U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #184, 96-11-14
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
INDEX
Thursday, November 14, 1996
Briefer: Glyn Davies
DEPARTMENT
Town Meeting on U.S. Foreign Policy on November 15....... 1
Reported Department Inspector General's Investigation
of INR Assistant Secretary ............................. 18-20
Department's Efforts in U.S. Investigation re Stolen
Assets by Nazis in Swiss Banks ......................... 20-21
JORDAN
Jordan Designated a Major Non-NATO Ally of the U.S. ..... 1-2,17
RUSSIA
Vladimir Galkin Espionage Case .......................... 2
ZAIRE
Update on Status/Consultations on Intervention Force .... 3-5,7-14
Situation in Goma ....................................... 4
Repatriation of Refugees ................................ 6-9
Update on Status of DART Teams .......................... 7
IRAQ
Iraqi Kurdish Talks in Ankara ........................... 15
GREECE/TURKEY
Borders in the Aegean/European Union .................... 16-17
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
Israel Prime Minister Reportedly Cancels Trip to U.S. ... 17-18
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
Status of U.S. Troops in Bosnia ......................... 21
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #184
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1996, 1:32 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. DAVIES: Welcome to the State Department Briefing. To start off the
briefing, Ambassador Winston Lord, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and
Pacific Affairs, will set up for you the Secretary's trip which begins this
weekend to the APEC Ministerial, and before that to China.
He will start off by making a few comments about the Secretary's trip.
He'll be prepared after that to answer your questions about the Secretary's
trip, and if you have questions about the President's trip as well, I think
we'll go, all told, about 15 or 20 minutes.
So, I'll turn it over to you, please.
(Following Assistant Secretary Lord's briefing on Asia, Deputy Spokesman
Davies resumed the briefing at 1:58 p.m.)
MR. DAVIES: Sorry we couldn't go longer but there's more to talk about,
more to do here.
I've got a couple of quick announcements, and then I'll go to your
questions.
Announcement Number One is to let you know about a Town Meeting -- another
Town Meeting -- on U.S. foreign policy. This one, right here at the State
Department -- it's open for press coverage; it will occur tomorrow. It's co-
sponsored by the U.S. Department of State and the Coalition for American
Leadership Abroad. It has kind of a long title, but bear with me. It's
important.
It's "America's Role in the World: Towards the 21st Century New Approaches
and Challenges." It will occur in the Loy Henderson Conference Room from
9:00 a.m. until 2:45 p.m.
A number of the very best the building has to offer will speak. Nick Burns
will kick it off, followed by Ambassador Tom Pickering who is just back
from a successful tour as our Ambassador in Moscow. Brian Atwood will be
there, Craig Johnstone who is known to many of you, our Director of the
Office of Resources, Plans, and Policy; Director Joe Duffey of USIA will be
there as will Alan Larson who is Assistant Secretary of State for Economic
and Business Affairs.
There's an announcement on this in the Press Office.
The second announcement relates to Jordan. Effective November 13, 1996, the
President designated Jordan a major non-NATO ally of the United State,
pursuant to Section 517 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. This
designation reflects that Jordan plays a key role in an area of strategic
interest to the United States; that Jordan has joined Egypt and Israel as a
full partner in the effort to bring peace to the Middle East and that it
maintains a wide range of U.S. military systems and technology.
What this means for Jordan -- this designation as a major non-NATO ally --
it makes Jordan eligible for priority consideration for the transfer of
excess defense articles, the use of already appropriated military
assistance funds for procurement through commercial leases, the stockpiling
of U.S. military materiel, and the purchase of depleted uranium munitions.
Other countries that enjoy this special designation include Australia,
Egypt, Israel, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. Those are the announcements
I've got.
George.
QUESTION: Have you seen the stories about Mr. Galkin? I was wondering
whether the U.S. had any role in the developments today?
MR. DAVIES: I have seen the stories about Mr. Galkin, essentially
reporting that charges against Mr. Galkin may be dropped up in Boston. I'm
going to leave to the Justice Department, I think, further comment on that.
There may also be some further comment out of other agencies in the U.S.
Government in answer to some of the questions about what was behind the
decision to drop the charges.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) this kind of dialogue that the United States --
MR. DAVIES: I can tell you that what you heard publicly, the blast from
the Russians, their displeasure with what was done, was repeated to us as
well in private. This answers David's question of the other day.
So we heard both publicly and privately from the Russians of their
displeasure at his having been picked up.
Yes, Betsy.
QUESTION: Yesterday, this Administration provisionally agreed to help in
the Zaire refugee relief effort. Since it was a provisional agreement,
could you please enumerate the problems that you see in that area?
