U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #4, 97-01-07

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>

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Tuesday, January 7, 1997

Briefer: Glyn Davies

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
1-2,6-7...Update on New York Incident with Russian and Belarussian UN 
          Diplomats and Georgian Diplomat
2,5.......General Issues of Diplomatic Immunity
3-6.......Incident with American Diplomat in Moscow
7-8.......Case of US waiving Diplomatic Immunity
RUSSIA
8-9.......NATO Expansion
CYPRUS
9-11......Missile Purchase
10........Kornblum's Statement
11........Demilitarization of Cyprus
11-12.....Cavanaugh's Visit
ISRAEL
12........Status of Hebron Talks with Ross
16........Request for Turkish Troops as Part on UN Peacekeeping in Hebron
INDIA
12-13.....Hostage Situation in Kashmir
NORTH KOREA
13........Date and Place of Talks
IRAQ
13-15.....Amb. Pelletreau's proposed talks with Iraqi Kurds
CHINA
15........Transit Visa for Taiwan VP Lien
SERBIA
15-16.....Update on Demonstrations

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #4

TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1997, 12:58 P. M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. DAVIES: Welcome to the State Department briefing. The Secretary is in New York meeting with Kofi Annan and having some other meetings as well. Nick is up there with him, so you have me to kick around. I have no statements to make, so I'll go to your questions. George.

QUESTION: Weren't you in here before one o'clock?

MR. DAVIES: I know. I'm setting a new record -- impressive -- because I'd like to get out before two.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) briefing --

MR. DAVIES: I don't think so, no.

QUESTION: Not on camera?

MR. DAVIES: No, I don't think so.

QUESTION: Is the Secretary speaking tonight, or is he simply the guest or the --

MR. DAVIES: I think he's making some remarks, but it's a private occasion.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the case involving the Georgian diplomat?

MR. DAVIES: I can give you a little bit of an update. Nothing at this stage that moves us along too greatly, but I can tell you that we have not yet received from the Metropolitan Police their full report. We expect to get that soon. We also have not yet heard from the U.S. Attorney's office, whether they would bring charges against the Georgian diplomat in question, Mr. Makharadze.

We expect, either this evening or tomorrow, to get those items which would help us -- the letter from the U.S. Attorney and the police report -- but absent those we, of course, can't take any action.

QUESTION: Is this man still in the country? He's not been --

MR. DAVIES: As far as we know, he's still in the United States yes. As far as I know.

QUESTION: Are you aware of any attempts by the -- any overtures from the Georgian Government to offer money or anything of that kind to the family?

MR. DAVIES: I am not. We've seen the letter from President Shevardnadze of Georgia. We've seen the statement made by the Embassy, but beyond those expressions of interest in cooperating with authorities, there's been nothing else at all.

QUESTION: Yesterday, Nick made the point that diplomatic immunity protects American diplomats from arbitrary and capricious prosecution overseas. However, other countries, such as Australia and I think Britain, have a system where they automatically waive immunity in countries with justice systems similar to their own, with protections built in. Does the United States have anything like that?

MR. DAVIES: No. I'm not familiar with those cases either. I did not know that other nations have such a policy. We don't. Our policy is as Nick outlined it yesterday, which is to observe essentially the terms and conditions of the Vienna Convention of 1961, according to which our diplomats overseas -- and this is why diplomatic immunity is important to us -- have these protections -- both they and in many cases family members - - so they are not subject to capricious or arbitrary actions on the part of local governments.

QUESTION: And are there degrees of immunity?

MR. DAVIES: There are degrees of immunity. I'm not an expert on immunities. For the most part, diplomats in the United States -- and there are some 18,350 who fall in this category -- have full immunity from criminal prosecution. There can be negotiated with nations and organizations other kinds of immunities. But again that's something I'd be more than happy to get perhaps a lawyer from the Legal Adviser's office who understands this to give you some background, but I don't have it.

QUESTION: Glyn, I'm not sure you can answer this, but let me try. Is it U.S. practice to waive diplomatic immunity for U.S. diplomats in cases where they're accused of crimes in countries that don't have capricious legal systems? In other words, where the legal systems are similar to ours, and one gets due process and so forth.

