U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #25, 97-02-18

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

February 18, 1997

Briefer: Glyn Davies

DEPARTMENT
1,10-11  Statement on Behalf of the Monitoring Group
      1  Statement on Release of Hostages in Tajikistan
      1  Statement on Violence in Zaire
CUBA
      2  Possibility of U.S. Citizens Traveling to Cuba
VENEZUELA
    2-3  Kidnapping of U.S. Citizen
CHINA
    3-4  Health of Deng Xiaoping/Political Transition
NORTH KOREA
    4,5  U.S. Contacts with China, South Korea Re: Defection of Hwang Jang-Yop
      5  Food Aid
INDIA
    5-7  Expulsions of Officials
GEORGIA
    7-9  Waiver of Diplomatic Immunity
MISCELLANEOUS
      9  Protection of Marine Mammals
PEACE PROCESS
   9-10  New Construction in Jerusalem
COLOMBIA
  11-12  Interior Minister's Comments Re: Ambassador Gelbard
     12  Certification Process
MEXICO
     12  Documents Linking Former President to Narcotraffickers
  12-13  Threats Against U.S. Agents by Drug Cartels
PAKISTAN
     13  Reported Attacks Against Minorities
SOUTH KOREA
  13-14  Secretary Albright's Trip/Four-Party Talks

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #25

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1997, 1:16 P. M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. DAVIES: Welcome to the State Department briefing. It's been awhile. I'll have to do this more often. I have three statements at the top of the briefing before going to your questions.

First -- and I won't read all of this -- but just to alert you that we have a statement that we're issuing on behalf of the co-chairmen of the Monitoring Group in Lebanon. The Monitoring Group met on February 17 at the UNIFIL headquarters compound near Naqoura, Lebanon, to consider two complaints -- one by Israel, one by Lebanon.

In light of the complaints and in light of the deliberations of the Monitoring Group, the Monitoring Group, by unanimity, deemed it necessary to urge once more that all combatants abide strictly and fully by the provisions of the April 26th understanding. That's statement number one.

Number two, on Tajikistan, on the release of the hostages: That hostage crisis is now thankfully over. The United States Government welcomes the release of the remaining hostages in Tajikistan and expresses satisfaction that all have been released. We note that the Government of Tajikistan and the United Nations worked long and hard to negotiate their safe release. We call on the Government of Tajikistan to take the necessary measures to strengthen security in order to allow the peacekeeping and humanitarian work of the U.N. and other international organizations to operate safely.

The U.S. Government reaffirms the need to move forward as scheduled, with the next round of inter-Tajik talks scheduled to begin February 26th in Moscow. We view the U.N.-sponsored negotiations as the best route to peace and stability, and call on both sides to approach the talks in a spirit of national reconciliation and compromise.

Finally, a very brief statement on Zaire. The United States condemns the recent escalation of violence in Eastern Zaire, including the air attacks on Bukavu, Walikale and Shabunda February 17 that reportedly resulted in civilian deaths. Such acts serve only to perpetuate the conflict and encourage further violence.

We call again on all parties to refrain from violence and begin immediately a direct dialogue aimed at achieving a peaceful settlement to this conflict.

And that is what I have. George.

QUESTION: Did you see this story on Cuba in the Post this morning about the possibility of some Americans going down there for a cigar-fest?

MR. DAVIES: I saw the story. I did see the story.

QUESTION: Well, can they go?

MR. DAVIES: That's in essence a question that you have to pose to another branch of the United States Government; in this instance the Treasury Department, I believe, which is the keeper of the flame on regulations we have regarding the travel of American citizens to Cuba. In fact, I think the rules talk about spending money in Cuba; and, if one were to go for a cigar-fest in Cuba, presumably one would have to spend some money. So they may wish to address themselves -- those contemplating travel -- to the Treasury Department, but I don't have anything for you today on it.

QUESTION: With regard to (inaudible).

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR. DAVIES: I'm sure the cigars may be free, but one has to pay for one's room and board, I assume, if you go. Anyway, Treasury is your one- stop shop on that.

QUESTION: On South America. Do you have anything on the American citizen who was kidnapped last week, I think it was -- an oil worker.

