U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #27, 97-02-24
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
853
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
February 24, 1997
Briefer: Glyn Davies
DEPARTMENT
1-2......Shooting on Observation Deck of Empire State Building
NATO
2........NATO Sec. Gen. Solana & Russian FM Primakov Mtg. in Brussels
2-3......NATO Expansion
BANGLADESH
3........President Clinton/Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Mtg.
3........Proposed Sub-regional Conference of States in South Asia
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
3........Civil Lawsuit in U.S. Federal Court against Karadzic
TAWAIN
4-7......James Wood's Allegations against American Institute on Taiwan
6........Status of Appointment of new Director of AIT
SAUDI ARABIA
7........Reported U.S. Denial of Request to Sell F-5's
7........Saudi Request to Purchase AMRAM?
7-8,11...Visit to U.S.--Saudi Delegation led by Prince Sultan
8.........--Possible Discussion of Khobar/Iraq
8-9......U.S. Troop Presence in Region
9-10.....Stability of Kingdom/King's Health
TURKEY
9........Visit to U.S. of Minister of State and Deputy Foreign Minister
9.........--Discussion of Turkish-Iranian Natural Gas Deal
IRAQ
9........Reported Iraqi-Kurd Officials' Trip/Discussions in Tehran
CUBA
11.......Commemoration of Brothers to the Rescue Shootdown
MEXICO
11-12....Drug Certification Issue/Narcotics Corruption/Trafficking
CHINA
12.......Release of Golden Venture Detainees
13-14....U.S. Concerns re: Human Rights
RUSSIA
13.......Gennady Zyuganov Mtg. w/John Herbst, S/NIS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #27
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1997, 1:42 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. DAVIES: I only had one thing to say to you before
going to any other questions you might have, and that is to pass
on a little bit of information about the very tragic shooting
that occurred yesterday on the observation deck of the Empire
State building in New York City. The Danish Embassy in Washington
has confirmed that the victim fatally injured in yesterday's shooting
was, indeed, as the Mayor of New York has indicated, a young Danish
citizen. The United States of America expresses its deepest condolences
to the family of the victim and to the Government of Denmark.
Finally, the gentleman who perpetrated this act -- Mr. Ali Abu
Kamal -- just a couple of very sketchy facts, but this is all
we've got at this stage: Based on the information from his visa
application, his date of birth, September 19, 1927, he got a visa
in Tel Aviv. That visa was issued in early September of '96.
He entered New York, as I think is already being reported, on
Christmas Eve of 1996, and he was admitted by the Immigration
Service for a period of six months, which is the standard period
for entry granted by the Immigration Service. That's all I have.
QUESTION: So he was here legally?
MR. DAVIES: He entered New York on December 24, 1996;
was granted permission to remain in the United States for six
months at the Port of Entry by the Immigration Service.
QUESTION: But that doesn't take him to today. He got
extensions, is that what you're saying?
MR. DAVIES: It does. Six months from December 24, 1996.
QUESTION: Glyn, this is probably irrelevant, but I'll
ask anyhow. Has this incident caused any re-evaluation of security
measures in any way?
MR. DAVIES: Mayor Giuliani of New York talked about security
measures at various sites in New York.
QUESTION: No, I meant at the federal port --
MR. DAVIES: The Empire State building is not a federal
installation.
QUESTION: No, I understand, but --
MR. DAVIES: In other words, has this resulted in any --
not that I'm aware of. Most federal government buildings in the
wake of incidents in recent years have been at a fairly high state
of readiness, alert and security status, and that remains the
case.
QUESTION: Follow-up.
MR. DAVIES: Sure, Bill.
QUESTION: A follow-up on NATO. Glyn, have you any comment
on the talks between Mr. Solana and the Russian Foreign Minister
Primakov or, for that matter or especially, on what Mr. Yeltsin
had to say today about looking -- agreeing to look for a compromise
and thinking that they will find a compromise at the summit with
President Clinton. Basically, I would ask, does the U.S. expect
that the centerpiece of this summit with Mr. Yeltsin is going
to be NATO expansion?
MR. DAVIES: We have a number of issues to discuss with
the Russian Government. NATO expansion is one of them. It's
one of the most important, to be sure. With regard to the meeting
between NATO Secretary General Solana and Foreign Minister Primakov,
they met in Brussels yesterday for approximately four hours.