MR. DAVIES: The issue of whether or not to waive diplomatic immunity is always taken on a case-by-case basis. We don't have any general policy or set of policies, according to which we would waive immunity in certain classes of cases, in certain countries, based on their judicial systems. We don't do that as a rule. So what we do is we look at each case as it comes up and make a decision about whether or not it's in the U.S. interests to waive immunity. We don't generally do it overseas; certainly not in cases of serious criminal offenses and those are, of course, thankfully quite rare.

QUESTION: What are you (inaudible) U.S. interest? I mean, I know that's a traditional phrase. Did you say it sort of reflexively, or why would it be a matter of U.S. interest? Wouldn't it go pretty much to the crime and the system of justice in that country?

MR. DAVIES: I don't know. The principle of diplomatic immunity is -- one of the strengths of it from our standpoint is that it doesn't admit of a lot of exceptions -- in fact, very few.

QUESTION: That's what I mean. Isn't it a principle? So why would you be willing to bend a principle if pragmatically that day it happened to serve U.S. interests? I'm coming at you from the opposite from where you think I'm coming.

MR. DAVIES: Sure. It's broader, obviously, than simply a question of whether it serves U.S. interests. That is always at bottom what underlies our policy around the world. There are some instances where in consultation with the affected individual, who may have their own interests in the case, and kind of keeping in mind U.S. interests, a decision can be made to waive or partially waive immunity. But, as I say, it thankfully does not come up all that often overseas.

QUESTION: In the case of the brouhaha surrounding this case and the one in New York with the Russians, I believe the Russians have come up with some information on traffic offenses by American diplomats in Moscow, and I believe there was actually even one case that involved an accident where an American diplomat was discreetly removed from Moscow. Do you know anything about that?

MR. DAVIES: This is a case -- I've asked about this -- that I think takes us back to May of 1993, according to which an American diplomat driving at nighttime struck a pedestrian, and that individual ended up dying in the hospital. We were told by the Russian Government that they would prosecute this individual if the individual stayed, so we removed the individual within about 36 hours of the incident itself. That's the only incident that we're aware of in Moscow that fits that description.

There was a case, I think about eight months ago, where an American diplomat was hit by a Russian vehicle, but those are sort of the only two cases that come anywhere near, I think, that.

QUESTION: In the first case, was -- and do you have anything you can tell us about the situation itself? Was the driver at fault, for instance? Did his car strike somebody staggering home at 2:00 in the morning?

MR. DAVIES: Barry, I don't have details. The assertion made at the time by the Russians was that they believed that alcohol might have been involved in the accident.

QUESTION: On whose part?

MR. DAVIES: On the part of the driver, and we determined that it was not.

QUESTION: It was not involved?

MR. DAVIES: That's correct. But we made the determination, given the Russian plan to prosecute this individual, that it was best simply to withdraw him, and that was done.

QUESTION: When did you make the determination on alcohol, before or after he was withdrawn?

MR. DAVIES: I don't know. I assume it was after.

QUESTION: That was the next question.

MR. DAVIES: Oh, before or after withdrawing. No, no. It was done at the time by the Regional Security Officer who was with our Embassy dealing with the case.

QUESTION: No, but when did the U.S. determine that there was no alcohol involved? Initially?

MR. DAVIES: We determined it right after the accident.

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

MR. DAVIES: Yes, that's right.

QUESTION: How could the Russians prosecute? I thought the diplomat had immunity.

MR. DAVIES: I think they indicated that they would seek to prosecute him, which would mean that they would request -- I mean, you know the process by now. They would ask us to lift his diplomatic immunity. If we lifted his immunity, they would then prosecute. We decided it was in our interest simply to remove him from Moscow, which we did.

QUESTION: Glyn, could the U.S. hold its diplomats and other staff abroad accountable for their actions, and in this case the man was withdrawn from Moscow. Now, was there was any disciplinary action taken?

MR. DAVIES: No. There was no disciplinary action taken.

QUESTION: So this diplomatic immunity basically leaves people without penalty, is that correct?

MR. DAVIES: Look, this is a case that apparently occurred after midnight. It was dark, and the American diplomat struck a woman. It was tragic. She later died in the hospital. We made a determination that, in fact, alcohol was not a factor in the accident, and we withdrew the individual from Moscow.