MR. DAVIES: It would be hard to top the list that you got yesterday from
Mike McCurry and that I elaborated on -- at least, I hope I did -- in the
briefing just after him.
To try to boil it down a bit, of course, what we first have to establish is
what the threat environment is going to be for this multinational force. We
have to also get a good grip on the availability of forces from other
countries. We have to also understand what level of consent and cooperation
there will be from not just countries in the region but also some of the
other actors, let's call them; in particular, the militias who control some
of the key ground.
All of this in the context of our twin goals, which are to provide relief
to the refugees, the some one million refugees, and also to move toward
repatriating the refugees to their various homelands. Most of them, of
course, are Rwandans, we believe, can safely return to Rwanda.
We also spelled out yesterday what kind of a mission that the U.S. forces
would have in this larger multinational force; that they would be
essentially handling or helping bring in force to Goma airport -- other
forces; providing security at the airport in Goma; providing security on
about a three-mile long corridor between Goma and the Rwandan border.
We talked a bit about the duration of it. We envision this mission lasting
about four months.
What's being done today -- and this is important -- is that Tony Lake, the
President's National Security Advisor, is leading a large interagency team
in New York. They're up in New York discussing with officials of the United
Nations, but also other interested nations -- potential troop-contributing
nations -- exactly how this could work.
They're talking about the six issue areas that Mike McCurry highlighted
yesterday. They're also discussing what UN language in a resolution might
look like because you'll recall that the idea here is to have this force
dispatched according to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. That work is going on
today. It's going on intensively.
Meanwhile, of course, in the region, the team that was dispatched a couple
of days ago is doing its work and a portion of the H-A-S-T -- the HAST --
the humanitarian assistance team, a portion of those individuals have
gotten now into Rwanda. They are looking at whether or not they can get
into eastern Zaire to do further work on the ground.
Of course, a lot of all of this depends on what kind of word comes back
from the HAST out there in the region. That's essentially where we stand
right now.
QUESTION: Could you elaborate a bit on the situation, please, around
Goma? Who holds Goma? Where are the -- what they are -- Hutu tribesmen who
are preventing the relief workers from getting to the refugees?
MR. DAVIES: A part of the problem for us now is, since we don't have
officials in that part of Zaire, it's difficult to know exactly who holds
what ground. We know, of course, that the Tutsi rebels have taken a number
of key towns in eastern Zaire, in the Kivu region. We know that the Hutu
refugees and some of these Hutu factions are, for the most part of them, in
the Mugunga refugee camp which is just west of Goma. Some of the conflict
that's going on -- and there has been mortar fire from Mugunga into Goma --
is from these forces who are interspersed among the Hutu refugees at
Mugunga Camp.
There are reports of refugees scattered in other parts of eastern Zaire.
There are reports of some refugees, some light refugee returns, to Rwanda
and to Burundi.
I can tell you a little bit about some of the work that's being done by the
international private humanitarian community.
The major relief agencies are looking at all possible ways to bring food
and medicine into the affected area from both east and west. A UN
interagency team has met with local rebel authorities in Goma for the last
three days to talk about resuming humanitarian activities. They were to
return to Goma again today.
The UNHCR has reopened its offices in Goma. That's significant. That's
positive. It's from that office that we get this report that the rebels
continue to shell Goma from Mugunga Camp.
Attempts yesterday to proceed from Goma to Mugunga where, as I said, an
unspecified number of refugees are now camped out, were thwarted because of
this mortar shelling.
We spoke earlier in the week about the trucks, the six humanitarian relief
trucks that went into the stadium in Goma. They were able, finally, to off-
load their food, their blankets, and their medicine. That all went to the
hospital in Goma.
Other missions are planned to go from Uganda into a town called Beni in
north central Zaire where there are some railway lines which extend into
Uganda and to the southern Kivu area.
In general, the international agencies continue to move relief supplies
into the region to preposition them so that once the multinational force
goes in, there will be some way to get this relief to those who need
it.
QUESTION: Not to be too much of a skeptic here, but when I listen to
McCurry's recitation of the conditions that need to be satisfied before the
U.S. contribution to the force would go in and your elaboration on that,
and then your description of the problems on the ground, one wonders when
this force could go in? There seem to be rather daunting problems and the
conditions seem to be rather steep?
MR. DAVIES: That's part of the reason why the U.S. Government has, in
effect, laid out some stipulations before we make a final decision about
whether we will participate in this multinational force.
The situation, as I've said a couple of times, is very complex. One measure
of it is that there were 40 refugee camps in eastern Zaire prior to the
onset of the fighting. Now, we believe that only four, at the most, may
still contain refugees. So you're talking about 36 camps that have
essentially emptied themselves of their inhabitants.
