U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #130, 97-09-09

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

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Tuesday, September 9, 1997

Briefer: James B. Foley

MIDDLE EAST
1            Secretary's itinerary
1            Iraq's biological weapons program
HONG KONG
2-3          Tung meeting with Talbott, Pickering, and Albright; Hong Kong
               transition; elections proposed law; democratization proposed
               law; democratization
KOREA
3,11         Kartman-Kim meeting
3-4          DMZ; demarcation line; AmeriCares ,four-party talks
CANADA
4            Salmon suit
CYPRUS/TURKEY
5            Russian missiles to Cyprus
10-11        Dini remarks on Aegean conflict
BOSNIA
5-10         Stand-off in Banja Luka; political rally; SFOR response;
               Krajisnik involvement; Dayton agreement; Plavsic pledge
7,9          Pale Serb weapons; municipal elections
8-10         Karadzic involvement; SFOR reaction; war criminals; Plavsic
               air time; unmet Pale commitments; examples; recapture of
               transmission
9            Gelbard trip; details
AZERBAIJAN
11-12        Arrest of Elchibey; Aliyev's promise of democracy; 1998
               presidential election; oil development; US interests
ITALY
             Secretary meeting with Dini

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #130

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 12:50 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department daily briefing.

I have no specific announcements to make except to comment just a little bit on the Secretary's trip to the Middle East. I would just say, first of all, though, that beginning now we're going to start observing our usual practice which is not to take questions on issues surrounding the trip of the Secretary of State. She and the traveling party are en route, and they will be in the region, and they will be able to answer all questions on those issues throughout the course of their trip.

I know there's a lot of curiosity in terms of what the order of her visit is, and I can give you some of that but not terribly much, because many of the details of the trip are still being ironed out. As you know, she left this morning, and she will be arriving in Israel at Ben Gurion Airport, at 5:55 a.m. Israel time. She will be having breakfast with President Weizman. She will be visiting the Hadassah Mt. Scopus Hospital to visit those injured in the recent bombings. She will meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and then she will tour the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial. Following that, she will have a meeting with Labor Party leader Barak.

Now, her schedule, as I said, is being worked out in its particulars, but I can tell you sort of the days on which she's going to be traveling and to where. On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, she will be in both Israel and the West Bank for meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat. On Friday, she will be traveling to Damascus and then on to Alexandria. On Saturday, she will be, of course, in Alexandria, then traveling to Saudi Arabia. On Sunday, in Saudi Arabia, then traveling to Amman. And on Monday, she will be departing for Washington.

So, with that, I'm happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: Did you see the statement this morning by the new IEEA man in charge of Iraq, to the effect that Iraq is going to come clean on its biological weapons program for the first time and that they expect to receive all kinds of documents?

MR. FOLEY: I've not seen the report. We support Mr. Butler in his efforts, and he will be placed to test whether Iraqi deeds match Iraqi words in this respect.

Carol.

QUESTION: On the Tung meeting yesterday with Deputy Secretary Talbott and the Secretary, can you talk a little bit about whether or not you got any assurances on your concerns about elections and how broadly representative they might be?

MR. FOLEY: Well, just to review a bit about the visit yesterday. As I said yesterday, we're very pleased that Mr. Tung is visiting the United States, and we were happy to welcome him at the Department.

He met, as you say, with Deputy Secretary Talbott and Under Secretary for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering for half an hour. Also, the Secretary of State did participate in that meeting. She spent about 15 minutes with Mr. Tung.

The tone of the discussions was friendly, cooperative and candid. They discussed - first they congratulated Mr. Tung on what has thus far been a very smooth transition in Hong Kong. They emphasized the importance that the United States attaches to Hong Kong's autonomy, and the friendly, cooperative relationship we have long enjoyed with Hong Kong, which continues.

We underlined the importance we attach to our trading relations and other bilateral and multi-lateral issues between the two sides.

The Secretary and Deputy Secretary also discussed expansion of democratization in Hong Kong with Mr. Tung, and the importance of early legislative elections.