We understand the discussions were positive and constructive.
Both Secretary General Solana and Foreign Minister Primakov indicated
that progress was being made, but they both made no secret of
the fact that differences remain between the two sides.
They directed their deputies to continue the discussions today.
So that is indeed happening. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister
Afanafsievsky is in Brussels today for further discussions with
NATO Assistant Secretary General Von Moltke. They also pledged
that they would continue their personal discussions later on,
and our understanding is they intend to do so in the near future
in Moscow.
QUESTION: There was an article the Wall Street Journal
that says Russia's neighbors worry about Yalta II, and I know
Ukraine has expressed some concern that they're going to be left
out in the cold with the expansion of NATO. They would then be
vulnerable to be back under the Russian umbrella. If in fact
Russia is granted the rights over the former areas of the Soviet
Union as one of the conditions of expansion of NATO, isn't this
basically a resurgence of the two power blocs?
MR. DAVIES: I'm not sure what you're referring to when
you talk about Russia being granted some form of rights over the
former states of the Soviet Union.
QUESTION: According to this article, one of the possible
conditions for Russia agreeing to NATO expansion is that they
be allowed the right to protect the areas that were formerly part
of the Soviet Union, and Ukraine has expressed very great concern
about being left vulnerable, neither protected by NATO or in any
way eligible for entry into --
MR. DAVIES: Again, I have a real problem with the premise
of your question. I don't think that anyone is discussing any
kind of hegemonistic concessions to Russia over the other former
states of the Soviet Union. I don't think that's on the table,
so --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) the Wall Street Journal --
MR. DAVIES: It may well have been, but I don't believe
that we're talking about that here at all.
Yes, Mr. Arshad.
QUESTION: Glyn, this is Arshad of the Telegraph newspaper
of Bangladesh. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina met President Clinton
at the White House a couple of weeks back. Besides bilateral
relations between Bangladesh and the United States, was there
any reference to the sub-regional conference of states between
India, Bangladesh and Nepal? And will Pakistan and Sri Lanka
be any part of this proposed sub-regional conference? What is
the view of the State Department on the proposed sub-regional
conference of states in South Asia?
MR. DAVIES: Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was in Washington
attending the Micro-Credit Summit and met with President Clinton
earlier this month. The White House can give you more on the
discussions that they had at that time.
We understand that this idea of a sub-regional conference was
proposed at a recent meeting of the South Asian Association for
Regional Cooperation, the SARC, and that it is still being discussed
among the association's membership. The United States has long
supported the concept of cooperation among the states of South
Asia. All of those states have a set of common concerns, and
we think it's important that they find ways to consult, but we
don't have any particular views on mechanisms, for how that would
be done. That's up to the states themselves to organize.
Judd.
QUESTION: Another subject.
MR. DAVIES: Is it the same subject or some difference?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. DAVIES: You're sure? Go ahead.
QUESTION: I have a question about Karadzic. Karadzic
is being sued in U.S. Federal Court by victims of Bosnian Serb
atrocities. It's a civil lawsuit, and the lawsuit can proceed
without his presence, unlike the criminal trials in The Hague.
Therefore, there's some incentive for him to try to defend himself.
He's been summoned before the Federal Court. It's not clear
if he would come, but there is at least that incentive.
What is the State Department's position on him if he were to apply
for a visa? Do you have any comment on that?
MR. DAVIES: I don't know that he would ever get to the
United States, frankly, if he showed up at an American Consulate
or at the Embassy to apply for a visa, because, of course, we
are duty bound -- as are most other states who have signed up
to support the process of going after war criminals -- that if
he walks onto our property, comes into the purview of any U.S.
officials, we are going to do our level best to see that he gets
escorted to The Hague, to the War Crimes Tribunal there. I wouldn't
encourage him to buy a ticket for New York, and, if he wishes
to come to the Consulate to apply for a visa, he's welcome to
do so. But there are other more important charges that are against
him right now, and those are in The Hague and not in the United
States.
I'm sorry, George. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Can you talk about James Wood and his allegations
of the AIT office being rife with waste, fraud and corruption?
