinton Administration about the bill that was a month ago approved by the Senate trying to expand the sanctions against foreign companies with relations with narco-trafficker organizations abroad. What is the opinion of the State Department about the bill?

MR. FOLEY: The International Emergency Economic Powers Act - the IEEPA - allows the President to direct economic sanctions against those individuals and entities whose activities present an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such a threat. President Clinton has used IEEPA as an effective tool against the front companies of drug traffickers and terrorists. He announced its use against key drug kingpins in a speech to the UN General Assembly in October 1995.

The use or exercise of IEEPA authority has proven to be a powerful weapon against the business interests of these international outlaws. The Administration is committed to using this when appropriate against their front companies. But we are committed to ensuring that the use of the IEEPA sanctions does not produce negative consequences against unintended targets in Mexico or elsewhere.

QUESTION: Do you think the government of Mexico is trying to defend some companies that probably are involved in narco-trafficking - that's why they are opposed to this bill?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we are determined to confront the challenge of narco- trafficking and we believe we have a partner in the Mexican Government that shares that commitment. So we are using tools at our disposal bilaterally to deal with that problem. As I implied, we don't have any reason to believe that the premise of your question is true. I think the Mexican authorities are afraid of unintended negative consequences. And as I indicated, we're committed to ensuring that use of IEEPA doesn't produce such consequences.

QUESTION: Do you think this bill could affect very hard the Mexican economy that could have some reactions to the American economy?

MR. FOLEY: No, I wouldn't draw such sweeping conclusions. I've simply stated, though, that from our point of view, we're going to ensure that the use of this tool does not produce negative consequences for Mexico or elsewhere.

QUESTION: Are you trying to say that the legislation is redundant; that the President already has exactly the same powers which he can use at his discretion; is that what you're trying to say?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't want to prejudge the President's decision on the bill. I haven't talked to the White House today on it. So I'd really not want to comment on our particular view or intentions vis-a-vis the bill. I can take the question, if you'd like.

The group you referred to is apparently called the US-Libya Dialogue Group. It's a non-governmental organization composed of Libyan and US nationals, apparently from academia and business. I guess they had a meeting already in The Netherlands in April. Therefore, we are aware of the organization and of the meeting that you referred to.

We do not in any way intend to participate in the meeting, and our policy on Libya is clear. This is separate from the US Government; it's not something that we're involved with.

QUESTION: So you're not encouraging it at all?

MR. FOLEY: No, we're not.

QUESTION: Last week the US State Department issued a public announcement on security in Indonesia. It looks like Indonesia is a dangerous place and the Indonesian Embassy wants the US Government to withdrawal that assessment. Indonesia is not only Aceh -- (inaudible) - or East Timor; we have 13,000 islands. So what's your comment about this?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have the text of the public announcement before me, and I'm not aware of any Indonesian Government complaints about the announcement. So I'd have to get the text and respond to you perhaps tomorrow on the issue.

What I can say is that our drafting of these travel warnings or public announcements are based strictly on objective criteria. The State Department's first responsibility is to American citizens, especially to American citizens traveling overseas, to bring to their attention our best information about security conditions - be it crime or terrorism or violence or lawlessness in any given situation anywhere around the country. Often when we produce this sort of documentation, we are subjected to criticism by local governments for obvious reasons. But we have to stand by our honest assessment because that's our obligation to American citizens.

So I can assure you that these are not drafted with any political intent involved. We work very closely with local governments and certainly with the government of Indonesia to ensure that our citizens who wish to travel overseas have the best information available to them.

QUESTION: There is no American tourists or foreigners that have been killed in Indonesia.

MR. FOLEY: Well, as I said, I don't have the statement before me and I'd be glad to describe it in more detail for you tomorrow. But as a matter of principle, I stand behind it because they're very carefully drafted with the interests of American travelers in mind.

QUESTION: Mr. Holbrooke heads to Kosovo Friday after his swearing-in. I wonder if you could tell us anything more specific about his objectives on this first official mission; and more generally, what his top goals will be in the next couple of months.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think that he spoke about his goals when he was up for his Senate hearings last week. I'm not going to attempt to speak for him about his priorities in New York. The priority we have is that he start his work there. So I'm happy to report that Ambassador Holbrooke will commence his duties as our new ambassador to the United Nations beginning tomorrow in New York.

