U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #26, 97-02-20
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
722
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
February 20, 1997
Briefer: Glyn Davies
DEPARTMENT
1 Welcome to Mr. Daniel Eckmann, Info. Dept., Swiss Finance Dept.
1,11 Statement on Behalf of Co-Chairman of Monitoring Group on Lebanon
1-2 Statement on Acting Sec. Tarnoff/Mexican For. Sec. Gurria Mtg.
2,6-8 Statement on Anniversary of "Brothers to the Rescue" Shoot-Down
9 Secretary Albright's Trip/Schedule
MEXICO
2-5 Drug Certification/Arrest of General Gutierrez Rebollo
GEORGIA
5-6 Makharadze Case
RUSSIA/BELARUS
6 New York Incident involving Diplomats
COLOMBIA
6 Legislation on Sentencing Criminals
NORTH KOREA
9 Briefing for Four-Way Talks/NY Mtgs.
9 The Case of Mr. Hwang
9 Food Aid
AEGEAN SEA
9-10 U.S. Policy
TURKEY
10-11 Visit of Turkish Minister of State Abdullah Gul
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #26
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1997, 1:34 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. DAVIES: Sorry to be a little late.
Welcome to the State Department briefing. I'd like also to welcome, in
particular, a visitor to the briefing today, Mr. Daniel Eckmann, head of
the Information Department of the Swiss Finance Department.
Mr. Eckmann, welcome to our briefing.
I've got a couple of statements to alert you to. I won't read every
word because that will take too long. The first statement is on behalf,
once again, of the Co-Chairman of the Monitoring Group on Lebanon. The
Monitoring Group met on February 19-20 at UNIFIL Headquarters Compound near
Naqoura , Lebanon, to consider a complaint presented by Lebanon and
another one by Israel. The Monitoring Group unanimously condemned
the shelling on February 18, 1997, which affected three villages in
southern Lebanon. It expressed serious concern at the killing of a
Lebanese woman as a result of military action by Israeli forces or those
cooperating with them, and considered them as responsible for the manner in
which they conducted their firing.
The statement goes on to note that the Israeli delegation declared
that this firing was in self-defense against launching sites in the
villages. The Lebanese delegation rejected this claim and stated that the
firing was deliberately aimed at civilian-populated areas.
The Monitoring Group reiterated its call on all combatants to comply
fully with the provisions of the April 26, 1996, Understanding and desist
in all circumstances from operations that directly or indirectly put in
danger the lives of civilians.
That's statement number one.
Statement number two is on the meeting this morning between the Acting
Secretary of State, Peter Tarnoff, and Mexican Foreign Secretary Angel
Gurria who is in Washington on a previously planned visit. They discussed
a number of items:
the dismissal of General Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, who was the former head
of Mexico's Institute for Combatting Narcotics. He, of course, as was
indicated yesterday, was dismissed on charges of narcotics corruption.
The Acting Secretary and Foreign Secretary Gurria reviewed various
aspects of our counternarcotics cooperation with Mexico, which has improved
over the past year. They talked about extradition, money laundering, other
topics of law enforcement cooperation.
The Mexican Government took swift action in the case of General
Gutierrez Rebollo. Nevertheless, this case demonstrates the serious threat
which narcotics trafficking poses to Mexico's institutions.
The Acting Secretary stressed the need for further effective action
against narcotics trafficking and corruption and the commitment of the U.S.
to work with Mexico in the fight against this common threat. That was
statement number two.
Statement number three relates to the anniversary coming up February
24th of the shootdown by Cuban forces of unarmed civilian aircraft in
international waters near Cuba's shores.
There is a commemoration ceremony, we understand, that's scheduled for
February 24th. We have a lengthy statement. I'll just give you the
highlights of it.
The United States, of course, notes that activities are planned to
commemorate last year's tragic shooting - shooting down of two "Brothers to
the Rescue" aircraft in international airspace.
We understand that privately owned planes and perhaps boats plan to
travel to these sites that are 21 and 22 nautical miles off Cuban
shores.
Organizers of the event have stated their intention to remain outside
of Cuban territorial seas and airspace. The United States sympathizes with
the families who suffered such great losses last February 24th. We
recognize the right of participants to engage in peaceful protest against
the Castro regime and to take part in peaceful ceremonies in international
waters.