MR. DAVIES: Yes, I can. Mr. Wood's allegations against
the American Institute on Taiwan are overstated. They're based
on highly questionable evidence, and often they are just plain
wrong. He, for instance, indicates that his resignation was in
some sense forced. In point of fact, it was forced. The Department
decided that Mr. Wood's performance after he'd been in office
for a little more than a year had failed to meet the basic needs
of U.S. foreign policy. He'd failed to establish a close working
relationship, one of trust, with the Taiwan authorities. That,
of course, is essential for somebody in his position to promote
American interests. He refused to accept State Department direction
and oversight, so he was, I guess to put it most elegantly, provided
with an opportunity to resign, and he chose to take that opportunity,
and he resigned.
QUESTION: How about (inaudible) allegations?
MR. DAVIES: I don't know. Name one. Okay, we can talk
about the so-called "sex and visa-buying scandals" for
instance. The source of Mr. Wood's stories in these areas --
he talked about thousands of females on Taiwan applying for visas
to the United States having been subjected to sexual harassment.
He talked about the purchase of visas on a massive scale. The
source for a lot of these appears to be a former local employee
of the American Institute on Taiwan. This employee, a Taiwan
national, was hired by AIT in 1985 as a Consular Investigations
Officer. This is somebody who works in the Consular Section and
goes around investigating consular fraud.
In this capacity, his job was to verify statements and documents
of prospective immigrants to the U.S. In 1990, we terminated
this individual's employment for official misconduct involving
his assigned duties. The massive visa scandal that he talks about
simply doesn't stand up to the facts. We investigate any such
allegations very, very carefully. This same employee's allegation
in 1993 that individuals had paid $20-$25,000 for visas was investigated
thoroughly by the Department of State. The investigators concluded
that the accusations were baseless and indeed may have been made
with the specific purpose of discrediting honest AIT officers.
The only case of alleged sexual impropriety that we're aware of
dates back to 1989. There was a case in which a woman who had
applied for an immigrant visa from the American Institute on Taiwan
charged that a local national employee of AIT visited her and
made unwanted sexual advances. This again was investigated.
AIT investigated the case immediately. The employee denied the
charge. That employee subsequently retired. As far as we know,
the woman never filed legal charges. So how you get from that
to the conclusion of Mr. Wood's manifesto that there were thousands
of people being sexually harassed is quite a leap and quite a
stretch. I could go into more, but I think you get the picture.
QUESTION: Mr. Wood also accused the State Department of
covering up the corruption practice at AIT. Do you have any comment
on that?
MR. DAVIES: I would deny that the State Department has
covered up any malfeasance or corruption at AIT. What I will
tell you is that there has been -- in terms of the accounting
procedure at AIT, there have been a number of questions raised
about the accounting. AIT is not a business. It's not 100 percent
a government office. It is something in-between. But it has
tended to follow government accounting practices. In cases where
perhaps those accounting practices have not been sufficient, there
has also been an ongoing dispute over accounting for a portion
of these visa fees in AIT. There's no missing $5.3 million.
We're talking about how they were accounted for and how they perhaps
should have been accounted for.
AIT offices, both in Taipei and in Washington, had been working
to resolve the problem before Mr. Wood came on the scene. They
had hired, for instance, independent auditors who issued a report
which stated that the auditors could not properly track some $5
million of the visa receipts between 1992 and 1995 under the existing
accounting system. That process of looking at AIT's accounting,
of reforming it, which began before Mr. Wood came on board, continues.
Again, much of what he is talking about is vastly overblown here.
QUESTION: In retrospect, does the State Department deem
naming him as the Chairman of AIT a mistake?
MR. DAVIES: Hindsight is always 20/20, and hindsight in
this case maybe teaches us a lesson or two, but I'm not going
to second-guess those who made decisions over a year ago based
on information they had available at the time. It wouldn't be
prudent. It wouldn't be fair.
QUESTION: He also said that he turned the information
about visa fraud, sexual abusement and (inaudible) to the FBI.
Has the FBI been in touch with the State Department looking into
all the allegations made by Mr. Wood?
MR. DAVIES: Some of the allegations that came to us were
referred to the Justice Department. You'd have to talk to the
Justice Department to find out where they are and what precisely
they are doing. I don't want to do that. I'm not paid to do
that. In point of fact, the Justice Department, as far as I know,
is actively working on some aspects of this issue.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) When you say "actively working
on this issue," what issue?