Now, on the proposed election law, the Secretary and Deputy Secretary told Mr. Tung that the United States was pleased that fundamental reforms had been maintained in Hong Kong since the reversion, and they encouraged efforts to further democratization. However, with regard to the proposed election law for Hong Kong, they observed that the current proposal appears to diminish representation for a significant number of seats. So they urged him to support election rules that are free, fair and fully representative of the Hong Kong people.

QUESTION: What specifically don't they like about the proposed law? My understanding is it would really give quite a bit of weight to business and other financial interests, while apparently making it much more difficult for the democratic activists to get a position in the legislature. Can you be specific about what --

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think you put it well. But without going into specifics, on a comparative basis, it represents a diminution next to the elected legislature, which was replaced at the time of reversion.

So I don't want to go beyond what I said about what transpired in the meeting. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary were clear on our view, as I stated it - that it does represent a diminution in the representation for at least a significant number of seats. They urged Mr. Tung to take another look at his proposal. And we're going to be watching his efforts in the time to come.

I really wouldn't want to get in any more specifically to what passed between them. Mr. Tung on his side explained his position and the rationale behind the law. He indicated that, in his view, it was within the basic law. But as I said, the Secretary was rather candid in her view that it could be improved. So we're going to continue to press for further democratization.

I have nothing more to add, though, on the meeting.

QUESTION: Well, did he give any indication that he would take another look, as you say, as you requested him to do?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have that information.

Bill.

QUESTION: On Korea --

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Specifically North Korea, has Chuck Kartman yet met with the North Korean Mr. Kim in Beijing? And has there been any result from that meeting?

MR. FOLEY: Well, as I announced yesterday, that meeting is scheduled for tomorrow in Beijing. So it hasn't taken place. We're looking forward to the meeting, and I have nothing more to say in advance of the meeting than what I said yesterday.

QUESTION: All right, does the - let me --

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the North Korean soldier that was killed at the DMZ? Do you know if he was the only one? Are there any others that crossed the border? And also, what purpose -- why he was there? Was it some sort of invasion tactic, or do you know?

MR. FOLEY: I wouldn't want to characterize it. First of all, we just have received reports about the incident between North and South Korean military personnel, and we don't have full details on that incident. We understand there was one death of a North Korean soldier. I think the important point is that the North Korean soldiers - there were several, I don't know how many - were found south of the military demarcation line.

We believe that this incident should be addressed as soon as possible in the framework of the military armistice agreement. It underlines - this incident does - it underlines the need to ensure the effective functioning of the military armistice commission until a permanent peace is established on the Korean Peninsula.

QUESTION: Was it clear that there was more than one North Korean in an incursion in the South's territory?

MR. FOLEY: At this point, it's premature to even begin to characterize it in the way you have done or as something that was inadvertent. We just don't know at this point.

QUESTION: When you say below the demarcation line, do you mean in the DMZ itself?

MR. FOLEY: South of the military demarcation line.

QUESTION: But still within the demilitarized zone?

MR. FOLEY: Well, that line runs through the middle of the DMZ.

QUESTION: Right. But not on the other side?

MR. FOLEY: My understanding is that this was very close to the demarcation line.

Yes.

QUESTION: US medical assistance team headed to North Korea today. Can you confirm that?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I can confirm that there was a plane, an AmeriCares flight, that was schedule to land in Pyongyang this morning. We encourage, as we have before, donations from private and non-governmental sources such as AmeriCares.

Carol.

QUESTION: On the salmon suit that was brought yesterday by the governor of British Columbia, what's your reaction to that? Do you think this will help improve the atmosphere for achieving a settlement? And can you talk a little bit about the meeting that Deputy Secretary Talbott is to have today with the representative of the shareholders?

MR. FOLEY: On the last one, no. On the lawsuit, you asked if it was helpful. We haven't seen the relevant lawsuit documents and can't comment in detail about them.

The specific answer to your question is no, we don't think the lawsuit is helpful at all. We think it's terribly counterproductive. The Pacific salmon dispute is, indeed, a complicated problem that requires our two countries to develop a mutually acceptable solution that, first and foremost, looks to the conservation and enhancement of the fish stocks.

Both sides, through the help of William Ruckelshaus and David Strangway, who are working to reinvigorate the stakeholders process, are seeking to find such a solution. This process requires us to reduce the level of rhetoric and to establish an atmosphere in which the stakeholders have a chance of making some real progress and not just turn up the volume, which we think this is all about.