The Department of State cautions, however, that participants who enter
Cuban territory, territorial seas, or airspace without authorization from
the Cuban Government place themselves and others in serious danger. The
United States Coast Guard and Federal Aviation Administration notices
reinforcing these warnings remain in effect.
The Cuban Government has a clear track record here. They've proved
themselves unwilling - or they've proved themselves willing to take actions
in clear violation of international law, so they've proved themselves
unwilling to observe international law and international aviation
standards. We saw that last February 24th.
So in the interest of avoiding unnecessary risks to all concerned, the
Department of State has informed the Cuban Government of statements by the
organizers of February 24th anniversary events declaring their peaceful
intentions.
The Department has also reminded the Cuban Government of its
obligation to exercise, in accordance with international legal principles
concerning civil aviation, the use of force and the law of the sea, the
utmost discretion and restraint and to assure the safety of lives at sea
and avoid any aircraft should private vessels or aircraft enter Cuban
territorial seas or airspace.
There's a great deal more in that statement, which is available to
you. George.
QUESTION: Could you talk about whether the arrest of Mr. Gutierrez
could affect certification, which is due in 10 more days or less?
MR. DAVIES: I've addressed this before.
I've been asked questions about how this will relate to the certification
process. We make these decisions about certification based on U.S.
interests. We do it based on a number of factors. One of the main factors,
of course, is the commitment - political commitment - of political leaders
in the nations affected and, of course, what concrete steps have been taken
specifically to combat narcotics production and narcotics transshipment.
So it's within those parameters, using those guidelines, that we will
make our decision on Mexico. We'll take all factors into account. That
announcement will be made most likely towards the end of next week. I
think you'll just have to stay tuned to see what we've got.
QUESTION: I noticed you didn't mention that Gurria was also summoned
to the White House for meetings with Gelbard and McLarty.
MR. DAVIES: I think Assistant Secretary Gelbard met with him here,
with Acting Secretary Tarnoff. He may, as well, have been at the White
House. I'm not sure.
QUESTION: He was at the White House.
How does the Clinton Administration feel about not being informed of this
man's detention for two weeks?
MR. DAVIES: We, of course, were - we learned of this just recently
when he was let go, shall we say, removed from authority. It's important
that the Mexican Government took this action. It's important that the
Mexican Government, after he had served just two and a half months in
office, acted swiftly to remove him. But it's also important to note the
seriousness of all of this. We have a very high-ranking official of the
Mexican Government who is found to be engaging in corrupt activities.
That underscores the extent to which this is a problem in Mexico.
It's kind of on the one hand/on the other hand type of event here. We
have the Mexicans acting swiftly and firmly to remove him from office;
that's good. On the other hand, of course, what it shows is that
corruption has reached fairly senior levels. That, of course, is something
we take very seriously.
QUESTION: The question, though: he was detained February 6th. You
all didn't find out about it until this week. How do you feel about that?
In that interim period, could you have acted to protect some of the people
doing counternarcotics activities down in Mexico and perhaps secure some of
the operations?
MR. DAVIES: Sid, I don't know that the "two-week" delay between the
time that they picked him up and the time they made this announcement has
caused any particular concern in the U.S. Government. Obviously, we would
have liked to have known just as soon this happened, just as soon as
the Mexicans knew. That would have been very useful for us, from
a number of standpoints.
It is, I think, important to underscore that they did act swiftly once
they developed this information.
QUESTION: What a slap in the face.
What possible justification could the President of Mexico have for not
informing the United States for two weeks about this?
MR. DAVIES: I think that you can be assured that this was an issue
that was raised with the Foreign Secretary today.
QUESTION: Glyn, the Georgian diplomat who was involved -
MR. DAVIES: We'll go to that after we finish with Mexico.
QUESTION: Let me follow right on Sid, Glyn, and thank you. Glyn,
first let me clarify. Did the U.S. Government find out about General
Gutierrez on the 18th, the evening of the press conference in Mexico City?
Or did we have prior knowledge to that?