QUESTION: It's where most of those people are, right?
MR. DAVIES: There are various reports of where they are. We've received
reports today from missionaries that as many as 100,000 people, for
instance, are in an area 110 miles southwest of Bukavu that goes by the
name of Kigulube. They're believed to be continuing westward. So they're on
the move. We don't know if these are Rwandan refugees, if they're Burundi
refugees, or if they're displaced Zairians, a mix of all three which is
perhaps most likely. Then, of course, many others are disbursed throughout
eastern Zaire.
So it is very complicated and that's why the team that's in there now has
its work cut out for it. Tony Lake and the team in New York has its work
cut out for it. The United States, diplomatically, has a great deal to do
to satisfy itself that the conditions will be right for us to take part in
this.
Carol.
QUESTION: Has there been any progress on the other part of what you're
trying to, and that is to repatriate the refugees, once you find them, back
to Rwanda?
MR. DAVIES: I've said that there are some reports of some refugees
repatriating themselves or going back to Rwanda. We think only 4,200 have
done so. Several thousand Zairians have also moved into Rwanda to escape
some of the conflict that's occurring.
There are reports that about 18,000 people have crossed the border into
Uganda. Probably the majority of those are Zairians. As many as 30,000 of
the 143,000 Burundi refugees in eastern Zaire have gone back to Burundi.
So there hasn't been a great deal of actual change on the ground or
movement of refugees back into Rwanda. That makes this even more important.
QUESTION: And we have no -- neither the United States nor the international
community has no sort of master plan to affect this at this time,
right?
MR. DAVIES: What's being worked on now intensively in New York and
elsewhere is a plan. To describe it as a "U.S. Master Plan," I think is a
bit incorrect.
We outlined yesterday the basic structure of this multinational force. A
Canadian will lead it. The Canadians are, in effect, at the pivot here.
They are putting much of this together diplomatically with others, getting
from other countries pledges of troops. So the Canadians are going to lead
this.
It is with the Canadians that Tony Lake, for instance, is having talks
today in New York -- the Canadians and others, but intensively with Canada.
The international community has to work this out, has to figure out the
very best method for ensuring that the maximum number of Rwandans do return
to Rwanda. Because if they don't, then we're left with the situation that
is too much like the situation that existed before this latest cataclysm
occurred.
QUESTION: In this large camp, there were some reporting today about the
hard core of ex-Hutu Rwandan officials and militants who are essentially
dominating the camp. They're apparently well-armed. Does the U.S. have any
sense or concept of how many there are and how well-armed they are and what
type of threat they pose?
MR. DAVIES: We've said before that of the 1.1 million refugees, there are
about, we think, 40,000 reasonably well-armed Rwandan Hutu fighters of
various kinds -- the so-called Ex-Far and Interahamwe. That is one of the
great difficulties here, that these 40,000 are interspersed among the 1.1
million. Forty thousand is a fraction. It's a large fraction but it's just
a fraction of the 1.1 million. So the challenge becomes how to ensure that
you get the maximum of refugees back to Rwanda; and how do you ensure that,
to the extent you can guarantee it, those who go back to Rwanda are
not armed.
QUESTION: Is the U.S., with its partners in this endeavor, contemplating
some sort of deal for these militants? Right now they're between a rock and
a hard place, apparently.
MR. DAVIES: I think that gets us ahead of where we are. There are various
ideas being discussed privately. I'll keep them private for the time being;
various ways of setting up a system to get the refugees back.
QUESTION: One last quickie. Yesterday, you mentioned these two DART teams
that were turned away from Goma and the other town. Have they had any
access since then?
MR. DAVIES: I don't have an update on the DART teams. I don't know that
they've had any success since they're attempt to get in.
QUESTION: Are you saying then that the U.S. and this international force
will be disarming these militiamen before they cross into Rwanda?
MR. DAVIES: No, I'm not saying that. You heard, in fact, Mike McCurry say
that the mission of the American forces in Rwanda, or eastern Zaire rather,
is not going to be to disarm any of the Hutu fighters. That's not the point
at all.
But what we've said is that given the fact that this crisis requires a
large, formidable force to go in to deliver badly needed humanitarian
assistance, our belief is that given the size of the force, the robust
rules of engagement that they'll have and the factions' goals, which are
not aimed against the west but aimed against each other, we believe that
will, in effect, discourage challenges from armed factions.
In addition to that, we're not just betting on the calm. We're not simply
hoping that this works out. We're working hard, both in the region and
through intermediaries to get the kinds of messages you would expect to the
factions that are in control out there.
