U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #156, 96-09-27
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Friday, September 27, l996
Briefer: Glyn Davies
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Burma: SLORC Obstructs NLD Meeting.......................... 1
AFGHANISTAN
Taliban Assumes Control of Kabul.............................. 1-2
U.S. Relations/Contacts With the Taliban...................... 2-4
U.S. Reaction to the Execution of former President Najibullah 3-4
PEACE PROCESS
U.S. Position on Violence in West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza.... 4-5,
15-16
Reports of a Possible Summit Meeting to End Violence.......... 5-7
Third Party Efforts to Restore Calm to Jerusalem.............. 7
BOSNIA
OSCE Subcommittee Call to Recount Votes....................... 7-8
SYRIA
President Assad's Health...................................... 8
TURKEY/GREECE
Apparent Agreement on Aegean Problem.......................... 9-10
IRAQ
Evacuation of Kurdish NGO Employees........................... 10-11
Turkish Concerns that Evacuees Are Related to PKK............. 12,14-15
Asst Sec Pelletreau's Comments/U.S. Commitment in N. Iraq..... 12-14
Kurdish Assistance to U.S. Evacuation/Protection Efforts...... 13
RUSSIA
Concerns of Mutiny Within Red Army............................ 16
U.S. Reaction to Lebed's Comments............................. 16-17
KOREA
Threats of DPRK Retaliation if Submarine Not Returned......... 17
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #156
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1996, 1:07 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. DAVIES: Welcome to the State Department briefing. I have just one
announcement to make before going to your questions. The announcement
pertains to Burma.
The United States deplores the actions taken by the State Law and Order
Restoration Council in Burma to prevent the National League for Democracy
from holding its all-Burma Party Congress. The SLORC reportedly has
arrested at least 33 NLD party members, maybe more, as well as activists
who had planned to attend the congress, including 16 elected members of
parliament.
These measures taken by the SLORC clearly are designed to disrupt the party
congress, a legitimate meeting of a legally registered party in Burma.
These arrests and other forms of intimidation by the military regime are
geared to prevent Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters from exercising their
basic political rights, including freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.
We call on the SLORC to immediately and unconditionally release all of the
NLD members and activists who have been detained for exercising their
legitimate political rights.
George.
QUESTION: Before we get to the Middle East, could you talk about
Afghanistan and what you know about what's happening there and what you
think about it?
MR. DAVIES: We know that Kabul has fallen to the Taliban rebel group. We
know that Kabul appears at this stage to be relatively calm -- certainly
calmer than it was in recent days as the fighting swept over the city.
We understand that the Taliban has taken complete control of Kabul, the
capital. We understand further that American citizens who wanted to leave
as the Taliban approached have been evacuated. They were able to do so.
There may be some Americans who remain in the city, but we believe that
they are there by their choice.
Taliban leaders have announced -- they've been reported to have announced
that Afghans can return to Kabul without fear, and that Afghanistan is the
common home of all Afghans. We take those statements as an indication that
the Taliban intends to respect the rights of all Afghans.
So our hope at this stage is that the new authorities in Kabul will move
quickly to restore order and security and to form a representative interim
government that can begin the process of reconciliation nationwide.
The UN, of course, remains ready to assist in this effort, and we support
the UN in its activities.
QUESTION: You said Americans were trying to leave. You didn't say how. Do
you have any details on that?
MR. DAVIES: I don't. I don't have any details on that.
QUESTION: There are reports that Taliban is ordering -- imposing strict
Islamic law, ordering women to wear -- to go into purdah, etc. Is that
consistent with the government which you describe as apparently willing to
respect the rights of its citizens?
MR. DAVIES: What I expressed was I hope that the Taliban -- that
according to what they've said so far, that's an indication to us that they
intend to respect the rights of all of their citizens. We've seen some of
the reports that they've moved to impose Islamic law in the areas that they
control, but at this stage we're not reading anything into that. I mean,
there's on the face of it nothing objectionable at this stage.
What we haven't had an opportunity to do, of course, is get in touch with
the Taliban and discuss with them their intentions. So this is based on
some of the statements that we've seen coming out of Kabul.
QUESTION: But you are willing to establish full relations with the
Taliban?
MR. DAVIES: Sid, I don't think we're at that stage yet. We're simply at
the stage today of noting the fact that today the Taliban took Kabul, and
they control Kabul; and we're at the stage of indicating the direction in
which we hope the Taliban goes.