MR. DAVIES: I don't have the tick-tock on exactly when we found out,
how we found out. I don't know if we were given prior notice of this,
Bill.
QUESTION: And, second, back to Sid's question. We have agents in
Mexico - CIA, DEA, FBI - operating against the cartels. The Mexicans have
their agents. Certainly, those agents could have been compromised or in
great peril. We could have had information 12 days or more early to pull
our people out. Is this not a problem?
MR. DAVIES: We are, as you would expect, looking into the extent to
which there may have been any damage caused by this individual's compromise
by narco-traffickers. We will, based on what we find out in our own
internal look at this, take the appropriate steps in response to that.
QUESTION: Finally, is it not really of great concern to the U.S.
Government that this man got into this office in the first place, and was
received worldwide, especially in this country, as a staunch man of
integrity and a drug fighter?
MR. DAVIES: The case of Mr. Rebollo is of extreme concern to the
United States Government. Absolutely.
QUESTION: You would suggest that there's damage assessment going on.
Was there an interagency meeting yesterday on this?
MR. DAVIES: I'm not going to get into what meetings were held when
on this. Obviously, this is a matter of strong concern to the United
States Government. We are holding the kinds of meetings and the kinds of
internal deliberations you would expect to discuss it. We took an
important step today by taking advantage of the fact that Foreign Secretary
Gurria was in town, to invite him to come talk to us about it.
QUESTION: Will the U.S. still, nevertheless, go ahead with full
cooperation with Mexico on anti-narcotics operations, or will it hold back
until Mexico does some more -
MR. DAVIES: The United States will always act in the interests of
the United States. It is absolutely in our interest, as a nation, to
cooperate where we can with those it makes sense to cooperate with, to get
at this problem of narcotics trafficking, narcotics production, and
anything to do with narco-trafficking.
We're not going to suspend cooperation with the Government of Mexico.
That would be foolish of us. We'll keep that up. It's in our interest.
Mexico is one of the main transshipment points for narcotics into the
United States. It has been for some time.
Any more on Mexico?
QUESTION: Just to ask, I understand from Ms. Reno this morning that
there is an evaluation, a multi-transdepartmental evaluation going on. How
is State involved in that? And is Mr. Gurria's visit a part of that?
MR. DAVIES: We're playing the role you would expect of the State
Department. We're playing a lead role in looking at this issue, since
we're charged with conducting the nation's foreign policy.
Anything else on Mexico? No. Let me go here first.
QUESTION: The Georgian diplomat who was involved in the fatal crash,
he's now turned himself in. He's going to appear in court later on and a
trial will probably go forward. How rare is it that a country will waive
its diplomatic immunity to let that happen? I guess there's some talk
about him serving a sentence, if he's convicted, in Georgia. Would
there be any objection to that?
MR. DAVIES: I don't want to get ahead of the judicial process and
speculate about what's going to happen down the road to Mr. Makharadze. It
is true, as you say, that he surrendered himself at 10:00 this morning.
He'll appear in D.C. Superior Court at 4:00 this afternoon for a hearing.
That hearing is for the purpose of determining his status pending
a Grand Jury indictment and trial.
We've talked a bit about immunity before from the podium. This is
very rare because it's very rare for diplomats to be involved in, or
allegedly involved in, an incident like this. There's only one other
recent case of a foreign diplomat being involved in something serious and
having his diplomatic immunity waived, and that was the case of the Belgian
diplomat some years ago. So this is rare because only a very, very
small percentage of foreign diplomats in this country become involved
in something like this. Most of them, the vast majority abide by the law,
understand that that's their obligation, and they don't commit these kinds
of acts.
QUESTION: But when they are, they're usually shipped home?
MR. DAVIES: When they are, it's up to their governments to make a
decision. Obviously, we work with those governments, based on our
interests, to determine whether or not it's in our interests to ask that
diplomatic immunity be waived. We'll make that request of a government and
then it's up to that government, ultimately, to decide, as we do with
our diplomats overseas, whether it makes sense or is important to
waive immunity. In this case, the President of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze,
took a very courageous decision and, from the beginning of this case, has
expressed his interest, his willingness, to cooperate every way he could.