Ambassador Begosian, for instance, has met with representatives of rebel
leaders in Rwanda on more than one occasion. So we are working hard to make
sure that conditions are such that the force can go in.
QUESTION: I thought you said -- just previously you said that you're
attempting to work out a system where these 40,000 or so Rwandan Hutus
would not be allowed to go back with their --
MR. DAVIES: Just to put a fine point on that. What I said is, part of the
effort here has to be to get Rwandan refugees to go back to Rwanda -- at
least, the vast majority of them -- because their presence in eastern Zaire
is what is destabilizing here. It's destabilizing because Zaire is a large
country with nine other countries on its borders. If they were to remain,
it could cause further ethnic conflict in the area.
The objective is to get refugees to go back to Rwanda. Part of the problem
or challenge there is to figure out what to do about the 40,000 or so armed
Hutu fighters who are in the refugee population. That is being worked on
right now.
QUESTION: Can you share any of the American thinking about how best to
handle that issue? The last time the west went in with humanitarian help,
there has been criticism since that all it did was offer humanitarian help;
that, in fact, by ignoring the political and other dimensions of the
problem, it may have exacerbated the tragedy in the area.
This time, what is the U.S. thinking about how to handle the issue? Do you
feed people if they're armed? Do you repatriate people if they're armed?
And do you allow people through your three-mile corridor who are indicted
war criminals, or don't you?
MR. DAVIES: All of these questions are being looked at. What I don't want
to do is share with you any further -- some of the thinking that we're
advancing because that would box those who were trying to work this out on
the international level. We have our views. Others have their views. Others
have put some of their views out.
The United Nations officials, who have a great deal of experience in
refugee matters, they have ideas. We don't have a plan yet, a final plan.
That is why, in essence, the agreement that you heard yesterday to
participate is conditional. We have to have a final plan. That's being
worked out right now. I don't want to get into some of these speculative
issues.
QUESTION: Ambassador Begosian's team, which is half military, have they
had a chance yet to look at this three-mile road? Have they reported back
yet what the security situation is there in Goma?
MR. DAVIES: I don't believe they've yet been in eastern Zaire. Some of
them are now in Kigali. They're working on --
QUESTION: None of the teams that are in the region have been to eastern
Zaire yet, is that correct? Most of them have been in Goma?
MR. DAVIES: The only Westerners -- let's say non-inhabitants of the area
who have been into eastern Zaire, I believe in recent days, are those with
private voluntary organizations.
Q: I mean official Americans who are part of assessing what the situation
is as you begin to --
MR. DAVIES: Up to now, I'm not aware of any.
QUESTION: You've said you've had contacts with the Tutsi-led rebel force
and with the Rwandan Government. Have you had contact with these Hutus, the
Interahamwe, in the camps?
MR. DAVIES: What I know is that Ambassador Begosian has met with those in
contact with the rebels -- representatives of the rebels. I don't have a
complete listing of which groups he's yet been in touch with yet.
QUESTION: Do we have a policy not to meet with these rebels?
MR. DAVIES: I'm not aware of one.
QUESTION: Could I ask you to take another crack at Sid's question
yesterday? Why is it in the U.S. national interest to put thousands of
troops in the middle of Africa in the next few weeks?
MR. DAVIES: Let me be more sophisticated than yesterday, where I talked
about human life which I still think is important. I still think the
American people believe it's important to protect if they can in such an
international context.
Let's make that number one of three -- the humanitarian interest of the
United States; that thousands of lives are at risk in eastern Zaire. Our
action is intended to prevent a further slide into ethnic conflict,
genocide, mass movements of refugees in the region.
Number two, this is occurring in Zaire. Conflict in Zaire, which is one of
the largest countries in Africa, a huge state with nine other states on its
borders, threatens stability not just in the immediate Great Lakes region
but potentially beyond to other nations.
Third, the United States has an interest in supporting the emergence of
stable, democratic governments in Africa. After what has been in Zaire a
halting six-year transition from one-party rule toward democracy -- and
they're not by any means at a democratic state yet -- we don't want to see
this process derailed.
There are to be elections in Zaire in mid-1997. It's important that that
process go forward. So there are three reasons, kind of from the general
humanitarian to the very specific -- call it political -- that I would
advance for being part of a multinational mission to bring humanitarian
relief to eastern Zaire.
QUESTION: And the Administration feels that those interests would justify
the potential risk of loss of American lives?
MR. DAVIES: Right now, the Administration believes that those interests
justify agreeing provisionally to be part of a multinational force. What
we've got to do is develop further clarity on key issues such as the state
of play on the ground, the degree of permissibility on the part of those
who control the Goma airport and some of the regions in contention, some of
the areas in contention.