MR. DAVIES: This is, I think, the Venezuelan case?

` QUESTION: Yes.

MR. DAVIES: I do. We learned through our Embassy in Caracas early Saturday morning, February 15th, of the kidnapping of an American citizen in Apure State in southern Venezuela along the Colombian border. We think the incident occurred on February 14th, on Valentine's Day. As a result, the Embassy is now in close contact with Venezuelan authorities who are working to resolve this hostage incident.

Clearly, this is an act that the United States Government deplores. We call for the immediate release of an innocent American citizen. We don't in this case have a Privacy Act waiver on the American, so unfortunately, we can't give you any more details. But our Embassy is working on this and is in touch with the citizen's family and is providing family members with all appropriate assistance.

QUESTION: Do you know who took him?

MR. DAVIES: That I don't know. The Venezuelan authorities who are investigating this are trying to find out who is responsible for the kidnapping. What we don't want to do at this stage while their investigation is underway is speculate on the motives for the kidnapping -- who did it or indeed, where the American might be held at this time.

Yes, Judd.

QUESTION: What do you know about the health of Deng Xiaoping?

MR. DAVIES: I actually don't -

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Okay, go ahead.

MR. DAVIES: No, go ahead. We've seen the reports. We've seen the speculation. There are a number of reports and speculation about his health that all boil down to reports that his health is deteriorating and rumors that Chinese leaders have cut short some provincial travel to return to Beijing.

We are also aware that the Chinese Foreign Ministry has publicly denied that there has been a sudden change in Deng Xiaoping's health. We -- the United States Government -- are not in a position to confirm such reports or statements, and Secretary Albright is heading to Beijing early next week, and that travel is to go forward, as far as we know.

QUESTION: There have been no suggestion from Beijing that -

MR. DAVIES: Not that I'm aware of, no. They have not said anything like that.

QUESTION: Are you folks looking forward -- I know you don't like to talk about hypotheticals, but he is going to die someday, if not soon --

MR. DAVIES: Are we looking forward -- no -- Judd, that's not very nice.

QUESTION: Well, he's 92 and frail. Are you -

MR. DAVIES: Are we planning for the day?

QUESTION: No, no. A different kind of question. Does the U.S. Government think the situation in China -- that the transition has gone far enough? Can you say anything publicly about what your assessment -- the State Department's assessment might be of what happens next?

MR. DAVIES: No. I mean, what I don't want to do is speculate about precisely what happens next. It's been clear to everybody observing the Chinese scene that they've been undergoing a transition of sorts. There has been a transition -- not just economically, but a political transition in terms of China's leadership. That's no great secret.

But even if I did have analysis to share with you, I don't think I would at this stage for two very good reasons: (1) because of these reports. We're like everybody else waiting to see what's about to happen. And (2) because the Secretary of State is heading out there, and she'll have some things to say about China and about Asia, and I would hope that your colleagues would put questions to her about it. But I'm not going to step into that now. Anything else?

QUESTION: On China.

MR. DAVIES: Another China?

QUESTION: Thank you, Glyn. What is the reaction of the U.S. Government to reports that the PRC has intervened with North and South Korea to make it, say, more easy -- to facilitate the release of Mr. Hwang, the defector? Does it seem that China is doing something here for Mr. Hwang's civil rights? And I have a little follow-up.

MR. DAVIES: So in other words, that's a North Korea question, Bill -- not a China question.

QUESTION: Oh, I think it's a Korean, but the Chinese seem to be jumping into this to -

MR. DAVIES: Right.

QUESTION: -- in a positive way.

MR. DAVIES: What I would direct you to do is ask questions of China about its role in all of this. Clearly, there is in Beijing ongoing still this case of the North Korean defector. We are obviously in touch with the Chinese Government, as we are with the Korean Government. We've taken note of one important recent development, which is the North Korean Foreign Ministry statement concerning the defection of Mr. Hwang Jang Yop, in which they indicate that they regard this as a defection. We think that's positive, and we hope that it indicates that the DPRK is willing to resolve the matter in a non-confrontational way. But for right now it's a question that's between, essentially, the Chinese Government, the South Koreans and the North Koreans. We hope that it's resolved soon and it's resolved peacefully.