QUESTION: Have you tried to get in touch with the Taliban, and what kind
of contacts have you had with the Taliban up to this point?
MR. DAVIES: We've had some lower level contacts with the Taliban. I'm
more than happy to look into what our intentions may be in terms of
contacting the Taliban in the future. I don't have anything to report to
you right now.
QUESTION: Overall, how do you view this situation? I mean, is this a good
thing? Do you think it will bring stability to Afghanistan finally?
MR. DAVIES: We hope that this presents an opportunity for a process of
national reconciliation to begin. We hope very much and expect that the
Taliban will respect the rights of all Afghans, and that the new authorities
will move quickly to restore order and security, and to form a representative
interim government on the way to some form of national reconciliation.
QUESTION: It's important that you do not rule out -- given the way they
took power, you do not rule out full diplomatic relations with them?
MR. DAVIES: I just think it's really too early to pronounce ourselves on
questions like diplomatic relations.
QUESTION: Do you have any response to the demise of the former President,
Najibullah? I mean, does that fit in with this sort of reconciliation?
MR. DAVIES: We regret the deaths of former President Najibullah and his
associates, but I would only repeat our wish, our hope and our expectation,
that the new authorities in Kabul seek peaceful reconciliation in
Afghanistan. Clearly, the deaths of Najibullah and the others, especially
the way in which they appear to have taken place, is regrettable.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) extrajudicial execution. How can you do anything
but condemn it?
MR. DAVIES: It's very regretful, absolutely.
QUESTION: Regret is something different from condemnation.
MR. DAVIES: Remember, we don't have any American officials in Kabul. We
haven't had them since the Soviets left, because we've judged it too
dangerous to maintain a mission there. So what we're reacting to for the
most part are press reports, reports from others, who in fact have sources
there. In other words, second and third-hand reports.
What I don't want to do is get out front of our certain knowledge of what
is happening there and what has happened there, to react too definitively
to any of this. According to the reports we've seen, Najibullah did not get
due process. That appears to be a theme of the press reports about how he
met his demise.
Based on those press reports, all we would say is that it appears as if
that was a regrettable development. We'll see if we can characterize it
further later, and that we hope that the Taliban will move on to establish
a representative government and to move on to a process of national
reconciliation.
QUESTION: So, let me get this straight. This group -- this Islamic
fundamentalist group that has taken Afghanistan by force and summarily
executed the former President, the United States is holding out the
possibility of relations?
MR. DAVIES: I'm not going to prejudge where we're going to go with
Afghanistan. What happened today was that the capital city fell. Our
reports are that Kabul is quiet. It's quite clear that the Taliban is in
charge in Kabul, and that they control a good portion of the countryside of
the country, though not all of it.
Since they appear to hold the majority of the cards at this stage, our call
on them is to use their new position of authority to move to establish
democratic institutions and to move to a process of national reconciliation.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) the United States not had any diplomatic representation
in Afghanistan? Does it go back to 1989 when the Soviets left?
MR. DAVIES: I believe it does, yes.
Any more on Afghanistan? No.
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to Mr. Netanyahu's explanation at the
non-compromising position that he undertook this morning?
MR. DAVIES: Here's what I'm going to do, I think, on all questions that
pertain to the violence in the West Bank and Gaza. Since the Secretary of
State is today meeting with a number of his counterparts from the region,
and since Nick Burns is briefing the press regularly up in New York, I'm
not going to try to get out in front of what is a very fluid diplomatic
situation in New York, and between leaders in the United States and leaders
in the region.
What we've said is that the U.S. is working very hard, very intensively, on
the problem posed by the violence in the Middle East. We've called for the
violence to stop. We've spoken of our desire for a meeting between Prime
Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat or their representatives. I think
what I'll do is really just hold on that and not try to interpret for you
events that are occurring six hours north of here in New York, much less
events halfway around the world.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) together with what you have just said, I heard
overnight that there are hints from some of the networks that there is a
possible summit under the patronage of the United States is underway with
the leaders of Israel and the Palestinians and possibly Egypt and
Jordan.
MR. DAVIES: The United States is very interested in doing everything it
can to bring the conflict there to an end and to move on from the conflict
to the peace process that was underway. But again, you're talking about a
specific proposal. I'm not going to get into talking about specific
proposals, because I'm down here and most of the world's in New York, and,
of course, the action that we're all referring to is out in the Middle
East. So it would be a mistake for me to try to guess for you which way
this is going to head.