We have to get at that question. We've got to talk a bit more about the
organization of this force. There are funding issues, command and control
issues, all manner of issues that have to be worked out before we know for
certain whether we, the United States, can give the high sign and go
forward and be part of this.
QUESTION: You mentioned funding. I wonder if you could talk a little more
about that? Is the U.S. considering, besides sending troops, the possibility
of what kind of funding it would give? And do you know of any other
countries which have pledged to be major donors for this international
force?
MR. DAVIES: What we said yesterday, and it's as far as I can go, is that
the funding, the cost to the mission, will be born by participating states.
We recognize that for some of the African participants, additional
arrangements may have to be made to help them from a funding standpoint. So
we'll work that out.
In essence, those who are contributing to this will fund their contributions.
QUESTION: It seems to be the Administration was saying for two or three
months before -- say, the past week or two -- that ground troops were not
part of any plan by the U.S. to help out in any crisis situation in central
Africa. I can remember Nick citing a whole bunch of reasons why the U.S.
was not going to use ground troops. He mentioned the U.S. being involved
in Haiti; the U.S. being involved in Bosnia; the U.S. can't be the
world's policeman, that sort of thing.
What happened to induce the Administration to make a U-turn, so to
speak?
MR. DAVIES: I wouldn't describe it as "U-turn." I think U.S. policy on
the crisis in eastern Zaire has evolved. That said, we're not talking here
about U.S. troops going in any kind of a well-understood way into harms
way. We're not talking about U.S. troops actively disarming militias that
are resisting being disarmed. We're not talking about U.S. troops at this
stage doing anything beyond what was outlined yesterday, which is
helping to secure the airport, providing security around the airport
and helping provide security along this three-mile long corridor between
Goma airport and the Rwandan border.
Your geography is as good as mine on this. You know that we're talking
about a conflict that is west, for the most part, of Goma here -- where
Mugunga Camp is where the majority of the Hutus are.
For the most part, we'll have to wait and see. We'll have to wait and see
what the negotiators, the diplomats, are able to accomplish on the ground
in talking to these various factions. We'll have to see how the mission
develops. The mission, as it's contemplated now provisionally, is as was
outlined yesterday by Mike McCurry.
QUESTION: Just to go back to the earlier question. Isn't it now the
Clinton Administration's policy to intervene militarily in humanitarian
situations?
MR. DAVIES: You're asking a question that's very general. I'm really only
prepared to talk about Zaire. I don't think that we have writ in stone
anywhere in the U.S. Government a policy on how we react to a generic group
of situations. We react to situations depending upon the needs of the
situation and in light, always, of American interests. We believe we're
acting here well within American interests.
Are we still on Zaire? Howard.
QUESTION: I just want to go back to the situation on the ground. I guess
what strikes me is how little the U.S. seems to know about what's actually
happening there. We don't seem to have any official eyes and ears on the
scene.
MR. DAVIES: We have a great deal of information from those in the area,
those familiar with what's occurring in the area. We have other means of
knowing what's going on on the ground. We're not flying blind on this at
all at this stage.
QUESTION: You mean in the context of putting in up to 5,000 troops?
MR. DAVIES: Number one and number two: We have a team that's gone in now
to the region that will do even further work to find out what is occurring.
We're asking intensive questions, diplomatically, all over the world but
especially in the region to find out more about the situation. We've not
yet said that U. S. forces are going to form part of this multinational
force. We have indicated that in principle we will, but we have to get
straight on certain key aspects of this first.
QUESTION: It's pretty tricky to undo what you have already committed in
principle.
MR. DAVIES: Betsy.
QUESTION: Do you know whether enough information is going to be available
from these teams on the ground from your other methods of collecting
information from the meeting in New York in order to make an informed
decision this evening at a meeting which is going to take place by
policymakers?
MR. DAVIES: Well, as I said, we already know a great deal, and we are
working intensively to develop more information. The United States isn't
going to go into this situation until and unless the U. S. Government is
confident that our contribution to the mission can perform its tasks
effectively and as safely as possible. That's our bottom line on this.
Yes.
QUESTION: What is it that makes you think that you can cajole a majority
of the refugees to return to Rwanda in four months? Why four months?
MR. DAVIES: Four months is the time-line that has been arrived at
provisionally by looking at all of the facts that we have right now. It is,
we believe, a reasonable period of time within which to perform a
humanitarian mission, which is two-fold: relief and refugee return. And, as
I say, since we haven't chopped on this notion cleanly and clearly yet,
we'll simply have to wait and see whether we can develop enough information
in the coming days to make a final decision here.