QUESTION: Yes, but you said the U.S. is in contact on this particular matter. Can you tell us anything about what we have been saying back and forth with the Chinese about -

MR. DAVIES: Bill, what I don't want to do is get into the substance of our diplomatic conversations. I mean, obviously we're talking to the Chinese about this. We're talking to the South Koreans about it as well. But again, with the Secretary of State heading into China, I'm just not going to get into commenting on this.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on persecution of Christians and massacres in some cases in Egypt and Pakistan?

MR. DAVIES: I don't. I don't have anything on that. I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Could you take that and perhaps -

MR. DAVIES: I can look into that, sure.

QUESTION: Can we go back -

MR. DAVIES: Any China-Korea, sure.

QUESTION: Nick said last week, I think, that no U.S. officials had contacted or spoken to Mr. Hwang. Is that still the case at this moment?

MR. DAVIES: We're getting our information from the Government of South Korea, from the Government of China, the authorities in Beijing. We've had no reason to be in direct touch with Mr. Hwang and indeed have not up to this point, no.

Any more on China? Or Korea?

QUESTION: Has this issue in any way held up the announcement of food aid to North Korea?

MR. DAVIES: The issue of food aid is not at all linked to this defector issue. They're not linked at all. The decision we make on food aid is going to be one based purely on humanitarian grounds. You can expect a decision to be announced in fairly short order. I don't have it for you today. But those of you who followed what Secretary Albright have said have noted that she's spoken to this issue.

QUESTION: Glyn -

MR. DAVIES: Anymore on North Korea? No.

QUESTION: It's no secret that even though the U.S., especially Ambassador Wisner, tried very hard to convince Indians not to expel the U.S. official. The Government of India went ahead and did it anyway, and now the U.S. has decided to expel two junior consular officers. Is this diplomatic irritant going to sort of jeopardize India-U.S. relations, and what's the going rate, Glyn? Is it sort of one U.S. official to two junior India consular officers?

MR. DAVIES: First of all, you've made a link. I'm not going to make that link for you. If you want to make it, that's your right. What I would say as a general matter is that we hope that these events can be put behind us, and that our governments can get on with the very important business of strengthening our relationship. India is the world's largest democracy. We are the world's most powerful, and it's important that India and the United States move on from here.

Since all of this occurred kind of in the Saturday timeframe, I'm happy, just for the record, to fill people in a bit -- which is to say that on February 10th we did call the Indian Charge d'Affaires, who is stationed here in Washington, into the State Department and told that individual that the United States requested the Indian Government to withdraw two officials for activities incompatible with their consular status. That is, in fact, the story I think that you're referring to.

That was a one-time incident. It's now over, and we'd like to move on from here.

QUESTION: I have a quick follow-up, Glyn. The U.S. official expelled was from New Delhi. What is it that the U.S. has decided to expel two officials from the consulates in San Francisco and Chicago?

MR. DAVIES: We informed the Indian Government that we were expelling two individuals -- we were requesting that they withdraw two individuals for activities incompatible with their consular status. What I'm not going to do -- what I can't do is get into the details of this. The details are in our private diplomatic correspondence between the United States and the Government of India.

We simply would like to put the matter now to rest and to move on from here.

QUESTION: A quick follow-up. The U.S. official that already left New Delhi, but the Indian consular, despite the usual timeframe, is you leave within 24 to 48 hours are still in the U.S. Is the U.S. concerned about this?

MR. DAVIES: I'm not certain what timeframe, if any, we gave to the Indian Government. I'm not aware of whether they're still here or not.

QUESTION: I thought you'd find out and ask whether these -

MR. DAVIES: You can ask the Indian Government what their plans are as regards to the consular officials. I'm simply not in a position to tell you what flight they're booked or when they're leaving.

QUESTION: Would you call it a diplomatic war? And, also, what is the future of Indo-U.S. relations?

MR. DAVIES: No, I wouldn't call this a diplomatic war. As I've said, this was a kind of "one of . . ." incident. Not at all a diplomatic war. We certainly wouldn't like to see it escalate. We don't believe it will. Our understanding is that New Delhi shares our wish to move on from here and put this behind us, so that's what we're going to do.