QUESTION: This was a diplomatic report from a diplomatic correspondent
overnight at the network, which I think he gleaned from what he heard here
in this building, that a possible summit might come before the U.S.
election.
MR. DAVIES: What I don't do is I don't do "gleanings." I can't do
gleanings. I get in big trouble if I glean. I'm sorry. (Laughter)
QUESTION: Without focusing on the specifics, if you could just sort of
tackle a big picture question at this time of crisis. The President of the
United States is apparently not soiling his hands with it, and the
Secretary of State is not making any public comments today, and he canceled
all press questions at his photo op.
MR. DAVIES: I don't know that that's the case.
QUESTION: It is the case. How come at this time of crisis no American
officials, who are supposed to be shepherding this process, are saying
anything?
MR. DAVIES: Wait a second. As I recall, the President of the United
States had something to say yesterday, and I think what's most important
right now today is that we put all of our energy into the diplomacy that's
going on. At this stage I don't, here, have anything to report to you by
way of a resolution to that diplomacy. Clearly, the United States would
like to be as useful as possible, and it would be wonderful if I could
announce something or if they could up in New York.
But I think the important place to put our energies is in the diplomacy and
not necessarily in front of the microphones. Let flacks like me do
that.
QUESTION: Could I ask you about the status of the peace process in the
Middle East? Would that be a fair issue?
MR. DAVIES: You can try.
QUESTION: Let me try this. Mr. Genscher -- Hans Dietrich Genscher said
today that the peace process and the peace itself in the Middle East are
now in danger. Several others have said that the peace process has taken a
step backward. Now I want to ask, Mr. Netanyahu today in his press
conference stated that there was a misunderstanding about this tunnel --
this major issue -- and that he implied that there was some kind of
misinformation being spread among the Palestinians about this particular
matter. I would ask you to comment on Mr. Genscher, what he has said, and
on whether there are external forces unfriendly to the peace process at
work here, according to United States' perception.
MR. DAVIES: Bill, I don't mean to disparage your question. It's a good
question -- a good series of questions, I suppose -- but again I think the
best thing for me to do is not to get into commenting on what people in
Europe or people in the region or people in New York have said, but really
to point you in the direction right now today of New York and the
conversations that are occurring there and the diplomacy that's taking
place by the Secretary of State and around the Secretary of State. I'm just
not going to get into characterizing -- it just wouldn't help matters for
me to characterize the peace process, characterize what's going on and say
anything beyond what I've already said.
QUESTION: What can you comment about external forces that might want to
disrupt the peace in the Middle East?
MR. DAVIES: Again, Bill, it wouldn't help matters for me to start popping
off from down here.
QUESTION: Is there room at the diplomatic table for others to participate,
such as the French?
MR. DAVIES: I think all of those kinds of questions are great questions,
and I think they ought to be addressed to Nick Burns up in New York. I'm
serious.
QUESTION: Can we ask something else?
MR. DAVIES: Yes.
QUESTION: One more. Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger this
morning on CNN described the presentation of Mr. Netanyahu as uncompromising,
and he said that it was a mistake to open the tunnel. And on the tunnel --
this is the same part of the question -- I understand that President Arafat
warned Israel through -- a warning went to David Levy at the United Nations
through some emissaries that if the tunnel will not be closed, more
violence will come. Will you be taking this into consideration -- the
United States Administration as it tries to bring about a peaceful
settlement of the issue?
MR. DAVIES: What I can't do is comment on conversations or appeals or
messages that have passed between third parties here. I can really only
speak for the United States on issues it makes sense to speak on. We've
addressed the subject of the tunnel. We've chosen, clearly, not to get into
discussing it too specifically, because what's important now is to put an
end to the fighting and to get back to the peace process.
So I'm just going to dodge that one, as I've dodged the others today, out
of prudence and respect for the Secretary of State.
QUESTION: On Bosnia, an OSCE appeals group apparently today called for a
complete recount of the votes of this election, further putting its
credibility in doubt. Does the United States believe that a recount is
necessary?
MR. DAVIES: What's just happened, of course, is that a subcommittee of
the Provisional Elections Commission has, according to press reports that
we've seen, made this appeal for a recommendation for a recount. All I can
add to that -- but this is significant, I think very significant -- is that
the commission itself -- that is, the body to which this subcommittee or
subcommission is subordinate -- has unanimously rejected that recommendation.