If you're serving a tour abroad in a posting and your country withdraws you from that posting, that is a sanction of sorts. But it is our practice generally in such situations not to play it out but simply to withdraw the person, which we did in this case.

Yes, Betsy.

QUESTION: Wasn't a child also involved in this accident?

MR. DAVIES: That's correct. There were, I think, two children with the woman. I don't know to what extent one or both of the children were injured. There were thankfully no other deaths other than the woman who died.

QUESTION: Is this individual still in the Foreign Service?

MR. DAVIES: This individual is still an employee of the United States Government, yes.

QUESTION: Do they have a fund to compensate the families of the victims like here, the girl that was struck from Maryland by this diplomat?

MR. DAVIES: No, I don't think there's any such fund. But you know that in cases like this, there are provisions to seek damages from the state involved, and it's generally the practice of states to offer some kind of compensation. So we'll see. I don't have anything in particular on this case at this stage, but some form of compensation is normally part of the mix when these things occur.

QUESTION: Is it expected that the Georgian Government will offer compensation for the family of the victim here?

MR. DAVIES: It's up to Georgia whether they would make such an offer. It's up to them. As I said, it's often the case when these types of incidents occur that in fact compensation is offered.

QUESTION: Did the U.S. offer compensation in the case in May of --

MR. DAVIES: I don't know the answer to that. I do not know.

QUESTION: What's the difference between that case in '93 and the one now?

MR. DAVIES: That's kind of a research question in a way. First of all, the case now we don't have full particulars on, because we're waiting for the report from the Metropolitan Police, and we're waiting to hear from the U.S. Attorney as to whether or not they would seek prosecution of Mr. Makharadze, absent his diplomatic immunity, which then triggers the other actions that Nick talked about.

So it's difficult to compare two cases when you don't have full particulars on -- in fact on either, because I don't have chapter and verse on the case in Moscow either.

QUESTION: But on their faces they would seem quite similar, and the United States elected to withdraw its diplomat rather than allow him to stand trial on it. But you're now asking the Georgians to do exactly what you all were unwilling to do.

MR. DAVIES: I'm not making any call on the Georgians right now. We're taking note of what the Georgians themselves have said, and we're waiting to get from the police and from the U.S. Attorney their -- some indication from the U.S. Attorney of what he plans to do and from the police the details on the accident itself so we can make a determination.

QUESTION: But the State Department has all but come out and said they would like -- if the --

MR. DAVIES: What we've said is that if Eric Holder and his people decide that -- and they'll send us a letter to this effect if they so decide -- that they would seek to prosecute the individual, absent diplomatic immunity, there's a fair degree of automaticity then to our going back to the Georgians and saying, "We would like you to lift the immunity of this individual."

QUESTION: Could you answer the question why should they do what you all were unwilling to do in Russia?

MR. DAVIES: I think you've got to talk to the Russians. Part of your question has to do with what the Russians wanted -- what did they want out of this incident. I can't speak for them. I know the bare bones of that case of three years ago, which is that they said that unless he were removed, they would then go the next step and see if they couldn't pursue a prosecution. We removed the individual, and that was the end of that particular incident.

So I don't want to prejudge what we're going to do in this case, and I don't want to speak for the Russians, because I don't know what it was that they wanted in the May '93 case. I just don't know.

QUESTION: This is all pretty perfunctory, isn't it? It's all advance. I mean, you're going to ask the Georgians in the case of how to bring charges, indicating -- you're going to ask the Georgians to waive diplomatic immunity without any real expectation they will.

MR. DAVIES: I'm not going to prejudge what the Georgians are going to do or what they're not going to do. I think it's a bit unusual to have from a head of state of a nation -- in this case Georgia -- such a quick, full expression of condolences and an expression of interest in cooperating. I don't know what that means ultimately. This is a decision for the Georgians. We'll see what decision they make, but I'm not going to prejudge it.

QUESTION: On another subject, has --

QUESTION: Have there been, since the weekend, have there been any further discussions either with Georgian diplomats of this Embassy or in Tbilisi about this case?

MR. DAVIES: I don't know of any. I'm sure it has come up in our diplomatic conversations both in Tbilisi and here, but I can't give you chapter and verse and tell you at what level this conversation has occurred. I just don't know.