QUESTION: Do you think that the differences now between the two countries because of this -- this must be a very big thing between the two countries, expelling diplomats from -

MR. DAVIES: First of all, I'm not certain it was a kind of "Class A" dispute, if you want to range disputes between nations on a scale. Number two, it's over. It's all over. Again, we're going to move onto other issues. We have a wide range of issues that we deal with the Indian Government on, and we want to get back to those issues and not worry about this anymore.

Judd.

QUESTION: Has the State Department notified Justice about Georgia's waiving diplomatic immunity on Makharadze?

MR. DAVIES: We are doing so right now. I think some you know, based on news over the weekend, that we were informed by the Georgian Embassy -- I believe it was late on Friday and this was in the form a formal diplomatic note -- that they intended to lift or waive Mr. Makharadze's diplomatic immunity.

What we're doing today is sending a letter to the Office of the U.S. Attorney informing the U.S. Attorney that the Government of Georgia has waived immunity. What we'd like to do at this stage is thank the Government of Georgia for its very close cooperation right from the start in what has been a very tragic matter.

As far back as January 10th you will recall that President Shevardnadze of Georgia committed his government to waive immunity. Since then, the Government of Georgia has stood ready to issue its formal waiver, and it has now fulfilled that commitment.

So once this letter goes, and it will go if it hasn't already today, to the U.S. Attorney, you will want to address your questions to the U.S. Attorney about how the case will proceed from here.

QUESTION: Were there conditions in this? In other words, was it promised either openly or privately that the Georgian diplomat would be able to serve out any jail term in Georgia?

MR. DAVIES: I'm not aware of any such undertakings or even not aware that the issue was even raised by the Government of Georgia. In any event, any discussions like that would be premature. This case hasn't even gone to trial yet. As it is now becoming a judicial matter, it makes little sense for us to get into discussions of where the case is going and certainly to leap beyond the case itself and speculate about "if he is sentenced, where might he serve out his sentence." We'll deal with those issues as they come down the pike. But for now, questions really ought to be directed to the U.S. Attorney's office.

QUESTION: Although there's a prior record, can the State Department even consider doing that? You can't do that, can you? The State Department couldn't promise Georgia where he would -- even if they had been requested, the State Department is in no position -

MR. DAVIES: This is the Justice Department's matter right now. That's number one. Number two is, Makharadze hasn't been convicted of any crime, so all of this speculation is very premature.

Finally, I would just note that Georgia is not yet a party to the multilateral treaty on prisoner transfers, the so-called Strasbourg Convention. So even if it came to consideration of an issue like that, there would be a fair amount of work that would have to done. Again, I don't want to get ahead of us. He hasn't been convicted. This is now a matter for the judicial system and, therefore, a question for the U.S. Attorney's office.

Charlie.

QUESTION: Notwithstanding the fact that you don't want to get ahead of this, in terms of what's already happened on it, can you enlighten us as to whether or not this subject was raised by the Georgians in the diplomatic back-and-forth that you've had over a period of, what now, a month or more?

MR. DAVIES: What I'm going to do on that one, Charlie, is just let our private diplomatic consultations remain private, confidential -- even secret -- and not get into discussing whether or not we've talked about this.

QUESTION: One more question. Does waiving diplomatic immunity also apply to civil suits?

MR. DAVIES: It depends on -

QUESTION: In his letter, does he waive criminal and -

MR. DAVIES: That's actually a very good question. I can look into that for you. I don't know precisely whether it -

QUESTION: Do you think this case is going to affect the future of diplomatic immunity? Any effect; any changes in diplomatic immunity?

MR. DAVIES: What's important to note about diplomatic immunity, a couple of points. First of all, the United States, as a general rule, gets more out of diplomatic immunity than I think other nations do -- as a rule - - because we have thousands of diplomats at 250 embassies and consulates all around the world. Some of them are in pretty tough neighborhoods, in places where if there were not diplomatic immunity, our people would be subject to all manner of harassment by local authorities.