He said very early on that he would make a decision to waive immunity if it
looked like this was heading to some form of prosecution. He was true to
his word, and he waived Makharadze's immunity, and for that we have thanked
him.
QUESTION: Have you heard anything from the New York Police
Department?
MR. DAVIES: I cannot report to you that we've received anything
other than a letter from Mayor Giuliani back at the outset of all of this -
what, six weeks ago now? --
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. DAVIES: Yes, some time ago. We received a letter from the
Mayor, a kind of preliminary police report. This is on the incident
involving Russian and Belarusian diplomats, the shoving incident up in New
York. I don't believe we've yet received the full police report from New
York.
QUESTION: On Colombia?
MR. DAVIES: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about the legislation on
sentencing guidelines that passed yesterday?
MR. DAVIES: We understand that President Samper may sign the bill
into law today or tomorrow. We're encouraged that Colombia is taking this
step to enable its judges to sentence drug traffickers and other criminals
to prison for longer periods.
This law, unfortunately, comes too late to affect the Cali cartel
leaders.
We will have to review the law in detail as it's finally enacted and
signed into law before we comment on it specifically. The effect of the
law, however it is written, should be that criminals actually serve
sentences commensurate with the crimes they have committed.
QUESTION: Could I follow up the statement on the Cuban exile
shootdown anniversary. In light of what happened after the shootdown, the
flotilla that was organized and the disruption that was caused during that
demonstration, is the State Department going to watch more closely? Is
there anything that you're going to do this time around that you didn't do
last time, issuing - are your warnings more stern?
MR. DAVIES: This warning is very similar to the warnings that were
issued four previous times. This is the fifth such warning that's been
issued, and this is very much a joint effort on the part of various
agencies of the Federal Government, not just the State Department. I mean,
our piece of this is to deal with the Cubans and to wag a finger at
them and to insist that they abide by international law; that they
not harm these protesters, even should they stray into Cuban territorial
waters.
But the Cubans have said that they will "do what they need to do" to
protect themselves or their territorial integrity, and we've seen what that
meant on February 24th of last year. It was very tragic. So in addition
to State, you'll have Transportation in the form of the Coast Guard; the
FAA is involved here. Many of the warnings and license suspensions
and what have you that were put into effect after the incident occurred
are still in effect, and you can address yourself to the FAA for that.
So we're doing everything we can to make sure that these protests,
this commemoration, is peaceful. But what's needed, of course, is a degree
of restraint on the part of the protesters or those who are demonstrating,
and on the part of the Cuban Government -- they shouldn't even contemplate
taking the kind of actions that they took.
QUESTION: One other follow-up. One Cuban exile group has apparently
purchased two military aircraft - experimental British warplanes called
"Provost." Is the State Department aware of this, and is the U.S.
concerned that these planes will be used for possible provocation with
the Cuban Government?
MR. DAVIES: We are aware of this. We've spoken with the organizers
of the demonstration. We've written to them. We've spoken with them, and
they have said that they don't intend to violate Cuban airspace or
territorial waters, and that's very important. I hope, if they have faster
moving aircraft; they take account of the fact that if they are just
20, 21, 22 miles off the Cuban coast they should take great care in terms
of how they use those aircraft.
QUESTION: During the shoot - after the shootdown, there was some
criticism that the United States did not act to protect these people
militarily. Is that something you're prepared to do this time around?
Will there be American jets patrolling the area? And, sort of secondarily,
when you informed the Cubans of your position, did they give you the
same response - that they'll take whatever steps they deem necessary
to protect their territorial waters?
MR. DAVIES: I think we can consider that a standing response of the
Cubans. I don't know if they came back with precisely that set of words,
but that is our continuing impression of where the Government of Cuba
stands on this matter.
Your first question is one that's probably better directed to the
Department of Transportation and the Defense Department - those that have
the assets that I understand will be deployed to monitor the demonstration
when it takes place.
I was told by the Pentagon that the Coast Guard would be on site, but
you will want to talk to them about that.