QUESTION: Do you happen to know whether Mr. Makharadze had, as I guess he was required to, the $400,000 --

MR. DAVIES: The $400,000 insurance -- I don't know. I would certainly hope he had it, but I do not know that specifically.

QUESTION: Do you know of any case in which the United States has waived diplomatic immunity of a diplomat accused of serious offense of another country?

MR. DAVIES: Yes, there is one that I am going to try to find for you. It's a case that goes back, I think goes back some years, out of Latin America. Let me see if I can find it. If it's not here, I'm more than happy to give it to you afterward. I don't have it right at hand but I can get it for you. There is one case where it was decided to waive immunity of an American diplomat. Actually, this person was not a diplomat. He was a contractor serving out of an embassy in Latin America. The immunity was lifted and this individual was prosecuted, and then I think the individual turned around and sued the United States Government, in fact.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) claimed immunity -- in your interest.

MR. DAVIES: I wouldn't compare that case with this at all.

QUESTION: Could you get details on that one?

MR. DAVIES: Sure, I can get you a little more on that. I'm happy to get you some details.

QUESTION: The Privacy Act --

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR. DAVIES: Not offhand. I can get that for you.

QUESTION: It was a serious case?

MR. DAVIES: I think it was a serious case. I'll find out more about this and get back to you. We're going to serialize this since diplomatic immunity is of such interest to people.

QUESTION: If ARA is listening, maybe they could hustle it --

MR. DAVIES: It doesn't leap out at me, but we'll get a hold of it for you.

QUESTION: Another topic?

MR. DAVIES: Sure.

QUESTION: The Russian Government, despite the visit of Chancellor Kohl, has taken a very hard line and consistent across the board on NATO expansion. In fact, saying that they're even insulted by the plan and basically just belittling what Warren Christopher had to say recently -- at least, one part of what Warren Christopher had to say about moving troops into the eastern countries that might become NATO countries. Glyn, what's the U.S. Government's reaction to this hard line?

MR. DAVIES: Bill, our policy on NATO expansion hasn't changed. We will continue to work with the Government of Russia in the NATO context; that is to say, NATO will work with Russia to establish a dialogue as a mechanism so that there's complete transparency, as NATO goes forward with its plans for enlargement. But we are moving forward with this as an alliance, keeping the Russians informed at every step. We're quite aware of their objections.

What we stress when we speak with the Russians is, of course, that NATO enlargement is not meant at all as a provocation to Russia -- it's not directed at Russia. It is an attempt by the alliance to respond to the needs of some of the newly democratic states of central Europe to join the Western democracies.

QUESTION: Why would they need to join NATO? What need does it serve, particularly? How does it help Slovenia to have Germany's protection or U.S.'s protection? Who is going to attack them?

MR. DAVIES: Barry, above all, NATO is an organization of like-minded democratic states. It's much more than a military alliance. In the case of these nations who have expressed an interest in joining NATO, if they meet the tests for NATO membership which include first and foremost having the kinds of commitments to democratic principles, then I would turn the question around and ask why they shouldn't be allowed to join NATO.

QUESTION: I thought maybe there was a military alliance with a purpose that has been fulfilled already.

According to a Washington Times story today from Athens, there's been a Russian study that the Times has had access to, according to the story, that one of Russia's objections is that Russia feels more secure with weaker neutral states between it and the West. Is there any validity to that argument? I know your not -- the idea is you wouldn't ship nuclear weapons into the Czech Republic of Poland, but you'd certainly have NATO forces there, training, blowing their horns and their whistles.

Is there some validity to that argument, that Russia is safer with neutral states to its immediate West?

MR. DAVIES: Barry, you've got to ask Mr. Yastrzhembsky or somebody in Moscow that question. I can't speak for Russia, and I can't tell you what would make them feel safer. I can tell you that in the process of NATO enlargement, we're doing everything we can in our discussions with the Russians to assure them that NATO enlargement is not meant at all to be directed against Russia. It is, rather, meant to provide those nations with an aspiration, who can meet the tests of NATO membership, the opportunity to join NATO.

QUESTION: In the same article, they said that most of the Greek officials -- the military officials -- they have a very big concern about expansion of NATO. Did you get this kind of information, or did you get this kind of warning from the Government of Greece?