We get a lot out of diplomatic immunity -- "we" -- the United States. Other countries, of course, send their diplomats to the United States where conditions, I think it's fair to say, are often a bit better than elsewhere in terms of the judicial system; how suspects are handled and what-have- you. So that's important to note.

Second of all, just on point here -- this Makharadze case -- whether this will change diplomatic immunity, I don't think it will. But diplomatic immunity is a question that is looked at on a case-by-case basis. So we'll have to look at each case that comes up that involves us to decide whether it's in our interest to seek a waiver from another government or, in the case of our diplomats overseas, to invoke diplomatic immunity.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) there been a controversial capture of Orca, killer of whales -- off the coast of Japan. I'm wondering if you have anything on that? Whether our government has protested this in any way?

MR. DAVIES: I don't. I don't have anything on it. I can look into that for you.

QUESTION: Whether our government has sort of a generic position on the taking of these kinds of marine mammals?

MR. DAVIES: I'm actually not in a position right now to recite chapter and verse on what engagements the United States Government has made as regards marine mammals. That is something I'm more than happy to look into. We're party to any number of international arrangements that are meant to protect sea turtles and protect other forms of aquatic life. On Orcas and our precise engagements, that is something that I'd have to look into for you.

QUESTION: A question about Jerusalem. The Israeli Government is planning to develop a new neighborhood in Jerusalem, in an area which was annexed by Israel after the 1967 war. The area is called -- the name of the area is called Har Homa. Do you have anything reaction to this decision?

MR. DAVIES: I really don't. Is this connected with a story of a road having been built? These are connected?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. DAVIES: We understand, at least as regards to this road -- and I think the settlement as well -- the road was approved by Prime Minister Rabin's government to relieve congestion. The United States of America -- we would have preferred that the action just taken by the Israeli Government not have been taken at this time. We've said to both parties since the Hebron Agreement that they should act in ways which build confidence and enhance prospects for future progress.

We would have preferred to see steps taken now which continue to build positive momentum.

QUESTION: You raised this issue with Prime Minister Netanyahu when he was here?

MR. DAVIES: I'm not going to get into the details of our diplomatic exchanges during the Prime Minister's visit.

Anymore on this issue?

QUESTION: You would have preferred that the action not be taken at this time?

MR. DAVIES: That's correct, that the action not be taken at this time.

QUESTION: Isn't there a decision pending?

MR. DAVIES: The decision to proceed with the construction of roads around Jerusalem?

QUESTION: Is the U.S. position on settlements -- pardon me for asking. It's a question I've asked. Is the U.S. position on settlements in east Jerusalem the same as the U.S. position on settlements in the territories?

MR. DAVIES: Our position on settlements as far as I know uniform. It's well-known.

QUESTION: And uniform?

MR. DAVIES: They're complicating. That's right.

QUESTION: You don't have any position on Har Homa, the decision which is pending by Prime Minister Netanyahu?

MR. DAVIES: Right. But the decision that was taken was a decision on road construction which, I understand, is related to -

QUESTION: It's related but it's not the same area. The specific decision by the Israeli Government to build a new neighborhood in Jerusalem, it's remotely related to the road, but this is a separate decision.

MR. DAVIES: I don't have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: Also on the Middle East.

MR. DAVIES: One more on the Middle East.

QUESTION: On the Monitoring Group statement, was any liability or responsibility attached to either complaint?

MR. DAVIES: No. I can go into this quickly. There were two complaints. There was an Israeli complaint of February 7th where the Monitoring Group accepted as factual that five roadside bombs were located in the village of Beit Leef and that in the process of neutralizing the bombs that the initiative of those cooperating with Israel, a house was damaged. The Israeli delegation stated that the roadside bombs were placed by a Lebanese armed group and posed a grave risk to the civilian population.

The Lebanese delegation maintained that the devices were aimed at military patrols of Israeli forces and those cooperating with them, and created no such risk.

With respect to the Lebanese complaint -- I'm not reporting to you that there was judgment of blame made here -- with respect to the Lebanese complaint of February 12th, the Monitoring Group accepted as factual that, as a result of the Israeli bombing of a radio antenna used by a Lebanese armed group, which was destroyed -- that is, the radio antenna, not the armed group -- a shepherd was wounded and his flock killed and several houses damaged in the village of Nahle.