What we're waiting for from Sarajevo are details. We don't have the
documents yet -- the document from the subcommission or the decision by the
Provisional Elections Commission. So I can't take you beyond the very spare
facts, but I would underline, I think, the significance of this report that
we have that the PEC has rejected the recommendation of the subcommittee.
QUESTION: I mean, are you, therefore, leaving room open that the judgment
of this subcommittee may have validity, or are you basically saying, you
know, the results are certified --
MR. DAVIES: Absent details, what I'm doing, Carol, is I'm drawing back,
and I'm saying this is up to the OSCE to figure out; and that the very
latest word we have is that they've made a call based on the recommendation
of the subgroup, and they've rejected it.
I don't know what that means, because we don't have the text of what
they've said. We don't have the text of what the subgroup said about the
count. So it's very difficult for me at this stage to go beyond that and to
inject myself into the process and to say what this signifies necessarily.
I hope later on today we'll have more details, but this is a ticker that
just hit our desks less than 60 minutes ago, and we don't yet have the
documents from Sarajevo that will help us understand this better.
QUESTION: The United States, despite its huge role in Bosnia, was not
alerted beforehand that this information was -- this judgment would be
coming out?
MR. DAVIES: This is an OSCE process. It's independent of the policy-
making that's done in this building or anywhere else. The OSCE is set up to
look at the elections on an independent basis, and that's the process
that's underway right now, and it hasn't yet played out. We haven't gotten
to the stage where Ambassador Frowick has made a determination about the
elections, and we really have to wait for that before we can give you any
kind of a good reaction.
QUESTION: The Turkish Foreign Minister yesterday said that the Syrian
President is quite ill. He said it publicly. Some U.S. official said she
was informed of that by the Secretary of State. Do you have any observations
on Hafiz Assad's health?
MR. DAVIES: I don't have any observations on his health, and I can't
confirm to you that the Secretary made any such observation or remark to
Mrs. Ciller. So I can't shed any light on that. I mean, I've seen the same
report.
Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: After Warren Christopher's meetings in New York City with Greek
and Turkish Foreign Ministers, Theodhoros Pangalos and Tansu Ciller,
Nicholas Burns stated regarding U.S. help for a new effort to restore some
of the Aegean problems: "It's welcome by both Turkey and Greece. Both of
them want the U.S. to be involved. Minister Pangalos agreed, I believe also,
from our conversation with Mrs. Ciller, we have Turkish agreement. It's
good to see that both the Greeks and the Turks agree on that." My question,
is the statement valid today?
MR. DAVIES: You're asking me whether I'm going to walk back in the ferns.
No.
QUESTION: It's your official process and not a personal question.
MR. DAVIES: Yes.
QUESTION: It's from the process. A quotation.
MR. DAVIES: Whatever they had to say on the issue, I'm sure is quite
valid and, of course, we stand by, Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: But let me try to proceed. Minister Pangalos --
MR. DAVIES: Are you going off on -- is this going to be a series of
questions that builds on that first question or --
QUESTION: Let me --
MR. DAVIES: I want to prepare. I want to get some water.
QUESTION: One clarification. But Minister Pangalos and Ciller denied
categorically. Therefore, could you please clarify U.S. position vis-a-vis
to the Greek-Turkish difference over the Aegean to this effect: Did finally
Greek and Turkish Governments via their foreign ministers agree that a
three-party meeting or summit, whatever, would be appropriate between
Greece and Turkey under U.S. auspices?
MR. DAVIES: If I didn't know better, I'd say you're just trying to get
some stuff on the record here, Mr. Lambros. I can't help you with that,
because I don't know anything about this denial that you're talking about.
You started off that second question talking about --
QUESTION: My question is, is finally Greece, Turkey and the USA in
process to proceed to the kind of three-party meeting or summit for the
solutions over the Aegean between Greece and Turkey?
MR. DAVIES: I don't have anything fresh for you beyond what Nick had to
say. The United States remains very interested in helping to the extent the
parties would like us to help. Beyond that, there's nothing that's changed
today from earlier in the week when Nick spoke.
QUESTION: According to sources, the Greek Government through your
mediation most recently reached an agreement with the Turkish Government on
a military level of exchanging of information on military flights over the
Aegean, flying into the Athens FIR. Could you please comment on the
report?