MR. DAVIES: I'm familiar with the story, as reported in the Washington Times this morning that NATO's expansion is creating some unease among Greek military leaders. All I can do is simply point to the decision that NATO has made at the ministerial level, to hold a summit in Madrid on July 8-9 of this year; and that summit should include, as its principal agenda item, to look at the issue of NATO expansion and to begin the process of accession negotiations with some nations that have indicated an interest in joining NATO.

That was a collective decision taken at 16 by all NATO governments, which include, of course, Greece. So I can't comment directly statements being made by some in Athens. We can simply look to what the Greek Government did at the NATO ministerial last year in setting up the NATO summit this year.

QUESTION: At that summit, were you aware of the Greek concern?

MR. DAVIES: Are we aware of the Greek -- I wouldn't describe it as a "Greek concern." It's a concern being reported -- being expressed by some in Greece. I wouldn't call it a "Greek concern."

More on this? QUESTION: Did you get any reaction from Russian or Greek Cypriot Governments about the concerns you raised yesterday -- a very firmly worded warning -- against the purchasing of those missiles?

MR. DAVIES: Yes, we did. Both the Cypriot Government and the Russian Government took issue with the concerns that we expressed. It won't surprise you that our views haven't changed. Our reaction hasn't changed. We've explained to both governments our belief that the missile purchase threatens to raise tensions in the region and undermine peace efforts, and this, on the eve of what we hope will be a reinvigorated international effort to advance a Cyprus solution. So that remains our position.

While we've taken note of their objections, it hasn't changed our view of it.

QUESTION: You're understanding is -- do you think they will go ahead with the transaction?

MR. DAVIES: I don't know if they'll go ahead with the transaction. We've indicated our displeasure with it. It's up to them to decide whether to go ahead with it.

QUESTION: Up to them in the sense that if they want to agree with it, you think they'll do it?

MR. DAVIES: I'm sorry. The Greek Cypriot Government, as we understand it, is moving forward with this. I don't have any information to indicate that they're not going to move forward with it.

QUESTION: But how would you characterize Mr. Kornblum's -- the action taken by Mr. Kornblum here yesterday? Was it merely an expression of displeasure or did he ask formally for the cancellation of the deal?

MR. DAVIES: We expressed displeasure with it. We would just as soon see this deal not go forward because we believe that it does threaten to raise tensions in the region. It represents a qualitative jump in the military capability on the island.

We are stressing to the Greek Cypriot leaders and our Ambassador in Cyprus. On the weekend, Ken Brill made this plain to Mr. Clerides that we don't view the deal as being at all helpful on the island.

QUESTION: In your answer, just a minute ago, you said the Greek Cypriot Government. Do you mean that we have two governments in Cyprus?

MR. DAVIES: No. I mean Mr. Clerides. The objection was raised with him directly.

QUESTION: There's only one Cyprus Government as far as the U.S. is concerned, correct?

MR. DAVIES: All I'm telling you is that our Ambassador on Cyprus, Ken Brill, spoke with Mr. Clerides and raised this objection with him.

QUESTION: So there is one Cyprus government; not two governments in Cyprus?

MR. DAVIES: I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to address that.

QUESTION: Has Cyprus asked any U.S. contractors about --

MR. DAVIES: There is one Cyprus government. It is the Greek Government. I'm sorry, go ahead.

QUESTION: I'm wondering if Cyprus shopped in the United States for an anti-aircraft?

MR. DAVIES: I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Did Cyprus do any shopping --

MR. DAVIES: I don't have anything on that. I don't know that they did. Our policy is not to sell such equipment to the government on Cyprus, so we wouldn't have done something like this.

QUESTION: I asked, yesterday, Nick about the proposal by President Clerides on the demilitarization of Cyprus, and what was the U.S. position.

MR. DAVIES: On January 6, our statement underscored our concern about the purchase of the missiles. We believe that the island is too militarized; that steps need to be taken to radically reduce the level of armaments and troops on the island. That is the work that we've done.

In that context, demilitarization is a very worthy objective. Furthermore, President Clerides' proposals to redirect funding for military tasks to support economic development and peacekeeping are positive.

On Cyprus, however, demilitarization cannot proceed in isolation. Given the history and level of mistrust on the island, one cannot shift from thousands of foreign troops and excessive levels of armaments to zero troops and arms overnight.