Same issue? Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: (inaudible) in boats -
MR. DAVIES: I heard cutters, but I don't know what other assets
they may use --
QUESTION: Regarding the air fighters by the Democracy Movement over
Cuba, they did speak to WPLG in Miami, and they said to WPLG in Miami that
they were planning on flying over the airspace in Cuba. So this being the
case - if this is the case - since they did tell WPLG, what is the
U.S. reaction?
MR. DAVIES: There's a bit of a contradiction there, if in fact that
is true - and I don't know that they said that to that news organization.
What we've been assured is that they have no intention of violating Cuban
territorial seas or airspace, and that's a very important promise or pledge
that they've made. Were they to indicate something else, we might take
other action. But we think it's very important that as American citizens
they have the right to demonstrate, commemorate, do this kind of thing.
That's their right. They've done it before. They ought to be able to do
it again. That's very, very important.
We don't want to constrain them in that respect, but we do want them to
understand that when you're talking about Castro's Cuba, given what
happened on February 24th of last year, you could be playing with fire if
you go into Cuban territorial airspace. So it's a very dicey sort of a
situation. We want them to exercise their right to protest peacefully, but
we want that protest to remain peaceful.
QUESTION: Are there any special alerts going up at the Homestead Air
Reserve Base?
MR. DAVIES: That's a question you'd have to ask across the river. I
don't speak for the Pentagon.
Anything else on that?
QUESTION: A general question you can answer. Is the United States
prepared to do what it has to do to protect these people as American
citizens?
MR. DAVIES: We're going to do everything that we think is right and
proper to help this demonstration occur on a peaceful basis. One of the
main things is in fact issuing this kind of a public warning to Cuba -
that's the most important aspect of it - but also to those organizing this
protest, so that they understand the parameters here. Nothing has changed
from the earlier protests that occurred in the wake of the February
24th shootdown. It's still somewhat of a dangerous business to be that
close to Cuba, and therefore we want to do everything we can to make sure
that it comes off peacefully. But again for questions about precisely what
military or Department of Transportation assets are going to be down there,
what their rules of engagement are, I'm not your guy. You want to put
those questions to the appropriate authorities.
QUESTION: On the announcement of food aid to North Korea, has there
been any progress on scheduling the briefing for the Four-Way Talks?
MR. DAVIES: I don't have anything to report to you on the briefing.
We hope that it takes place soon.
That is very much in our interests, and we believe it's also in the
interests of North Korea. We know it's in the interests of South Korea.
But I don't have anything to report to you by way of a scheduled date or
time for that.
QUESTION: Have there been any more meetings in New York?
MR. DAVIES: Not that I'm aware of, no.
Not recently.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the defector?
MR. DAVIES: I don't, no. We understand that China and the Republic
of Korea are continuing to discuss the case of Mr. Hwang. We hope that
that matter will be resolved soon, but I don't have any developments to
report on that.
QUESTION: Do you have anything in your response from North Korea
after the announcement of food aid indicating that they might show some
kind of leniency in the case of the defector in relation to this?
MR. DAVIES: No. I've not seen that they've made any linkage. In
addition, of course, to the $10 million package that we announced yesterday,
South Korea has also announced a $6 million package of food aid, which is
$16 million toward the $41 million shortfall that the World Food Program
is trying to fulfill. So we look to others also to pledge more here.
But, no, I've not seen that the North Koreans have taken any actions yet
in response to this.
QUESTION: Glyn, what has this done to Mrs. Albright's visit to
Beijing and to Seoul? Any alterations?
MR. DAVIES: I don't have any to report to you. Nick, I know, said
on the way to Moscow on the Secretary's aircraft - the Secretary is now in
Moscow - that we understand from the Chinese that she is to come ahead with
her visit to Beijing.
She's scheduled to get there on Monday. Her visit is now scheduled for
Monday/Tuesday. It has been scheduled for those dates. I don't know that
the schedule on the ground in Beijing is going to change as a result of the
death of Deng Xiaoping, but we will in coming days be putting out that
schedule.
Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: In the presence even of U.S. officials like Marshall Adair,
the Turkish Army General Bir of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Turkish
Air Force General Kilic of National Security Council, as of today in the
Hyatt Regency Hotel here in town threatened openly Greece and Cyprus
militarily on a polemical fever. In one point the army general stated,
"We are no longer optimistic," and he warned Cyprus with adventures,
militarily. And the air force General stated that Greece is not a problem
for Turkey from a military point of view. Could you please clarify the
U.S. position vis-a-vis to the Greek-Turkey differences over the Aegean Sea
and Cyprus?