MR. DAVIES: Let me just say -- and I'll be cryptic but
for a good reason -- that I don't believe that they're working
on these questions of auditing and funds at AIT. They're working
on other aspects of the question of Mr. Wood.
Sid.
QUESTION: Change the subject?
QUESTION: Follow-up?
MR. DAVIES: I'm sorry. Another follow-up? Okay.
QUESTION: Is that new Secretary considering any new candidate
to be director of AIT? And another one is, can you make available
the letters of resignation by Mr. Wood and former Secretary of
State Christopher's later (inaudible) to Mr. Wood?
MR. DAVIES: I don't believe we'll be making public any
of this correspondence. You can certainly ask him for letters
that he's written, but I don't believe we'll be putting our Secretary
Christopher's letter. On your personnel question, the standard
answer that we'll make announcements when names are put forward,
but, of course, the Secretary of State is looking at a whole raft
of personnel appointments that have to be made, among them that
one.
Still on this one?
QUESTION: In the past, until Mr. Wood, you always appointed
a career Foreign Service Officer, retired or separated from State,
to manage the AIT. He was the first one, non-career person, and
looks to me now as almost like a disaster. So are you going to
revert to the old practice of naming career Foreign Service Officers
who have retired?
MR. DAVIES: We'll just have to keep you in suspense on
who will be named to that post; what their background is. Sorry.
Can't help you with that. But just a general point quickly,
which is to say that many, many non-career appointees who go overseas
are just terrific, and any number of you can think of quite a
few examples. Pamela Harriman is a great example, and there are
many others -- Admiral Crowe in London.
I don't accept that portion of the premise of your question that
because he was not a career member of the Foreign Service, therefore,
he was in the eyes of some a disaster.
QUESTION: You mentioned some of the reasons he was asked
to resign. Are these allegations that he was soliciting campaign
financing? Did that play any part in his being asked to resign?
MR. DAVIES: That's not the information that I've got.
QUESTION: Saudi Arabia?
MR. DAVIES: Sure.
QUESTION: Big delegation due in this afternoon. I had
a question related to that. In the last year or so, has the United
States turned down a request by the Saudis to sell the American
F-5s that they purchased some time back?
MR. DAVIES: That I don't have a precise answer for you
on. I can check into that and see whether they --
QUESTION: Would you take that question, because they said
--
MR. DAVIES: I'll look into it. It may be a question better
put to the folks who handle arms sales over at the Pentagon, but
I'm happy to look into it for you, Sid.
QUESTION: Doesn't State handle FMS?
MR. DAVIES: State has a role.
QUESTION: In approving resales of American equipment --
MR. DAVIES: Sure, it has a role.
QUESTION: -- so I think it would be in this building.
And they say that's one of the impediments to purchasing new
aircraft in the United States. They want to sell the old ones
first, and you all have turned them down on more than one occasion.
MR. DAVIES: There is no request in from the Saudis --
no formal request -- to purchase new aircraft, so I can't speculate
about whether they'll make such a request, and, if so, how we'll
respond to that.
QUESTION: Is there a formal request by the Saudis to purchase
AMRAMs?
MR. DAVIES: That I can check for you.
Tom.
QUESTION: On the same subject, Glyn, do you know yet enough
that you can tell us what to expect from this --this is quite
a high-powered delegation the Saudis are sending. You know, what's
on the agenda?
MR. DAVIES: Prince Sultan, who is the Deputy Prime Minister,
of course, is leading a delegation composed of a number of ministerial-level
Saudi officials, including Foreign Minister Saud. I think the
Ministers of Energy and Commerce and perhaps others are along
as well. It's a lengthy visit. They will be here for a series
of meetings, including meetings with Secretary Albright on Thursday.
As a general matter, it is a White House visit, because he is
the Deputy Prime Minister. But there is an awful lot to talk about
with Saudi Arabia. It's a very, very important country, an ally
of the United States in the Middle East, so we'll be talking about
economic subjects, military subjects -- the kinds of topics you're
all very familiar with.
QUESTION: Khobar?
MR. DAVIES: Pardon me?
QUESTION: Khobar?
MR. DAVIES: That may come up. that absolutely may come
up, given the work ongoing by the Saudis to investigate that tragedy.