On Cyprus, steps toward demilitarization must be accompanied by progress on other fronts. This requires significant work on basic questions such as how the two communities are to share political power and how overall security will be assured.

We also note that the U.N. Security Council recently also referred to the demilitarization of Cyprus as an important objective in the context of an overall comprehensive settlement.

QUESTION: Mr. Cavanaugh's travel -- is he going to start this tomorrow?

MR. DAVIES: I don't have an itinerary. I know that he's going to the region, but I don't --

QUESTION: -- know why he's going to the region?

MR. DAVIES: Sure. He's going in the same context that he's gone in the past, which is to look at ways to bring ideas to the parties on Cyprus in an attempt to lower tensions and bring an end to the conflict that has existed there for decades.

QUESTION: Glyn, can you give us a situation report about the Hebron talks?

MR. DAVIES: Nothing really has changed. Dennis (Ross) is out there. He's working hard at this. He's met in the last 24 hours with both Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat. We remain hopeful that a deal can be had and can be had soon, but I don't have any announcements for you today.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to answer the critiques in the Palestinian talkers, or the Palestinian negotiators that Mr. Ross is taking, most of the time, the side of the Israelis in these negotiations?

MR. DAVIES: No. I'm not going to -- no, Dennis is the man out there on the spot. He's shuttling between both sides. I'm going to leave it to him to comment directly on what he's up to. You'll notice he's not commenting to any great extent because the negotiations out there are confidential and his role is confidential. So we're not going to get into characterizing the comments made by either side.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR. DAVIES: Pardon me?

QUESTION: Is he still day-to-day?

MR. DAVIES: He's still day-to-day, yes.

QUESTION: On the subject, Mr. Netanyahu, yesterday, was quoted as saying that the problem with making the deal in Hebron was that the PLO kept adding on and adding on --

MR. DAVIES: Bill, I really already answered that question. I'm not going to get into commenting on the various negotiating positions.

QUESTION: Can I ask a question about what Mr. Netanyahu said about what was the hang-up?

MR. DAVIES: Bill, I'm not going to get into what he said/they said/we say. Dennis is out there. He's working hard on it, and I'm not going to get into commenting on any of the comments being made by the parties. They negotiate an agreement, at the end of the day, they have to reach between themselves.

QUESTION: Nick yesterday said that Ambassador Frank Wisner was still on top of the Kashmir hostage situation. Last month, you said you are still operating on the assumption that the hostages are alive.

MR. DAVIES: That's right.

QUESTION: Is that still the assumption that you're operating on?

MR. DAVIES: It is.

QUESTION: Have you all been reassured by the Indian authorities that they are alive?

MR. DAVIES: We don't have any assurances really one way or the other, but we are operating on the assumption that they are still alive. That's one of the reasons why we put out some months ago a reward for information leading to finding them.

Mr. Donald Hutchins has now been missing for quite awhile and we will assume he is alive until we get information to the contrary.

QUESTION: Glyn, in his only failure, then Congressman Bill Richardson and now current designate to the U.N., went out to Kashmir early last year and failed to get the hostages back, and then he had a press conference. He said during the summer there has to be some serious action taken. Have you thought about any serious action in terms of some concerted activity or some rescue mission or anything of the sort?

MR. DAVIES: We're working with the other governments concerned but especially the Indian Government on a daily basis, and Frank Wisner, our Ambassador in India, has been up to Kashmir on at least one occasion to look into this directly. I, myself, have spoken with one of the officers who deals with this, and we continue to work with the Indian Government on a daily basis.

QUESTION: But you've sort of laid back the effort where you all are just waiting for information to come in, or how --

MR. DAVIES: No, I wouldn't describe it as a laid-back effort. The problem is, absent specific information about where Mr. Hutchins and the others might be, it's very difficult to do anything Rambo-like in a situation like this. We have to operate based on what information we can gather. We're doing what we can to gather that information, including offering a rather substantial reward for information leading to their whereabouts.

QUESTION: Do you have any specifics on the upcoming meeting with the U.S. and North and South Korea? When and where?

MR. DAVIES: I don't. We haven't established that yet. We're still looking to do that soon, within the month, but we don't have that yet.