MR. DAVIES: I can't comment on that. I don't have those details. I'm
going to have to invoke closure on these questions, but come back Monday,
and we'll --
QUESTION: No, no, can you take this question, if finally they reached an
agreement. It's very important. It has to do with the Aegean.
MR. DAVIES: I'm happy to look into that, but --
QUESTION: In this question --
MR. DAVIES: -- the Athens flight area is not one of my specialties. I
just don't --
QUESTION: No, no, they say through your mediation they reached an
agreement between the two.
MR. DAVIES: Okay, I'm happy to look into it.
QUESTION: Anything new on the evacuation of Kurdish NGOs?
MR. DAVIES: No. I don't have anything new at this stage. We remain very
deeply concerned about the protection of people who may be at risk in
northern Iraq, and we're still looking at options, as I said before --
still looking at options for insuring the safety of employees of NGOs of
interest to the United States.
But this is a complex situation. It's a very fluid situation, and all I
would add is that it's going to take some time to work through this. So
once we have something to say, I think we'll say it.
QUESTION: The other day, though, you said that you thought that these
people were at risk; that there were threats to these people.
MR. DAVIES: Or they may be at risk. That's right.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, if there are threats and if they're at risk, then
it would seem to me you'd be a little bit more --
MR. DAVIES: The question is what kind of a role can the United States
play in making sure that if they are at risk, and that's part of our work
now, to determine to what extent they are at risk. If they are at risk, how
can we help insure that that risk is lessened a great deal. Options extend
all the way from bringing some or all of these people out of the country to
perhaps options short of that. But this is a much more complicated
situation than those who worked directly for the United States, who were
card-carrying employees of the U.S., who were gathered in one place in
Zakho, and on whom we could move quickly, because there weren't as many
issues involved, as many organizations involved, and it wasn't as
logistically challenging.
This is a much more complex process. There are more people than we brought
out earlier. They're spread out all over the place, and they belong to many
different organizations. So the process remains underway. We're looking at
how we can minimize the risk to these people, up to and including bringing
them out of the country.
QUESTION: It sounds, though, that you're a little bit less enthusiastic
than you sounded the other day. I don't mean you, but it sounds like the
United States may be rolling back on this program.
MR. DAVIES: I wouldn't lead you to conclude that. I mean, I'll stand on
what I said. Right now, in addition to this analysis that we're engaged in
of the situation in northern Iraq and the threat that may exist to some of
these people, we're also looking at options to protect them. Those options
include bringing some or all of those people out of northern Iraq, but
we're not at a stage yet where -- and this I've said before -- where we've
made any decisions on this.
I don't know how long that will take. I hope it doesn't take too long to
work through this, but there are many, many ends to this problem.
QUESTION: How is the complexity of this situation tied to Turkey's
concerns that any people brought out of Iraq might be PKK related?
MR. DAVIES: Turkey has legitimate security concerns that we've spoken of
before, but what I don't want to do is tie those concerns into this
process. I don't think we're at a stage yet where we'd want to tie those
together or it makes sense to start talking about evacuating people --
Turkish concerns how this would be done. I think that's a question for a
little bit later on.
QUESTION: Pelletreau on the Hill the other day said that the United
States was not committed to -- no longer committed to safehavens in the
north. Is this new policy, and what exactly does it mean?
MR. DAVIES: No. I don't think he said that. That was something that was
boiled down from a fairly complex line of questioning of Ambassador
Pelletreau, and he simply observed that if you read the UN Security
Resolutions and you read the pronouncements that have been made by
officials of the United States, we were never at a stage where we gave some
kind of an ironclad security guarantee to the Kurds of northern Iraq.
We are very much the leaders of the effort that is best reflected in
Resolution 1022 to protect the Kurds to the extent possible from the
depredations of Saddam Hussein. Again, all of that in the wake of his
gassing in 1991 of thousands and thousands of Kurds, and that's one of the
reasons why the "no-fly" zone remains very much an active component of our
approach to northern Iraq. It's also one of the reasons why we are looking
very hard at ways to protect those affiliated with non-governmental
organizations in northern Iraq that have a tie to the United States.
I would simply ask that you go back and look at the transcript of his
testimony and look at it in context before boiling it down that way.
QUESTION: Just let me try to understand. So the
United States still has this "no-fly" zone, does want to help protect the
Kurds, but has no real commitment to do that. Is that it?