Yes.

QUESTION: What is your reaction to the statement of Greek Prime Minister Simitis that if Turkey in any way prevents the deployment of Russian S-300 missiles to Greek Cyprus, this would constitute a call for war, casus belli?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we have urged all sides in the Eastern Aegean to tone down the rhetoric. As you know, we expressed -- at the time of the announcement of the missile sale, we expressed our opposition to the sale. We expressed our fervent hope that it would not go forward. We felt that it is not helpful to the necessary relaxation of tensions in the Mediterranean. We felt also that talk on either and all sides of casus belli, of the potential for military action were also out of bounds. On both the policy and the verbal front, we need maximum restraint, and certainly we need a toning down of the rhetoric.

So I think on all sides, that kind of rhetoric is to be avoided. So we urge all sides to exercise caution in words and deeds.

QUESTION: What is the sense these days at the State Department? Things are under control on that front? Or isn't there a sense of apprehension?

MR. FOLEY: No, I wouldn't say so. I don't think there's any cause for alarm. On the specific issue of the missiles, we took note of President Clerides' commitment that this sale would not go forward for a significant period of time that stretches into next year. We indeed look forward to resolution of the issue, and to the sale actually not taking place. But I don't see any reason for alarm.

There are ups and downs in the region. I would acknowledge that we had high hopes at the time of the NATO Summit in Madrid, with the joint declaration of principles. On the level of rhetoric, yes, we've seen some falling away from that perch. We see no reason why both sides, with some goodwill, why all sides can't return to the level of cooperation that we saw beginning to develop over the summertime.

Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the stand-off in Banja Luka?

MR. FOLEY: I do. I understand the situation is calm right now, but it was a very dicey situation there in Banja Luka over the last 24 hours. Let me review a bit about what has happened, and then perhaps I could characterize somewhat our view of those events, which we see as really quite significant.

As I said, the situation is calm. Our understanding of the evens is as follows. First, SFOR prevented the entry into Banja Luka of dozens of buses loaded with thousands -hundreds, at least -- but certainly thousands of hard-liners who had been sent and paid by Pale to attend the rally that was scheduled for yesterday.

Now, many of these civilians were found to be carrying illegal weapons, including grenades. A few of the busloads of the Pale loyalists did get through to Banja Luka and some were able to participate in yesterday's rally, led by Mr. Krajisnik.

Now, after the rally, they were chased by Plavsic loyalists into a hotel in Banja Luka. This became a stand-off, with Pale loyalists in the hotel and the Plavsic loyalists were outside of the hotel.

SFOR is and has been in control of the situation. SFOR is currently transporting those inside the hotel to a secure SFOR area where they will be searched and documented before being allowed to return to Pale.

Now, these people, by carrying illegal weapons, violated the Dayton peace agreement. SFOR is acting in accordance with Dayton. Mr. Krajisnik and some other politicians - I think about a dozen individuals all together - are still inside the hotel, at least as of about an hour ago. They've been offered safe passage back to Pale by the OHR Deputy High Representative, Mr. Jacques Klein.

Again, SFOR has acted within its mandate to prevent an outbreak of violence and to ensure a safe environment.

As to what we think happened - what was behind this incident, because we don't think it happened by accident. In our view, this is tantamount, really, to the second coup attempt by the Pale clique in recent weeks. You will remember a number of weeks go that the IPTF and SFOR discovered significant wire tapping, arms cache, terrorist apparatus and equipment in police headquarters in Banja Luka.

Clearly, in this instance, which we regard as a second coup attempt under the guise of a political rally, the Pale leaders brought in hundreds and even thousands of agitators who were falsely claiming to be Banja Luka residents. Their intent was clearly to try to overwhelm the local legitimate elected authorities of Banja Luka.

We have nothing but praise for the professionalism and the tact and the resolution of the SFOR forces, of the IPTF officials, and for the Office of the High Representative. They conducted themselves in really a magnificent fashion in helping to control and diffuse what could have been a really dangerous situation that could easily have turned violent, with very negative political consequences.