QUESTION: Glyn, Iraqi Kurdish leaders or Kurdish groups who will meet I believe tomorrow or day after tomorrow in the State Department --

MR. DAVIES: Right.

QUESTION: And on the same token, Mr. Talabani, the other group, the other Kurdish group -- we heard that he had the contact with (inaudible). He's trying to find out some way to consider himself and the groups to reach Saddam Hussein. Do you have any reaction? Do you have any --

MR. DAVIES: No, I don't. I can confirm that Ambassador Pelletreau -- Assistant Secretary Pelletreau will hold discussions with the Iraqi Kurds day after tomorrow here in Washington. Those talks will involve the United States, the Kurdish Democratic Party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, U.K. officials and Turkish officials. We don't yet have anything more specific on who will represent those groups.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

MR. DAVIES: I don't have the structure of the meeting. I assume it will follow the past pattern, but I don't have details. I can find that out for you.

QUESTION: Glyn, will this --

QUESTION: Could you try to get details, more than you have now, at tomorrow's briefing considering the meeting itself is the two days --

MR. DAVIES: We're not going to brief tomorrow, because the Secretary of State-designate will be on the Hill.

QUESTION: Will this be followed by a meeting in Ankara at the end of this month between Mr. Pelletreau, Barzani and Talabani?

MR. DAVIES: Will it be?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. DAVIES: I don't know the answer to that. We'll have to see what comes out of tomorrow's meeting.

QUESTION: Is it in the works?

MR. DAVIES: I don't know that it's in the works. What's in the works right now is a meeting in 48 hours here in Washington -- a follow-up meeting with the same parties, and we'll see where we go from there.

QUESTION: Do you know what they're going to be discussing?

MR. DAVIES: I don't have an agenda, no.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

MR. DAVIES: I mean, we've gone through this before, Sid. They'll be talking about how to bring about further reconciliation in northern Iraq. That's the basic job that they face, and the role that the United States has played has been to try to bring together the PUK and the KDP to prevent the kind of internecine conflict that we've seen in the past that only hurts both of them and doesn't do the necessary job of presenting a united front to Saddam Hussein who's the real problem that they both face.

QUESTION: What are the incentives to achieving your goal? I mean, you've been at it now for three or four months.

MR. DAVIES: These negotiations, these talks, we'd prefer to keep private. We're not sharing publicly all that happens behind closed doors. We've talked about our general objectives with them. Both of the parties know what they are, and we'll simply have to see how it goes day after tomorrow.

Howard.

QUESTION: On a new subject. China, Taiwan, some indications of displeasure from Beijing on the granting of the transit visa.

MR. DAVIES: I've actually not seen any indications of displeasure. Have there been?

QUESTION: I saw a wire to that effect.

MR. DAVIES: Here we go again.

QUESTION: On Serbia, what is your current read on the situation, particularly the army's announcement that it would not intercede on Mr. Milosevic's behalf?

MR. DAVIES: We view that as a positive announcement. We commend recent statements by military officials that they will remain neutral in the confrontation and will refuse to use violence against peaceful protesters. We think that the Serbian people who have participated in these demonstrations should be saluted for their steadfast adherence to peaceful forms of protest, and we commend them for their courageous defense of their rights to express their democratic will through free elections despite tough conditions, including freezing temperatures and police intimidation.

All of this leads us to repeat the call that we've made now for a month and a half on the Serbian Government to immediately accept the results of the November 17th elections and to open a meaningful dialogue with the opposition to allow freedom of the media and to undertake other basic reforms.

QUESTION: Does that army's announcement of neutrality strike you as any kind of weather change in the situation where Milosevic --

MR. DAVIES: It's significant. It's a significant development. We'll have to see what it means. But when you get the armed forces, as in this case, indicating that they'll remain neutral in the confrontation, that's a very significant and very positive development in this long running, so far largely peaceful situation.

QUESTION: There was a report in Turkish press that Mr. Netanyahu asked the Speaker of the Turkish Parliament to have Turkish troops serve as a part of peacekeeping force in the West Bank in relation to Hebron. Do you have any views on that?

MR. DAVIES: I don't have anything for you on that, no. I don't. Anything else?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. DAVIES: Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:38 p.m.)

(###)

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article