I'm certain that will be discussed as well.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) is he part of the delegation?
MR. DAVIES: I don't know if the Minister of the Interior
is on the delegation. I can check that for you. I'd be happy
to check that, or you could call the Saudi Embassy. They can
help you.
QUESTION: On that same topic, in speaking to reporters
the last few days, Saudi officials have said one of the things
they would like to do is take a look at -- to come up with a plan
for Iraq, once Saddam inevitably falls. They'd like to focus
the United States on that, without you specifically. Is that
something that you all are doing? Do you have a vision for Iraq
when and if Saddam falls? If so, what is it?
MR. DAVIES: I don't want to put out all our visions and
thoughts ahead of time here. In our discussion with the Saudis,
clearly, one of the big issue areas is the discussion of the region
where Saudi Arabia plays a lead role. They have concerns about
Iraq as do we. So we'll, I'm sure, have an exchange on Iraq.
I don't know that a great deal of time is necessarily going to
be devoted to speculating about the future of Iraq post-Saddam
Hussein. Most time, in any discussion of Iraq, will be spent
on the situation as it exists now and how to deal with it. Once
these meetings take place, and we have some sense of what occurred,
perhaps I can get back to you and we can let you know what they
discussed.
QUESTION: Sort of a philosophical look. Does the United
States consider its troop presence in Saudi Arabia and in the
Gulf as permanent?
MR. DAVIES: When you get into philosophy, Sid, it really,
really worries me. (Laughter) Give me that again? "Do
we consider our presence" -- no, our forces stationed in
Saudi Arabia are not there permanently at all. They're there
for specific, well-defined purposes. They're there on a rotation.
I don't think any of our forces stay there for very long at all,
because they're constantly rotated through.
QUESTION: I mean the presence; not a specific soldier?
Does the U.S. foresee a permanent presence in the Gulf region
-- permanent military presence in the Gulf?
MR. DAVIES: Sure. Whether it be naval or other force
elements, the United States has a direct and vital interest in
the security of the Gulf region. So we're going to be there in
a fairly serious way for the foreseeable future. I can't speak
for a generation from now, but that's the plan for the foreseeable
future.
QUESTION: Last week, in the Turkish State Minister Abdullah
Gul and also Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Oymen, paid a visit
to the State Department, I believe. Did the State Department
officials express their concern over the Turkish-Iranian natural
gas deal?
MR. DAVIES: I believe the issue came up, and we discussed
it with them. Yes.
QUESTION: Also linked to this same issue, last week two
of the Iraqi Kurdish official went to Tehran and discussed their
conflict between each other, to discuss with the Iranian officials.
Do you have any concern on this subject?
MR. DAVIES: I don't have anything on that. I really don't.
I'm sorry.
QUESTION: A follow-up on that?
MR. DAVIES: Yes, sure.
QUESTION: You said the issue was brought up, but you didn't
say if the U.S. agrees with the Turkish thesis on relations with
Iran on that?
MR. DAVIES: You noticed that. I think I'm just going
to hold on that. We discussed it, and I'll leave those discussions
for now private.
QUESTION: To go back to Saudi Arabia for a couple of questions.
How does the United States see the stability of the Kingdom right
now? The nature of -- the threat, if there is any, from these
groups in the East? Also, the health of King Fahd, what's your
current read on that?
MR. DAVIES: We have no reason to question the stability
of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. For reports on the King's health,
I would direct you to the Palace, to his physicians. They have
the best understanding of it.
QUESTION: Why don't you question the stability? They
blew up a dozen or so Americans, unopposed, six months ago or
so.
MR. DAVIES: I don't think the Saudis did that. In fact,
I know they didn't. These types of terrorist incidents are all
too frequent. They occur all over the place. We've had some
terrorists activity here in the United States. I wouldn't conclude
from that that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is becoming unstable.
I don't think that's the case at all.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) concluded that the cause was not
internal in Saudi Arabia; that it's external?
MR. DAVIES: I don't have conclusions to give you. You
can talk to Louie Freeh at the Justice Department.
QUESTION: Would you not argue that internal opposition
-- the voice of internal opposition in Saudi Arabia has gone up
in volume in the last year, at the very least?
MR. DAVIES: I wouldn't make an argument at all on that
score.