So what the Monitoring Group did, having received these complaints, it announced unanimously that it's necessary for all sides, all combatants, to abide strictly and fully by the provisions of the April 26, 1996 Understanding, and to adopt restraint and caution in military operations in the vicinity of civilian populated areas.

Anymore?

QUESTION: Same question. These announcements are distributed in the area to the foreign press?

MR. DAVIES: I believe these are put out. In fact, I had a photocopy of the actual announcement out of UNIFIL headquarters in Naqoura, Lebanon. So they put it out there, and then we also put it out here.

QUESTION: Yesterday, the Minister of Interior from Colombia said that Ambassador Gelbard was an inept official, that was not objective in analyzing the situation in Colombia and the sacrifices of the Colombian Government and its people. Are you aware of these remarks?

MR. DAVIES: I'm not aware of those remarks, but I reject them. Ambassador Gelbard speaks for the United States Government. He testified, in fact, on the Hill on Friday and had a fair amount to say about Colombia, about President-elect Samper and his activities. I'm sorry, is he now President? This is then wrong.

We've said many, many times publicly that we have no doubts that President Samper solicited and received over $6.6 million from well-known drug traffickers. We've raised these concerns with Samper. He may well be President-elect, still. Is he still President-elect?

QUESTION: Three and a half years he's been President.

MR. DAVIES: I'm sorry, I don't know why this says that, then. He repeatedly denied -- two and a half; correction here -- that his campaign ever solicited or received funding from drug traffickers. Everybody here knows that back in July '96, we revoked his visa based on the evidence that he had indeed aided and abetted drug traffickers. In was in that vein that Ambassador Gelbard testified on the Hill on Friday, and we stand by what he said.

QUESTION: The Mexican authorities requested the State Department for information regarding the existence of alleged FBI documents leaked to the Mexican press which linked the former Mexican President, Carlos Salinas, and his family to drug traffickers and to drug traffic activity. Have you responded to these requests? Have you any comment on this?

MR. DAVIES: Have we responded to requests for leaked documents?

QUESTION: For assistance, or for the information that they are demanding -- the Mexican Government?

MR. DAVIES: That, I have nothing on. I can check that for you. I read the same reports that you're referring to, but I don't have anything on it.

QUESTION: Can we go back to Colombia?

MR. DAVIES: Are we still -- okay, Latin America. Sure, Colombia.

QUESTION: Is the alleged corruption of President Samper going to be a major issue during the certification process? Can you comment on that?

MR. DAVIES: I don't want to comment on the certification process, because we're now a little over a week away from making some announcements about certification. So you'll have to wait and see. What I would do, though, is refer you to last year's statement on Colombia, which had a little something to say about the linkage between what we knew about the activities of the government and the decision that we reached in the United States Government, decertifying Colombia. I don't expect that our approach to the certification issue is going to be any different this time, but you'll have to wait and see, probably the end of next week, for our announcement on that.

Anymore Latin America?

QUESTION: Yes, just one. It's also been reported -- you may have read this, Glyn -- that American agents along the U.S. borders, working in drug interdictions particularly, have been threatened more often, more frequently than ever in history. In fact, there have been attacks against drug agents across the border by Mexican cartel hit men. Have you any comment on these threats?

MR. DAVIES: There was a report in the press about the Tijuana drug cartel, and I've got a little something, simply to say that we're obviously quite aware of the activities of the Tijuana drug cartel. It's one of the largest drug trafficking organizations in Mexico. It plays a major role in movements of narcotics across the border, gun smuggling, violence, public corruption in and around Tijuana. There are a number of criminal investigations and judicial proceedings relating to the activities of the Tijuana cartel, which would make it inappropriate for me to comment on these further at this time. But there was a great deal of law enforcement attention being paid to that problem.

Yes. No more Latin America?

QUESTION: According to this press reports in Pakistan and also a letter from the Pakistan-American Christian community in the U.S., over 13 churches and 1500 homes were burned down in Pakistan and 500 or more people were killed, and minorities are under attack in Pakistan. Do you have anything on that?