We would also like to salute Madame Plavsic, who, we think, showed extraordinary discretion in allowing the rally to take place as it did yesterday, and in demonstrating her tolerance in the face of this kind of provocation for the democratic process.

Q Could you tell me why Krajisnik was there? And do you feel that he was at all involved in organizing or orchestrating, in any way, this opposition, to bringing these people in, to being involved in trying to break it up?

MR. FOLEY: I'd hesitate to jump to the obvious conclusion, which was that he was involved, because I don't have those facts at my command. I would refer you to SFOR and to the Office of the High Representative on the ground. But I think the facts speak for themselves. This was a rally that he was addressing. Busloads, thousands of agitators were sent in from Pale- controlled areas in an effort to disrupt and, we believe, in an effort to overturn Madame Plavsic's legitimate political authority. Mr. Krajisnik is a powerful politician in Pale. I leave you to draw your own conclusions, but I would refer you to SFOR on the ground for a determination of his personal involvement in this provocation.

Bill.

QUESTION: Was there evidence that the Pale Serbs were going to use these weapons in a lethal way in confrontation with SFOR?

MR. FOLEY: Again, I'd have to refer you to SFOR. I don't have that information here today. But I think what is clear is that the Pale leaders have obviously been doing a little too much reading of their own press clippings in recent days. They have been talking to you, and you've been asking questions along the lines that they have been suggesting; namely to the effect that the tide or the momentum has been going in their favor in recent weeks. I stood up here and resolutely denied that was the case, looking at the overall picture. I think the events in the last 24 hours demonstrate once and for all that they are an isolated group - a group which we believe is condemned by history. At least in the area of Western Bosnia - in and around Banja Luka - they have no popular support.

This was not a legitimate political rally, although they claimed it was such. It attracted virtually no support or attendance that I'm aware of from anyone in those areas. The only people who were attending that rally were those who were bused in for nefarious purposes.

Yes, Laura.

QUESTION: Jim, municipal elections are scheduled for this weekend. Given the recent events and the tension that exists on the ground, are you confident that the elections will take place? And is there some concern that this same type of event, of busloads of people coming in, will somehow disrupt the process?

MR. FOLEY: Well, SFOR is going to make a concerted effort, a very vigorous effort to ensure that there is no disruption of these elections. We're also, as you know, going to have hundreds - perhaps thousands - of international monitors on the scene.

To answer your question, yes the elections will take place. The OSCE has confirmed that. So we're looking forward to them, and we expect them to be successful.

Judd, yes.

QUESTION: You haven't mentioned Karadzic. What - I mean, you said the Pale clique, I suppose you mean Karadzic was directing this from behind the scenes?

MR. FOLEY: I'd be terribly surprised if he wasn't.

QUESTION: Is that more of an argument to do something about him? For SFOR troops to take a more vigorous stance?

MR. FOLEY: I think there is every argument in the world for the implementation of the Dayton agreement, which calls on the parties first and foremost to have the primary responsibility of handing over indicted war criminals to the tribunal in The Hague.

Yes, George.

QUESTION: Well, have you revisited that question with Madame Plavsic? She hasn't pledged to do that.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think I can't comment on recent conversations we may or may not have had with her; those are private in nature. But I'm only stating what has been said many times from this podium - Dayton is clear that the parties have the first responsibility to turn those indicted war criminals over. SFOR has a mandate to detain and transfer to The Hague indicted war criminals that they come across in the performance of their mission.

A lot depends on the tactical decisions of the commanders on the ground. I think that clearly all options are within the realm of possibility. If you only look at the detention of -- the arrest of the war criminals near Prijedor in July, I think that's a salutary lesson. But you can't expect me comment in specifics about what may be happening.

Yes, Betsy.

QUESTION: Do you know if Madame Plavsic has availed herself of the air time on that radio station?

MR. FOLEY: I'm glad you asked the question because every day, anticipating your questions, I've been asking our people to find out what they could about the status of the Pale leadership's meeting or not of the commitments they made when that transmission tower was handed back to them last week.

As I said at the time, we would be able to verify one way or the other - these were clear commitments. And alas, I have to report to you today that they've not met those commitments; not in any way whatsoever. I can give you some specific examples.