QUESTION: So you would say that internal opposition in
Saudi Arabia --
MR. DAVIES: Let me just remind you, the Deputy Prime Minister
of Saudi Arabia is about to come -- 3:00 this afternoon. What
I'm not going to do is just kind of off-the-cuff, free form it
on Saudi Arabia, in not being a Saudi expert.
QUESTION: I'm just trying to give you --
MR. DAVIES: I know what you're trying to do. It's very
clear.
QUESTION: -- a clear picture of what you all are trying
to do. So you're acknowledging there is rising internal opposition
in Saudi Arabia?
MR. DAVIES: I'm not acknowledging that at all. I'm pointing
to a very successful visit about to begin on the part of the Deputy
Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia. He's about to come, and we're
going to have a wide-ranging discussion with the Prime Minister
and his Ministers. It doesn't serve our interests to get into
any kind of analysis of what is occurring internally in Saudi
Arabia right now, partly because I'm not the guy for it, not being
an expert on it.
QUESTION: Is that because you don't care to embarrass
the Saudis before they arrive? Do you think if you say something
--
MR. DAVIES: Let's be honest here. I don't have any analysis
to share with you on the question of developments internally in
Saudi Arabia. I simply don't. I'll be honest.
QUESTION: Just to follow that up. I think you said something.
Will there be a photo-op with writers with Ms. Albright?
MR. DAVIES: I don't think we've yet fixed the media-handling
for the visit here. We'll do that soon.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) request?
MR. DAVIES: I'll tell the Secretary that Bill Eicher would
like media.
QUESTION: The commemoration of the shoot-down last year
of "Brothers to the Rescue," has that gone off?
MR. DAVIES: I haven't had any reports. I would have had
reports, I'm sure, had there been a difficulty associated with
it. I know the Pentagon and the Coast Guard are very much engaged
in watching what's going on. Of course, you heard and saw warnings
that we put out, first and foremost to the Cubans but also, importantly,
to those demonstrators to take care as they go about exercising
their rights to do this.
QUESTION: In Mexico, Foreign Minister Gurria said that
an eventual decertification decision by the United States would
fracture Mexico's cooperation with the U.S. Do you have any comments
on that?
MR. DAVIES: Decertification and that process, of course,
we owe a report to the Congress by Saturday on our annual drug
certification process. You'll have to wait until we come to this
podium at the end of this week for anything further specifically
on Mexico.
The United States, for a long time, has recognized that narcotics-related
corruption is widespread. It seriously impairs the Government
of Mexico's ability to combat drug trafficking. We believe President
Zedillo, likewise, acknowledges that narcotics trafficking and
related corruption pose the greatest threat to Mexico's national
security. He has vowed an all-out effort to combat it.
The investigation and arrest of General Gutierrez Rebollo only
underscores the problem and strengthens our determination to assist
the Government of Mexico to combat this very serious problem.
Of course, on the certification issue, we're in constant communication
with the Government of Mexico on drug and law enforcement related
matters. In the wake of General Gutierrez Rebollo's arrest, we
provided some suggestions on ways that Mexico could improve its
anti-drug and anti-corruption efforts. We, again, extended our
offer of assistance.
So that's where we are. The certification process is still underway.
Secretary Albright, in fact, on television just yesterday said
that one of her first acts when she gets back will be to take
up the issue in order to provide to the President some recommendations
on drug certification.
QUESTION: On Gurria's comments in Mexico, do they differ
to what they told U.S. officials during his talks here on Thursday
and Friday?
MR. DAVIES: I doubt very much that the Foreign Minister
of Mexico is saying things in public vastly different from what
he said in private. That said, I don't have a full readout of
all of his meetings to know whether he said it in quite that way.
QUESTION: When is D-Day on the announcement of who is
certified and who isn't?
MR. DAVIES: Drug Day -- D-Day. Don't yet know. All I
can tell you is, the end of the week. Stay tuned.
QUESTION: Not Saturday?
MR. DAVIES: Just stay tuned.
QUESTION: We'll decertify you if you do that. (Laughter)
MR. DAVIES: If that happens, it won't be me. I'll point
the finger.
QUESTION: Nick -- I'm sorry. Glyn.
MR. DAVIES: He's the old guy.