He is, you're correct, planning, at Secretary Albright's request, to travel to the Balkans later this week. He will, of course, be traveling in his capacity as our new ambassador to the UN and he's going to be visiting Pristina, Tirana, Skopje and Sarajevo. He will meet with UN and NATO officials and local representatives in Kosovo, and he will be looking into the issues of refugee resettlement, reconstruction and war crimes. In Tirana and Skopje, he'll meet with UN and other officials to thank them for their efforts during the conflict and to discuss matters pertaining to refugee relief. In Sarajevo, he will meet with local officials to discuss issues of reconstruction and implementation of the Dayton accords.

When he was before the Senate, though, in his confirmation hearings, I think he made clear his view -- that certainly we share here in the Department - that Kosovo and peace implementation in Kosovo and throughout the Balkans, and Bosnia as well, is a major test case for the United Nations.

So at the very moment he's taking on his duties in New York, the Secretary thought it would be very worthwhile for him to go to the region, update himself on the current conditions and circumstances surrounding peace implementation so that he's in the best position when he returns to New York to be the forceful advocate we expect him to be for effective, competent, professional implementation of UN Security Council mandates.

QUESTION: Where is he being sworn in?

MR. FOLEY: There's going to be some sort of formality at the US Mission to the UN in New York tomorrow. This formality does not preclude a more thorough-going swearing-in ceremony that will be arranged, I'm told, I think, in September in Washington.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on the Holbrooke-Balkans thing? Does this say something about the way he's going to go about his job? I mean, no two people do a job the same way. But given his interests - I don't know if he has any lingering interest in Cyprus, which he once resolved to resolve - will he be sort of a traveling UN ambassador, making frequent trips to those kind of stressed areas; and would that help him? Is that something that he intends to do, do you know; and is it something that Secretary Albright thinks is a good idea - to have an ambassador at the United Nations making the kind of trips the Secretary of State would make?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think you rightly put it, Barry, that there are different models. We've had ambassadors to the UN who have simply done their job at the UN. We've had ambassadors - including then-Ambassador Albright, Ambassador Richardson - who have traveled the world and played useful diplomatic roles for the United States on occasion.

I don't think it's for me to describe what Ambassador Holbrooke's future role is going to be. It will emerge from his conversations with Secretary Albright. But she, as you know, was frustrated over the fact that it took so long for him to be confirmed, felt that we really needed him in New York all these many months that it took for him to be confirmed. She regards him as a major diplomatic asset of the United States and of herself personally. I have no doubt that she will not hesitate to deploy, as it were, Ambassador Holbrooke in appropriate circumstances as our diplomatic needs require.

I think that certainly this trip is a sign that for Ambassador Holbrooke to do his job well in New York - and we're talking about his job in New York, Barry, not something else - but that to familiarize himself, to be in a position to speak with real time, on-the-ground knowledge of a given situation, a trip like this is going to be very, very useful.

QUESTION: You refer to the fact that there's a special UN interest in the Balkans, but I just --

MR. FOLEY: It's not possible for me to --

QUESTION: You can't read that far into the future.

MR. FOLEY: -- speculate into the future, but I wouldn't rule out that he'll be called upon by the Secretary or the President to continue to play a diplomatic role, as he has done for many years now.

QUESTION: You mentioned war crimes. What is he going to be doing relating to war crimes?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have a specific itinerary with him, but war crimes is a UN issue, though. I mean, the Security Council established the tribunal in The Hague for the former Yugoslavia. So when you look at the whole challenge of the Balkans - in particular Kosovo and Bosnia - transitioning to a post-war reconciliation to sustainable growth to democratization, the importance of justice cannot be underestimated.

If the wounds of war and of civil war are to be healed, in our view - and I think in the view of the Security Council, which established the Tribunal - it's necessary that its work be pursued and that justice be achieved.

So I can't give you the particulars of his itinerary; I don't have that. But he's certainly going to be touching base with the people on the ground who are working on the war crimes issue.

QUESTION: Are you saying that he will be sworn in tomorrow?

QUESTION: I know you don't have a schedule, but what is the Department's view of whether he should meet with those who have been indicted for war crimes or those among the 300 who are on the EU visa ban list?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure I understand your question. Certainly, he's not going to be meeting with any indicted war criminals.

QUESTION: He's not?

MR. FOLEY: No, of course not.

QUESTION: And what about those on the EU visa ban list?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have the EU visa ban and I don't have his list of appointments. But that's not to imply in any way that he's meeting with those people; I just couldn't answer the question.