QUESTION: But the U. S. intention to have a hard and fast outdate or to
stay there as long as it takes to do the job.
MR. DAVIES: I don't have anything to announce right here. I think a lot
of that will be up to the planners who will be shaping this mission, not
just here at the State Department but at the Pentagon as well.
Sid.
QUESTION: Just for the record, if your conditions are not met, the United
States will back out of this provisional commitment.
MR. DAVIES: The agreement that we have announced to becoming part of or
contributing forces to this multinational force is at this stage conditional
or provisional. That's absolutely right.
QUESTION: And you are prepared to back out if the conditions aren't met
by --
MR. DAVIES: Well, I prefer to state it positively that we are not going
to go unless we have the degree of confidence that I have outlined, that we
can do this as safely and smartly as possible.
Mr. Lambros, are you still on Zaire?
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Please clarify the U.S. position vis-a-vis to the
Hutu and Tutsi groups?
MR. DAVIES: Right now, Mr. Lambros, our effort is confined to a
humanitarian mission which we have discussed already.
QUESTION: And also, Germany stated today that it is not sending troops to
Zaire. Do you have any comment on that?
MR. DAVIES: I don't have any particular comment. I have seen various
reports, but I don't know for certain what the German contribution may or
may not be.
Yes. Nick, over here.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) How much is it going to cost the United States?
MR. DAVIES: I don't have a figure for you at this stage.
QUESTION: Are you taking it from the operations budget at the Pentagon at
this point?
MR. DAVIES: I don't know. I can't answer funding questions at this stage.
You might want to put those questions to the Pentagon, but I would say
those questions are premature since we haven't yet got a plan and we don't
yet know what kinds of assets will be needed to carry it out.
Yes.
QUESTION: Can we go to another subject?
MR. DAVIES: Another subject. Anyone on Zaire? Is there another Zaire
question. Yes.
QUESTION: There has been some reporting today in the Washington Times
about the State Department and the investigation of the intelligence chief -
-
MR. DAVIES: This is another subject, and I want to hold that thought and
we can get to that, but I want to -- anymore on Zaire?
Mr. Lambros, Zaire? Another subject. I'm going to go another subject.
QUESTION: As you know, the second round of talks between Kurdish factions
and Turkomans will be held in Ankara tomorrow. Could you tell us what are
the issues on the table?
MR. DAVIES: Well, in advance of any discussions like that, we are not
going to lay out how we view things. I think what is important is to wait
and see what comes of the discussions and then perhaps we can comment
afterwards. But I am not going to get into that at this stage.
QUESTION: What are the items of Ambassador Pelletreau's mission in these
talks? I mean, KDP have argued that only a cease-fire has agreed in the
first round of talks. So all other issues will be already discussed in
these talks, accordingly to KDP officials.
MR. DAVIES: Right. Well, today I don't have anything to announce about
the talks, so I can't help you with that.
Same issue, yes.
QUESTION: Why in those talks in Ankara you do not include so far the
Assyrians of Iraq who number more than 300,000 and you included the
Turkomans far less.
MR. DAVIES: I would question your premise, Mr. Lambros. I am not certain
that the United States is standing at the door and preventing some from
coming in and telling others that they can't.
QUESTION: Any comment on Cavanaugh of State to Athens and Cyprus since it
has been concluded today?
MR. DAVIES: I talked to Carey Cavanaugh this morning, anticipating that
you would be interested in this. I talked to Carey. He is in Cyprus right
now. He told me that he met with Mr. Clerides, Mr. Denktash, today; that he
was there doing a couple of things -- first off, reinforcing the U. S.
commitment to engage on the problems on Cyprus and to seek solutions, kind
of the longer-term track.
He was also there working on shorter-term problems, some of the tensions
that we have all noted that occurred on Cyprus in recent weeks and months.
And he had some ideas and shared them with the two sides.
What he was unable to report to me is that there has been any narrowing of
differences between the two sides on the security questions that are well
known. There remains a degree of distance between them
QUESTION: On Cyprus.
MR. DAVIES: On Cyprus, that's right.
QUESTION: What about his results on the talks in Athens?
MR. DAVIES: We didn't talk about that.
QUESTION: You didn't talk about it.
MR. DAVIES: So I don't have anything on that.
QUESTION: The Greek Under Secretary Khristos Rozakis, a vital member of
the so-called Council of Professors which advises the Prime Minister, is
claiming publicly that the Turkish claim against the Greek air space over
the Aegean is a bilateral problem between the two countries, and not an
international one.
Since Mr. Carey Cavanaugh met with Mr. Rozakis yesterday in Athens, I would
like to know the position vis-a-vis to this international issue?