QUESTION: He's the old guy, right. The last detainees
from the Golden Venture, which washed up ashore in the New York
harbor about three and a half years ago were released. These
were Chinese immigrants who were being smuggled in. They've been
released into the United States.
Is there concern in the Administration that the message from this
is the wrong one? The worse that will happen to you, you might
be detained a couple of years but you'll wind up in the United
States and not be deported?
MR. DAVIES: We would discourage any intending illegal
immigrants from turning over their life savings to some smuggler
and getting on a boat for a perilous voyage to come to the United
States, to be picked up and thrown into the hoosegow for a couple
of years. I would hope that this would provide no great incentive
to those who would be considering doing this to attempt it.
To answer your question directly, I don't think there's any great
concern that the outcome of this particular case is going to lead
to any kind of flood of intending illegal immigrants from that
part of the world.
QUESTION: On Friday, Gennady Zyuganov was here. Do you
have any information on with whom he met and what issues were
raised?
MR. DAVIES: Zyuganov met in the State Department, I believe,
with a gentleman by the name of John Herbst who is the Deputy
in our office that is in charge of relations with the Newly Independent
States. He had a good meeting with Mr. Herbst. It's our policy
to stay in touch with political leaders of every stripe, in as
many nations as is possible. That was the case here. It was
an opportunity for us to talk to him. But I'm not going to get
into characterizing the meeting beyond that.
It was a good exchange of views; discussion of what is now going
on in Russia and how he views it. But beyond that, nothing for
you.
One more question.
QUESTION: There's a New York Times story about some sort
of human rights deal that might be being worked out in China which
I believe was refuted by Nick. Can you say more about this?
Is it on the table, or is the story completely erroneous?
MR. DAVIES: That story is inaccurate. Nick has said as
much, and that I think is being carried on the wires. We talked
with the Chinese for a number of months about meaningful steps
that they might take to address U.S. concerns. Many of these
concerns are not just ours but concerns of others as well -- but
meaningful steps that they could take on the human rights situation
in China.
Secretary Albright has, I think, already had her press conference
after her three meetings in China. She's indicated that she did,
in fact, raise the human rights issue in her meetings. I'd refer
you to the transcript of her press conference for anything further
on that.
QUESTION: Glyn, what part of that story is it you're denying?
That you're pressing China for human rights reforms in specific
areas, or that you've agreed to drop your sponsorship of the resolution
in the Human Rights Commission? The stories circulated in the
past, and you all are denying it, but it continues to live, and
there are good reporters in Beijing reporting this story. So
what specific aspects of it do you deny?
MR. DAVIES: He is a good reporter. What I'm denying is
that there is any kind of a deal that is close to closure or even
in the works. We're not working with the Chinese on a "deal,"
number one. Number two, there is nothing close on the human rights
front that's close to fruition, close to being announced. So
it's more that aspect of it.
Are we talking to the Chinese about human rights? Absolutely.
Will their performance have an effect on what we do or don't
do in Geneva? Of course. We are also talking to the Europeans
in the run-up to the Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva,
which is to begin shortly, about the issue of China. But there's
time yet. There's some time here, and some time, obviously, for
the Chinese to act.
QUESTION: What you're denying is that something is imminent.
Not that the two elements are present in the discussions and
is some relationship between them?
MR. DAVIES: I'm denying that anything is imminent. I
wouldn't deny that we're talking to the Chinese about human rights,
and that they have some time. They've got a little bit of time
to take some action that could, of course, have an effect on what
happens or doesn't happen in Geneva.
QUESTION: In those discussions, does the United States
lay out what sort of the minimum compliance that China --
MR. DAVIES: What I won't do, especially since this is
something on-going, is get into talking about either our tactics
or the substance of our conversations with the Chinese on this.
We've been talking with them for months now. As you might imagine,
those talks, at times, have been fairly intense.
Secretary Albright picked up the ball and ran with it during her
discussions with the President, the Premier, and the Foreign Minister
of China today in Beijing. So the beat goes on on human rights.
We'll simply have to see and we'll have to measure the Chinese
human rights performance when we get to Geneva.
QUESTION: You can't confirm for the record that the issue
of Wang Dan, for example, that they release him --
MR. DAVIES: Again, I won't be getting into cases. I won't
be getting to any cases.
QUESTION: Thanks.
(Press briefing concluded at 2:18 p.m.)
(###)
|