QUESTION: He'll be sworn in tomorrow here and then --

MR. FOLEY: He's going to be pursuing meetings that will enable him to do his job better in New York.

QUESTION: He will be sworn in as ambassador here tomorrow?

MR. FOLEY: No, there will be some sort of a formality -- swearing-in, if you will - at the US Mission to the UN that permits him to start his job. And then we will have a formal, appropriate swearing-in ceremony in Washington, I believe sometime in September.

QUESTION: Do you have anything more today on the American who was injured while being captured in China?

MR. FOLEY: I have a little more, not a lot more today. I think it's significant, nevertheless, because the Chinese authorities have informed us of two things which are important. First, the provincial authorities in Xining have agreed that Mr. Meston can be transferred to another hospital where he will be able to get the specialized treatment he requires.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. FOLEY: Let me give you the second point before I answer that. Secondly, we have received assurances from the Chinese authorities that the case will be handled as quickly as possible - the case that they are investigating concerning Mr. Meston - in accordance with Chinese law.

So I think that's encouraging in the sense that Mr. Meston will be permitted to go where he needs the kind of specialized treatment I discussed yesterday. At the same time, the Chinese have told us they're going to expedite their investigation. That, at the end of the day, should permit him to be moved to a specialized hospital. I'm not in a position to say where that will be. But if the case against him is finished, then I think the implication is clear: that that could be outside of China.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - I'm not sure I understand because as of yesterday, the case had been suspended and that sort of created the inference that maybe it would just quietly go away. Now they're starting up the case again and you are encouraged by it.

MR. FOLEY: No, no, that was not the inference; and it was my mistake if you drew that inference.

QUESTION: No, no, I'm sure it's our mistake.

MR. FOLEY: I would have read suspension differently: suspension meaning there's a pause while he's hospitalized and then they're going to start up all over again. Whereas the news I'm giving you today is that they have indicated to us that they're going to expedite the disposition of that case. Taken together with their commitment that he will be able to be moved to a specialized facility - let's remember, our first concern is about his health right now and welfare. We want him to be given quickly the specialized treatment he needs. And if they're able to also expedite the resolution of the case, we expect that this issue involving Mr. Meston will be brought to a conclusion, hopefully rapidly.

QUESTION: Jim, if he has been asked by the doctor or the consular official about the circumstances of his arrest?

MR. FOLEY: Well, my information on that aspect is not different from what I said yesterday; namely that the conversations of our consular officer and the doctors with him have focused on his medical condition, on his needs, on his wife, who is going to be visiting him shortly. As I said yesterday, our understanding and the doctor's understanding of his injuries are not inconsistent with what the Chinese told us happened to him. To be a little more specific, his injuries are, I'm told, what parachutists who have an accident often experience when they land on their feet. His heels were - I don't know if they were fractured, but they were hurt and his spine, of course, and some internal injuries. So it's our assessment at this stage that he did appear to have landed on his feet. We don't have reason to doubt the version we've been told, which is that he jumped.

But your question is a legitimate one about the circumstances. We don't have information that he was mistreated; he's not told us that. I would underline that. But we believe that we're focusing on first things first - his current condition, his medical condition. Those circumstances that you legitimately ask about will be further pursued and you will be informed if the results are newsworthy or different from what I've indicated.

QUESTION: Do you have any indication as to exactly what he will be charged with?

MR. FOLEY: I don't know if he'll be charged with anything; I'm not saying he won't, either. I don't think we know that at this stage. But as I understand it - and I indicated yesterday - that because the Chinese authorities had indicated their willingness at the time of the World Bank approval of this project that they were open to international visitors to looking at the region and the site. So on that basis, we believe his application for a visa, his going to China, was legitimate.

However, I also said yesterday the Chinese have a right to decide who enters their country. They have a right to enforce their laws in their country. Apparently, there is some focus on the Chinese side not only on Mr. Meston but also on Mr. Lafitte, the Australian, as to whether they visited areas that were marked as inaccessible and took photographs in areas that were marked in English as not being subject to photographing. So the Chinese apparently have some issues with them. But I don't believe that charges were filed against the Australian; he was merely expelled from the country. We have very strongly urged from the beginning of this case that Mr. Meston be released.

QUESTION: Can I follow that? Does it not seem that the man, injured as he is, should the United States not be asking that he be Medivac'd back to the West, where he can receive the best care?

MR. FOLEY: We are very much pursuing that issue of his being Medivac'd. We want to see him out of the country, and we've made that clear.