MR. DAVIES: U.S. commitments are enshrined in UN Security Council
resolutions. I mean, I'd point you in the direction of those resolutions,
and I'd point you in the direction of U.S. actions in leading the coalition
that remains very much in place today -- a coalition that continues on a
daily basis to fly many sorties over northern Iraq to insure that Saddam
Hussein's very deadly air force does not cross the 36th parallel and engage
in some of the activity we saw in 1991, when Kurds by the thousands were
being attacked and gassed.
Bill.
QUESTION: If I can follow Carol, it was asked yesterday to Mrs. Ciller if
Mr. Barzani was sincere about seeking Turkey and the United States to help
protect Kurds from Saddam. And I would ask, have there been any actions by
Mr. Barzani's people to protect those NGOs near the border, anywhere else,
that might be under threat from the secret police of Mr. Saddam Hussein?
MR. DAVIES: That's a question you'd have to put to his organization, the
KDP. I don't have anything to report to you along those lines.
QUESTION: But is he helping? Is he helping getting the people out?
MR. DAVIES: We're not at a stage where people are getting out. We removed
from Iraq slightly under 2,200 people who were employees of the United
States Government. They are now on Guam. They were our first concern,
because in our judgment they were under the greatest threat from the
changed security situation in northern Iraq in the wake of the fall of
Irbil at the hands of Saddam Hussein's three divisions.
QUESTION: But let me just finish this. I'm talking about the NGOs and
anybody else that might want to leave, we might want to help leave, are we
getting help from Barzani and his people?
MR. DAVIES: Again, Bill --
QUESTION: What can you say?
MR. DAVIES: Those are good questions for perhaps the KDP, for the NGOs,
but I can't give you a sitrep on northern Iraq. I mean, we don't have
people there right now.
QUESTION: And we don't know, really, then how Barzani is performing. You
can't give us a --
MR. DAVIES: I'm just not publicly going to characterize how he's
performing.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) one or two questions ago concerning the Kurdish
employees of NGOs. When you talked about this two days ago, you indicated
there was only one option, and that was evacuation. Now you're talking
about several options. What has happened since Wednesday to change
that?
MR. DAVIES: I don't have anything in particular to report to you that has
changed. Our concern remains very much as it was earlier in the week that
some of these individuals may be at risk, and that right now what we have
to do in addition to evaluating the extent to which they're at risk is
evaluate ways in which we can help protect them. That may well include
evacuating some or all of those employees, but we're not at a stage where
we've made a decision on that yet, George.
QUESTION: There was no doubt two days ago about the risk factor, and now
you're evaluating --
MR. DAVIES: There is a very real risk factor, but it's a factor in all of
this.
QUESTION: I don't see how you can protect them unless you evacuate
them.
MR. DAVIES: We're looking at this, and we'll make that decision. But what
we're doing now is we're talking to the NGOs. We're talking, as you would
expect, to Turkish authorities, and we're making this evaluation ourselves.
We're deciding what is the best course of action in order to protect these
folks.
QUESTION: Has Turkey told you it would not cooperate in an evacuation?
MR. DAVIES: No.
QUESTION: Have they seemed disinclined to help you, without saying
directly, flat-out, no?
MR. DAVIES: I don't have that to report to you. It's not my understanding
that they're disinclined.
QUESTION: So the United States believes that Turkey is willing to
cooperate in an evacuation of these people?
MR. DAVIES: I don't think that the attitude of Turkey on this narrow
issue of the NGO employees is an impediment, no. When the Secretary spoke
with Madame Ciller up in New York earlier in the week, Nick reported after
that meeting that in fact they had a good discussion of the issue of
northern Iraq, and they touched on this question of those who may be at
risk. We certainly didn't have the impression coming out of that meeting
that Turkey was going to be a stopper here at all.
QUESTION: Have they said yes?
MR. DAVIES: We haven't made a decision, so how can we be putting this
issue to them?
QUESTION: Certainly, you would ask them, "We may have to do this. Is it
okay with you?"
MR. DAVIES: We're still short of deciding how it is we'll proceed. I
don't have any reaction from the Turks to report to you.
QUESTION: I mean, certainly you'd want to gauge their reaction in some
fashion when you --
MR. DAVIES: We're talking with the Turkish Government, but we're not at a
stage where it's in our interest to characterize publicly that confidential
dialogue.