MR. DAVIES: Mr. Lambros, that sounded to me a lot more like a
statement than a question, frankly. It sounds to me like you're trying to
get statements on the record here, which is your right. You can come in
and take up all of our time with that. But you're asking me a very
specific question about something that happened at the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
We've got a few other issues to deal with.
QUESTION: Clarify -
MR. DAVIES: I don't have anything -
QUESTION: No, no, clarify -
MR. DAVIES: I don't have anything on that, Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: -- the U.S. position vis-a-vis those differences.
MR. DAVIES: Excuse me. We've clarified the U.S. position on the
Aegean many times at this podium. It hasn't changed. We'll send you any
number of references from past briefings on our policy on the Aegean. The
questions you're asking are much too specific for me to address at this
podium.
QUESTION: But somebody is stating what he is going to do with the
use of force. So your policy - could you please clarify your policy.
MR. DAVIES: I don't have any change to report on our policy on the
Aegean.
QUESTION: But according to the bulletin at the Turkish Embassy -
MR. DAVIES: Mr. Lambros -
QUESTION: No, no. - the U.S. Government warned Greece not to share
the military exercise in the Aegean February 18 and 19 and were (inaudible)
Turkey. This pressure I understand the Greek Government accepted. Could
you please clarify this information, how this message was given to the
Greek side via Greek Ambassador Tsilas and when exactly?
MR. DAVIES: I don't have anything on that for you, Mr. Lambros.
I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the meetings with the visiting
General - Turkish General?
MR. DAVIES: Yes. The Secretary General who visited? I think I do
have something on that.
QUESTION: The Turkish Minister of State, Minister Abdullah Gul, who
is in town for the annual meeting of the American-Turkish Council, called
on Acting Secretary of State Tarnoff and other State Department officers
yesterday. They discussed the full range of issues of concern between
Turkey and the United States.
Minister Gul also met separately with Deputy Assistant Secretary for
European Affairs Marshall Adair, so he was in the building.
QUESTION: Did he offer any reassuring words about the situation in
Turkey, as far as the military exerting more control over day-to-day
affairs?
MR. DAVIES: I don't have that to report to you. I've only got the
very general -- I'm sure unsatisfactory from your standpoint -- readout
that I've just given.
QUESTION: Mr. Gul expressed some reservations on NATO expansion and
related NATO expansion to Turkish succession to the European Union. Do you
have any reaction to that?
MR. DAVIES: No, nothing new on Turkey's position on NATO expansion.
A version of this question was put to Secretary Albright, I think, just
within the last 24 hours, and she laid out the United States' position,
which is that it's our understanding that Turkey is very much on board with
NATO enlargement. I simply have no changes to report to you. So we're
looking forward to going forward with NATO enlargement, starting with the
July summit meeting of NATO leaders in Madrid.
Sid.
QUESTION: It seems like every couple days, every week, you or Nick
reads these statements about the results of the Monitoring Committee
meeting, and nothing seems to happen. What is the purpose of this
Monitoring Committee?
I mean, as conceived, I thought it was to prevent fighting, but fighting
is going on stronger than ever, so what's -
MR. DAVIES: Sid, I question the premise.
I don't know that fighting is going on stronger than ever. I mean, yes,
fighting continues, there is no question about that, and nobody wants to
see it continue, but it is. The purpose of the Monitoring Group is to
provide a mechanism for the sides so that they can air their differences.
They can bring complaints about military actions that they've seen. They
can apply some sort of rough rules to the conduct of the conflict. I
wouldn't agree with you. I believe that the Monitoring Group has in
fact been useful, and obviously the sides agree or they wouldn't continue
to get together in Naqoura and air these differences and these problems and
discuss them and release these types of statements.
It's always better to talk than it is to fight.
The fighting continues, but maybe at some point the talking will crowd out
the fighting. That's the objective.
Anything else?
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. DAVIES: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:04 p.m.)
(###)
|