QUESTION: On this evacuation, can you say whether there is any consideration being given to moving him to another hospital within China as a sort of temporary measure?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that. At least in China proper.

QUESTION: And you said yesterday that there was kind of a window of opportunity before his injuries might cause permanent damage. Are you getting any indication from the Chinese that they're going to be able to expedite this in time to meet his medical needs?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not aware that there is such a facility on the Chinese mainland, but perhaps the Chinese authorities can answer that better.

In terms of the window of need or opportunity involving his condition is concerned, to repeat - Charlie, you haven't been here for Jamie's disclaimers, which I echoed yesterday as to that which we are not - but doctors, one of those. So I can't answer that in terms of what that window is. But I do know that we regard this urgently. He has serious spinal injuries; he needs specialized spinal treatment. We believe that and we expect - based on the information that I've just imparted to you - that the Chinese authorities, recognizing this problem, will facilitate his transfer to such facilities.

QUESTION: You mentioned a moment ago he has not stated that he was mistreated, But is he in a physical and geographical situation where he could actually make that kind of statement?

MR. FOLEY: I don't think that this is something that he's gotten into in detail with our consular and medical people who have visited with him. I can't explain the entire situation involving their exchanges, but the fact is he's come out of surgery; he's not in good shape; he's in serious condition. Those circumstances are not such that now is the moment, really, to pursue that issue. We will have time to pursue that issue later.

QUESTION: I think I'm getting your hint but I'm not sure. Which comes first -- the wrapping up of the case or transferring him possibly to Hong Kong for treatment?

MR. FOLEY: I can't answer that today. The fact is today we've been informed separately by the Chinese authorities about both factors - that they're willing to see him transferred, they recognize his need for specialized treatment and they're also willing to expedite their case. So I can't parse that for you further. Maybe tomorrow I'll be in a better position to do so.

QUESTION: Okay, so, they're saying he can be transferred somewhere else for treatment.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: You're saying that you're not aware that there's a facility on the mainland that's appropriate.

MR. FOLEY: Right, right.

QUESTION: Okay, and they agree with that?

MR. FOLEY: I can't answer that. I don't want to say more than I've said.

QUESTION: Okay, could there be one, say, in one of the satellite - the new Chinese territories, which is Hong Kong --

QUESTION: Taiwan.

(Laughter.)

MR. FOLEY: There might be.

QUESTION: Let the record reflect that was Reuters.

(Laughter.)

MR. FOLEY: I don't have a list of specialized facilities in China or the Asian theater; I'd have to take the question.

QUESTION: Okay. The bottom line is you're confident that China is going to accede to these requests?

MR. FOLEY: We're hopeful. Based on the information -- first of all, the cooperation we've had --

QUESTION: They're giving you reason to be hopeful.

MR. FOLEY: Yes, now we believe we have reason to be hopeful that this is going to be resolved.

QUESTION: Do you have any updated report on - (inaudible) - Uzbekistan armed forces are having a - (inaudible) - Japanese are involved as hostages.

MR. FOLEY: We issued a public announcement yesterday. That's all the information I have. According to Kyrgyz press reports yesterday, an armed group of Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan's Batken district kidnapped an unknown number of people on August 22. This second wave of kidnappings follows the kidnapping and release of four Kyrgyz citizens in mid-August in Batken. Senior Kyrgyz military and security officials continue to follow this situation. We've urged Americans to avoid travel to this area. I don't have further information on that at this time.

QUESTION: Have you heard any new reports about the health of Yasser Arafat; that he's experiencing some deterioration of health? And are you concerned that it's going to affect his effectiveness in upcoming talks?

MR. FOLEY: It's interesting because we got some calls on Friday to this effect, actually indicating or claiming that Chairman Arafat's health had declined. We looked into it and we found no basis. We spoke with the Palestine Authority and were told that there's been no change. He is, I believe, 70 years old and he may have some health difficulties, as many people do at that age, but we're not aware of any important development or anything that impairs his ability to continue to function in his job.

QUESTION: Can I follow up? In Syria you're dealing with a leader who is - -

MR. FOLEY: Barry, this is your third location so far in this briefing.

QUESTION: It's hot under those lights and I'm trying to survive. I don't know how you can do it, frankly. But this follows up the Arafat but couples Arafat with Assad as two older leaders who the State Department is counting on as key players -- at least for the foreseeable future - in your active diplomacy. I wondered if the State Department is - because everybody's mortal - convinced that there is a succession or an orderly transition possible should either of these leaders be incapacitated? Is the Palestinian Authority a democratically established institution that, for one thing, if Mr. Arafat is not up to the job, he would step aside; and if he is incapacitated, unfortunately, that someone else would step in and take over the job; or is it a one-man operation, which would have an impact on your planning, wouldn't it?