QUESTION: Can I go back to the Middle East, Glyn. A story -- an AP story
this morning says that earlier today Israel temporarily closed the tunnel,
according to the spokesman for the Israeli Cabinet. Would you be advising
that they will continue to close it?
MR. DAVIES: Mr. Abdulsalam, nice try. It's a nice try award.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, you know, I'm just -- I go by the book here. It
says that they closed it temporarily, and I think the United States
Administration -- the Secretary of State -- from my information, he told
Israel to close or he appealed to Israel to close the tunnel, as well as
Britain, as well as France, as well as Russia, and everybody is asking
Israel to close that tunnel.
MR. DAVIES: But because we have a very fluid, very important diplomatic
process underway, what I don't want to do from down here in this sleepy
southern town of Washington is start confirming some of these reports that
have been out there; start injecting myself into that diplomatic process.
I mean, the Israelis -- it's true that the tunnel has been closed. They
have said why they've done it, and I would refer you to them for any
further details on that. It's not our tunnel.
QUESTION: In the context of your diplomatic efforts that are underway by
the Secretary and all of the peace team, are you -- will the Secretary,
will the peace team be consulting with the allies -- France, England,
Russia and others -- regarding this issue, since they have their opinions,
they have their (inaudible).
MR. DAVIES: One of the great things about the UN General Assembly opening
up in New York is that it's a week during which you can meet a whole lot of
people, and the Secretary has met with his European counterparts, in
addition to today meeting with his counterparts from the Middle East. So
the answer to "are we consulting" is absolutely. Of course, we're
consulting. The whole world's in New York this week, and it's a perfect
opportunity to do this kind of diplomatic consulting.
QUESTION: Is it possible that you'll be taking a position similar to
their position and asking for closing the tunnel?
MR. DAVIES: We'll take whatever position is in the best interest of the
United States in the first instance, and in the interest of the peace
process between Israel and the Palestinians in the second.
QUESTION: I would like to hear from you that you would like to ask Israel
to close the tunnel. You know, the Israelis themselves suggested or even
did that thing this morning.
MR. DAVIES: I knew there was an agenda behind that question somehow, but -
-
QUESTION: (Laughter)
MR. DAVIES: -- but I just can't help you with it. I'm sorry. Carol.
QUESTION: Is the United States worried that the Russian army may mutiny
over lack of pay?
MR. DAVIES: The United States, as we've said before, wishes to underscore
the fact that the Russian army, according to the Russian constitution, is
subordinate to the civilian authorities, and we have every expectation that
that fundamental relationship will remain.
QUESTION: But do you think that Lebed is being a little hysterical in --
MR. DAVIES: There's an issue here with the deprivation that some Russian
army units are suffering from. Some of them have experienced delays in pay.
There are some issues that relate to getting food to some of these units.
So is there a hardship in the Russian armed forces; there's little question
that there's hardship in the Russian armed forces.
But there's also now established for the first time in three generations in
Russia a democracy, and a constitution, and it has certain principles
enshrined in it, one of which is that the military is subordinate to
civilian authority. We believe that that principle is very important, and
we expect that it will remain in place.
QUESTION: So you think Lebed is wrong when he predicts chaos and military
mutiny over this issue, and the lack of leadership in Moscow at the
Kremlin.
MR. DAVIES: No. I think what's important is simply to underscore the
relationship that exists between the military and civilian authorities and
to underscore that the United States believes that that relationship is
important and will remain the same.
It doesn't make sense for us to get into a kind of rebutting or answering
all of the various predictions that Alexander Lebed or indeed anybody else
makes, especially since these come sort of every day in 30 to 60-minute
press conferences. I mean, we'd be up here all day.
We have certain principles vis-a-vis Russia, and we're going to talk about
those principles, and one of them is this notion of civilian control over
the military, and that's very important.
QUESTION: North Korea has threatened to retaliate if its submarine is not
returned. Any reaction?
MR. DAVIES: That submarine -- we've spoken about the fact that we believe
that the submarine was a deliberate provocation on the part of North Korea.
We were aware of the fact that the North Korean news agency, which we can
assume reflects the views of Pyongyang and the government there, has made a
statement about the submarine incident that may have contained some kind of
a threat.
It doesn't change the assessment that we've given you about the sub
incident, and it doesn't change the fact that we continue to urge that
North Korea refrain from provocative acts such as that incursion by the
submarine.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:45 p.m.)
(###)
|