MR. DAVIES: As I said, since I didn't talk to Carey about anything beyond
the report that I just gave you, I'm not in a position to relate to you
what he said in those conversations.
QUESTION: And the last question, following the activities of the U.S.
delegation under Cavanaugh, it was reported that German deputies of the
European Parliament are concerned now for the Greek-Turkish tension in the
Aegean from the EU point of view.
Since the U. S. is seeking a solution to the Turkish
claims against Greece, my question is, do you consider the Greek-Turkish
borders in the Aegean as EU Turkish borders too due to the fact that Greece
is a member of the European Union?
MR. DAVIES: I think that is for the European Union to decide.
QUESTION: No, no, no.
MR. DAVIES: And define.
QUESTION: No, no. As far as what is U. S. policy vis-a-vis those borders,
do you consider --
MR. DAVIES: I am not sufficiently schooled on the EU position, nor on our
view of the EU position on that narrow issue to be able to answer your
question.
So, I'm sorry. Yes.
QUESTION: Back to the Jordan question. Beyond what you said Jordan would
get in the way of benefits from this new designation, is there any new or
expanded defense commitment to Jordan as a non-NATO ally?
MR. DAVIES: I'm not aware of any new and expanded commitment. We have
already taken several additional steps to strengthen our relationship with
Jordan, including the passage of Defense draw-down legislation and the
transfer of an F-16 squadron to Jordan. But that is already out there and
well known.
In essence, this new designation recognizes Jordan's continued support for
peace and underscores the strong relationship that is growing between
Jordan and the United States. And you can trace it back, I think, to 1994
when President Clinton expressed his determination to support the
courageous stand that King Hussein took in advancing the peace process.
QUESTION: It's his birthday today.
MR. DAVIES: It's his birthday.
QUESTION: Another question on the Mid East?
MR. DAVIES: Mid East, yes.
QUESTION: Hebron.
MR. DAVIES: Hebron.
QUESTION: Prime Minister Netanyahu apparently canceled his trip to the U.
S. because he believes peace is at hand. Yasser Arafat says that is not the
case. And Dennis Ross came home.
What's the U. S. view of how close they are?
MR. DAVIES: Well, gee, you have done the news report. I can't do that.
No. I'm going to confine myself to saying that the parties continue meeting,
to narrow differences. They are working very intensively on the issue of
Hebron, and on issues beyond Hebron.
We are optimistic and the Secretary has stated that optimism best -- that
the two parties can reach agreement in the near future, but it wouldn't be
either useful or appropriate for me or for us, the U. S. Government, to try
to predict exactly when that might be.
Right now, of course, Ed Abington and Martin Indyk, the two key U. S.
Diplomats in Israel, are representing the United States at these talks.
Dennis is always prepared to go back if his presence can make an important
difference in the talks. The fact that he is here doesn't by any means --
and you know this -- indicate that he is unplugged from this. He is very
much plugged into it. He remains in close touch with both the Israelis and
Palestinians by telephone, and he will make a decision about whether he
needs to return to the region when the issue presents itself.
QUESTION: Is it fair to say that he came back because he decided he could
not make that kind of difference right now?
MR. DAVIES: I can't go that far and characterize his decision to return.
Sometimes people come back to see their family. I mean, I don't know
precisely why he came back, except that he made a judgment to do so.
Yes. Can I go here?
QUESTION: There was a report in today's Washington Times about the State
Department investigation of the Intelligence Chief and the Hungarian
connection. Have you something on that and, specifically, what kind of
information was given to the former Russian Foreign Minister Kozyrev, if
any?
MR. DAVIES: Well, first off, I hesitate to dignify some of the charges
contained in that article by even talking about it, but I will say two
things; first, that Assistant Secretary of State, Toby Gati, remains a
valued and important member of the Secretary's foreign policy team; and,
second, since most of your questions related to that article go to
questions of an Inspector General's investigation or intelligence matters,
it won't surprise you that I am not going to comment on any aspect of the
charge.
QUESTION: Can you at least confirm that the Justice Department looked at
these charges and decided not to pursue them?
MR. DAVIES: You would have to ask the Justice Department a question like
that, Sid.
QUESTION: Are you willing to remark whether there is an Inspector
General's investigation on it?
MR. DAVIES: The Office of the Inspector General is an independent branch
of the State Department. We don't, as a general rule, comment on -- as a
general rule, we don't comment on investigations on-going. I don't know
whether there are or there aren't. So, I'm not going to get into a
discussion of whether or not there is one.
QUESTION: But you won't comment because there is an investigation?