MR. FOLEY: The reason we like you to sit there is because the lights are so intense that the questions are shorter. It's a serious question and you'll get a very short answer from me, who is, indeed, under the lights.

I think it's obviously a hypothetical question and you know we don't like to answer hypothetical questions. We deal with the current leadership of the Palestinian Authority and of Syria. I have no comment to make on the Syrian case. I'm not aware of any deterioration in the health of either leader that you mention. In the Palestinian case, I will check the record on both, but I do believe the PLO - and perhaps the Palestinian Authority as such - have electoral mechanisms. We've seen elections in the West Bank and Gaza. They presumably, therefore, have mechanisms to ensure succession. But I don't have any information on either case that I can give you beyond that.

QUESTION: When we discuss Russia, for instance, and Mr. Yeltsin's troubles and also his somewhat eccentric changes of government every other week, it doesn't seem to bother the State Department. They say we have a policy and the policy supersedes individuals and personalities. We're dealing with policies. I'm asking if you have the same sort of relaxed or confident view of what might happen on the Israeli-Palestinian front should anything happen to Mr. Arafat.

MR. FOLEY: I believe that we are confident that in the Palestinian case, as I indicated, that there are democratic processes - nascent, admittedly - but which have existed. The PLO as a body has mechanisms by which the leadership is chosen. We believe that insofar as those bodies and mechanisms reflect both the prevailing opinions within the leadership - I'm speaking beyond Chairman Arafat - and, indeed, among the body politic of Palestinians, that there is general support for the basic policy of pursuing the peace process and pursuing negotiations with Israel through to a final settlement.

So we would expect continuity in that regard. I'm not commenting on the Syrian case.

QUESTION: What is your reaction, Mr. Foley, to yesterday's diplomatic offensive by the South Korean Government, sending diplomats to Japan and sending diplomats to China and also here to the United States to head off the launching of North Korean missile in the near future? Is this an effective campaign, do you think?

MR. FOLEY: My answer is that first of all, I'm becoming increasingly hungry. But beyond that, let me say that first of all, you're right to point out that the South Koreans have been involved in different forms of diplomatic activity. The meetings that took place between the foreign ministers of Japan and Korea, for example, were meetings that we were not participating in. So I'd have to refer you to those governments for details. But obviously, to the extent that such bilateral meetings address the goals of peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, we welcome any positive contribution that consultations make.

With regard to perhaps you alluded to meetings between the PRC and South Korean defense ministers, we're encouraged to see China and the Republic of Korea meeting to discuss issues of common concern in the region. China's engagement with its neighbors on key security issues like the DPRK's missile program is a welcome sign.

In terms of our approach, though, to the North Korean issue, you reference the issue of missile testing, upon which we've spoken at length previously. I think I would underscore two points in this respect. First of all, our position on this matter has been very closely and carefully coordinated - a lot of c's for you - with our South Korean and Japanese allies. So we've been in touch with each other on a trilateral basis as we move forward.

But you are emphasizing one aspect, and I think it's equally legitimate, though, to emphasize the positive dimension, though, of the approach that Japan and South Korea and the United States have taken towards the entire North Korean issue. The three of us are continuing to urge North Korea to choose a path that embraces peaceful and productive engagement with the international community. We remain prepared to improve political and economic relations in the near term in the context of the DPRK's implementation of the agreed framework and as the DPRK addresses other issues of concern to us, including on the missile issue, based on the ideas that were discussed during former Secretary Perry's visit to Pyongyang.

So I think that what the South Koreans are doing is in close consultation with the United States and also with our Japanese allies.

QUESTION: Jim, on that, what do you make of the latest round of --

QUESTION: Let me just ask - Lim Dong-won is coming to the United States to see Mr. Bill Perry. Is he going to be here at the State Department in his --

MR. FOLEY: Not to my knowledge. I think it's a private, informal visit to Dr. Perry out on the West Coast.

QUESTION: What do you make of this latest round of bombast from Pyongyang complaining about - that the light water reactor has been delayed?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we don't believe there's a basis for the claim. At least, as I understood the reference you're making was to US allegedly not meeting its commitments on the light water reactor.