MR. DAVIES: I don't have a reaction on that.

QUESTION: Can you look into it? I have some letters.

MR. DAVIES: You have letters to give me?

QUESTION: Right.

MR. DAVIES: Okay. Sure. Fine. Mr. Lambros has letters, he says.

QUESTION: No, no. Could you please confirm if on February12 a meeting has been taking place between one of your Deputy Secretaries and the Greek Ambassador Loukas Tsilas -

MR. DAVIES: There's only one Deputy Secretary, and that is Strobe Talbott.

QUESTION: Assistant to him. And a similar one with the Turkish Ambassador Nuzhet Kandemir regarding a military exercise which is going to be deployed in the Aegean Sea today and tomorrow.

MR. DAVIES: Mr. Lambros, I'm not going to get into commenting specifically on meetings that we hold -- diplomatic meetings. I don't have anything on that for you, number one. Number two, I don't choose to get into that, so I'm not going to get back to you on that.

QUESTION: Last Friday I told Nicholas Burns about the Turkish Court sentence Metropolitan Yakovus of the Ecumenical Patiarch to five months in prison for having officiated liturgy in the church. I'm wondering if you have anything on that since it was a taken question.

MR. DAVIES: I do not. I do not have anything.

QUESTION: I'm from the Radio Korea, and I have a question. Next week when the Secretary Albright will be visiting South Korea, the main issue will be North Korea high-ranking defector crisis, and how is now progress with the liaison office between U.S. and North Korea?

MR. DAVIES: I already spoke to this issue. You're asking about the defector?

Q` Yes, but what is the main issue? When Secretary Albright will be visiting South Korea, that is the main issue for the Hwang Jang Yop case?

MR. DAVIES: That will not be the main issue when she visits South Korea. We have other issues to discuss with South Korea -- a broad range of issues, in fact -- and she's not going there to deal mainly with that issue. It's one that most directly engages South Korea, North Korea and China -- not one that we are implicated in. So that's not her purpose in going there.

QUESTION: How about the liaison office between U.S. and North Korea?

MR. DAVIES: The subject, obviously, of South Korea's relations with North Korea will be very much central to what is discussed in Korea. I don't think there's any question about that. What you've mentioned -- the question of liaison offices -- is a subset or a part of the broader question of the relationship between the two Koreas. So I'm sure that in the course of her consultations in Korea, that issue will come up, but I wouldn't regard it as the leading issue on the agenda by any means.

QUESTION: Do you have any update on the Four-Party Talks press conference that was -- briefing that was postponed?

MR. DAVIES: I don't have an update on that for you.

QUESTION: Were there any meetings over the weekend with the North Koreans in New York?

MR. DAVIES: I can check that for you. I'm not aware of any. It was a long holiday weekend, so our people probably went to the mountains or something.

QUESTION: In my question to the Metropolitan of the Ecumenical Patriarch, you're not going to take a position at all? Why? It's a matter of human rights.

MR. DAVIES: I'm sorry, Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: In the question over the Metropolitan of the Ecumenical Patriarch, you're not going to take a position at all since it's an issue of human rights?

MR. DAVIES: Mr. Lambros, we don't necessary take a position or take up the time of people in this briefing by going into every single issue that is presented to us as a matter of human rights. I'm more than happy to try to look into that for you, but I don't have anything for you right now.

QUESTION: On Friday, the former Under Secretary, Mr. Holbrooke, is going to be honored by the Turkish officials as the "Turk of the Year" for his services to promote the Turkish interests. (Laughter) It's On-the- Record. It's going to be a big event in this town. Any comment on that?

MR. DAVIES: On the "Turk of the Year"? (Laughter)

QUESTION: Yes. That's correct. According to the official program, that's correct. It's a very important issue.

MR. DAVIES: How do I get that award?

QUESTION: Excuse me?

MR. DAVIES: I don't have any comment on that. "Citizen of the Year." I don't have any comment, no.

QUESTION: Not at all?

MR. DAVIES: Not at all, Mr. Lambros, on "Turk of the Year." (Laughter) Cuban cigarettes, "Turk of the Year, " I don't - cigars. Anything else? Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:50 p.m.)

(###)

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