MR. DAVIES: No, I didn't say that.
QUESTION: I thought you did. I'm sorry.
MR. DAVIES: No.
QUESTION: Why won't you comment?
MR. DAVIES: Because, as a general rule, we don't get into confirming or
denying that there are Inspector General investigations of employees of the
State Department. Also as a general rule, the IG investigates all manner of
charges that are brought up -- that's their job. I would, you know, err on
the side of caution in doing so. But on this specific case, you know, I'm
not going to, for goodness sake, get into some of the charges in that
article.
Yes.
QUESTION: Hasn't Mrs. Gati's security clearance been suspended?
MR. DAVIES: Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
QUESTION: No change in her status whatsoever?
MR. DAVIES: She continues to perform her functions with all of the
clearances and authorizations and permissions that she needs to serve as
the Secretary of State's adviser on intelligence matters.
QUESTION: I would imagine if these concerns existed, it would be standard
procedure to suspend those privileges.
MR. DAVIES: That's an operational question that I'd have to put to those
who are in charge of clearances.
QUESTION: Would you expect her to remain on?
MR. DAVIES: I'm not going to get into talking about the future. Toby Gati,
right now, today, is the Secretary of State's Assistant Secretary for
Intelligence and Research, and we are in a transition. Who the heck knows
what's going to happen in the future?
QUESTION: Did those rulers in Ankara, the Prime Minister
Erbakan provide to the U. S. Government a copy of the multimillion dollar
agreement they reached with (inaudible) Iran? This question is pending
since before yesterday.
MR. DAVIES: I don't have an answer for you. I can check into that for
you.
Yes.
QUESTION: On Bosnia.
MR. DAVIES: Yes.
QUESTION: There are reports that in his meeting with Mr. Solana yesterday,
the Vice President led the NATO leader to believe that the U.S. is willing
to have troops in Bosnia next year, perhaps up to 5,000. Is that true or
not?
MR. DAVIES: Well, quite the contrary. The Vice President in that meeting
with Secretary General Solana made clear that no decisions have been made
regarding a post-IFOR security presence or U.S. participation in any such
force. What he said in the meeting is that the U. S. is now evaluating the
NATO-developed options and is working toward a decision that will have to
be made, of course, by the President; a decision in the near future
regarding post-IFOR operations.
So that is a false report.
QUESTION: It comes from persons close to Mr. Solana. Did he perhaps
misunderstand the Vice President? Those close to Mr. Solana suggested that
the Vice President, while perhaps not saying absolutely, "I can report to
you now we are going to send troops," led him to believe that the United
States will -- is in principle in favor of there being U. S. troops in
Bosnia next year.
MR. DAVIES: Well, you are asking a question that goes to Solana's state
of mind, or his reaction to -- I've seen too much O.J. trial -- (laughter).
Actually, I don't look -- I'm not a NATO spokesman. I'm not the Secretary
General's spokesman. So --
QUESTION: Do you deny -- are you saying the reports in the New York Times
and the Washington Post are wrong?
MR. DAVIES: I'm telling you what the Vice President said to the Secretary
General of NATO in the meeting yesterday.
QUESTION: I've got another one, if nobody else minds.
MR. DAVIES: Sure, go ahead.
QUESTION: On the Swiss banks investigation, I gather that the President
said some time back that he was going to ask that the State Department's
historians work on that, speed it up somewhat.
Has it been speeded up? How is it going, and has the historian found any
evidence of U.S. banks' complicity in the laundering of stolen Nazi money
or --
MR. DAVIES: Well, you know that the Historian's Office -- the Office of
the Historian -- is one of the crown jewels of the Bureau of Public
Affairs. So I work with Bill Slany and his people every day, and I can tell
you that his staff, which is too small for the work they have got to do, is
turning itself inside out looking at this. He is participating in inter-
agency meetings, is plowing through the documents by the boxful. In
terms of the results of their investigation so far, I don't have anything
to announce. I don't have any report for you today.
They are doing their work as part of a process that is government-wide,
that involves other government agencies as well. And there is a commitment
that is absolute to do this as quickly as possible, and to get at as many
of the facts as can be unearthed on all of this. And then we will have a
report and we will issue it.
QUESTION: And since the President made his suggestion that the thing
would be speeded up, have any additional resources been brought to bear on
this?
MR. DAVIES: All of the resources of the Office of the Historian that can
be brought to bear on this are. Quite a number of people are working on it.
As I say, there is a lot of work to do. But their commitment is to do it as
quickly as possible.
The Government-wide effort is not being led out of this building. I believe
the Department of Commerce is in charge of it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. DAVIES: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:45 p.m.)
(###)
|