Let me make clear - the United States is meeting all of its obligations under the agreed framework and remains committed to the light water reactor project. Japan has pledged the equivalent of $1 billion and the Republic of Korea has agreed to fund 70 percent of the construction costs of the light water reactors. Both legislatures in both countries recently approved funding for the light water reactor project.

In terms of our commitment, the United States - let me say first of all, the burden-sharing agreement reached last August among KEDO members does not contain any commitment by the United States to contribute to the light water reactor project. But the United States is committed to seeking funding for the supply of heavy fuel oil and for other KEDO needs, as appropriate, from the US Congress and all other possible sources. That's exactly what we've been doing for several years now.

QUESTION: Samuel Sheinbein - while we were in here, I believe, there were some reports that he may plan to plead guilty to all the charges. Has the Israeli Government been in touch with the US Government about these developments; and has the US Government been in touch with the victim's family?

MR. FOLEY: You'd have to ask the Justice Department or maybe the Montgomery County prosecutor's office. I checked because I was called about these rumors a few hours ago. At least as far as I was able to determine, it's not something that the State Department knew about. But we have not had responsibility from the US Government perspective for this case. I think it's been under the purview of the Justice Department. We certainly have called for justice being achieved in this case, following the horrible murder that occurred. We stated we would have preferred to have seen this trial take place in the United States. But since it was the view of the Israeli courts that it should take place there, we wanted to see justice done.

But I have not been able to confirm the rumors you refer to.

QUESTION: Do you have the details of what the Cuban Government has said in the proposal of the United States in the anti-narcotics cooperation?

MR. FOLEY: I think in this building we probably do, but since we're at the moment studying the Cuban response, we're not prepared to talk publicly about how it's going to turn out yet.

QUESTION: Do you have anything about the Turkish earthquake?

MR. FOLEY: I have probably some extensive information on the current status of our relief efforts. I'd be glad to give those to you if you'd like. We continue to work at all levels to help Turkey respond to the crisis --

QUESTION: Are you going to answer that question?

MR. FOLEY: I'm going to answer that question; it was asked. The first priority has been to search for and rescue survivors, obviously. The Fairfax County Search and Rescue team has left Turkey today. It was augmented by the arrival of a 70-person search-and-rescue team from Miami- Dade on Saturday. Those two teams together saved the lives of five people.

The USAID Disaster Assistance and Response Team and the group of eight USAID-sponsored experts working with the UN coordination group are continuing their work. On the humanitarian side, one 747 carrying relief supplies has already arrived. The shipment included 30,000 blankets; 500 rolls of plastic sheeting; emergency medical supplies for 10,000 people; and two epidemiologists. A second 747 with relief supplies will arrive this week.

Clearly, the focus of the relief work is now shifting to meeting the mid and longer term medical and health needs of the communities affected by the quake. Two water purification technicians arrived in Turkey yesterday and three mobile water purification units - each capable of processing enough water to sustain 10,000 people - arrived today.

The Department of Agriculture has offered assistance in dealing with animal health aspects of the disaster. A 22-person military medical crisis response team has been working since last Thursday to help Turkey assess the medical situation for follow-on assistance and is now preparing to depart.

Two US Navy ships - the USS Kearsarge and the USS Gunston Hall - are now fully operational. A third ship, the Ponce, has joined them today. Their primary purpose is to provide lift support. They're moving relief supplies, medical teams and patients throughout the affected area. Also heavy equipment located on the Kearsarge has been offered to assist in rubble clearing. And finally, the ships have the ability to produce potable water.

The US Navy will deploy three additional ships to provide hundreds of thousands of gallons of potable water daily. We provided a shipment of 10, 000 surgical gloves and masks and medical supplies that were sent by the US- European Command. As you know, the President issued a strong statement calling for Americans to contribute or donate to NGOs involved in the earthquake relief.

So that's about where we are.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - to ease some economic limit or regulations. For example, textile quotas on Turkish production.

MR. FOLEY: Well, what I've been describing thus far - and it's all that I can really talk about now - is what concretely we're doing to deal with the immediate pressing humanitarian needs.

As a government, we are putting our best minds together right now, though, to look more to the medium and longer term about different measures we can take in working with Congress, working with our friends and allies in Europe and around the world, to deal with the longer range consequences of the disaster. So we're at work in the thinking and reflecting and planning stage, but we're not in a position to talk about any decisions at this point.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. FOLEY: Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 2:25 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 Wednesday, 25 August 1999 - 19:12:44 UTC