On Saturday, the Office of the High Representative offered a 30-minute tape that was prepared by SFOR. The board - the Pale Serb state broadcasters - SRT, it's called, replaced the soundtrack of this tape with a voice over critical of SFOR. It also bracketed the program with other material intended to cast SFOR in a bad light. I think this speaks for itself. I don't need to comment.

Secondly, an attempt was made on Sunday. This time, SRT was offered a one- hour tape, prepared by Banja Luka broadcasters. The program was a talk show, including six party opposition leaders answering and discussing election questions. SRT Pale initially agreed to air the tape and then reneged on the deal. A third attempt was made on September 7 by the OHR media advisory group to get SRT Pale to air the opposition program, and Pale again refused.

So we are drawing the obvious conclusion that Pale broadcasters have no intention of complying with the September 2 agreement.

QUESTION: So what --

QUESTION: What happens next? I'm sorry, Betsy. Go ahead.

QUESTION: So what is our reaction going to be? Are we urging the Office of the High Commissioner to take steps to recapture the transmission tower?

MR. FOLEY: I thought you might ask that question. I would just say, stay tuned.

Yes, George.

QUESTION: Did you talk to Ambassador Gelbard this morning? I believe he's leaving tomorrow.

MR. FOLEY: He's leaving on Thursday. I spoke to him, but you're asking about his trip to help --

QUESTION: Yes. Who is he going to meet with and so forth.

MR. FOLEY: -- to go watch the elections. Well, I don't have his program now. It's still two days before his departure. But the main purpose of his trip is to witness firsthand the conduct of the elections.

Bill.

QUESTION: I just wanted to follow. Wes Clark last week went on the record to predict what has happened over the weekend and is happening currently in Banja Luka. Is it safe to assume that SFOR has the game plan of Pale and the Karadzic people and are fully prepared to meet whatever challenges they might mount between now and the election?

MR. FOLEY: Absolutely. I think there's no question about it. Again, we salute the extraordinary coolness and professionalism of SFOR and the other international agencies under very tense circumstances. They are very attuned to the nuances of the situation there. They are adept diplomats and negotiators. This situation was diffused without violence and without loss of life, and they deserve enormous credit for that achievement. But let no one misunderstand, they have the rules of engagement they need. They are well armed, and they have the will and the ability to enforce their mandate whenever challenged.

Carol.

QUESTION: Do you now think that giving back those transmission facilities to the hard-liners was a mistake?

MR. FOLEY: I don't think it was a mistake at all. Again, SFOR made a tactical decision and decided to hand it back under certain specific conditions. Sometimes you have to let people - give them a chance to prove their lack of goodwill, their lack of real commitment. In this case, as I stated at the time, we were not overly optimistic. We were outright skeptical that they would meet those commitments, but we felt it was very useful, in the current circumstances, that Pale be given a final chance to comply with those commitments.

Now, they have failed to do so. You shouldn't press me on where we go from there. That's going to be an SFOR decision But as I said, stay tuned.

Yes.

QUESTION: Another subject?

QUESTION: Could we get access to Gelbard before he goes, please?

MR. FOLEY: I'll have to look into that. I won't make any promises.

Yes.

QUESTION: Yesterday the Foreign Minister of Italy, Mr. Lamberto Dini, before his meeting with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, in a reference to the Cyprus situation, said that in Cyprus there are borderlines, two entities and two governments, and that is a state of fact. I want to know if you have a reaction on that, and if the US Government continues to recognize, as a legitimate government in Cyprus, the government of President Clerides; and if you continue to support the UN negotiations for a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation.

MR. FOLEY: The answer is yes on both questions. The United States recognizes the government in Nicosia as the legitimate government of Cyprus. We nonetheless maintain contacts with both the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders.

Now, the EU leaders have worked to ensure that both the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities can participate in the EU accession process. We welcome and encourage those efforts.

QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up? Do you think that this kind of statements by the foreign minister of Italy are helpful to the current process of negotiations at the UN?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we have been very careful not to interject ourselves in the EU accession process, whether it relates to Cyprus accession, whether it relates to the prospect of Turkish accession to the EU. We've welcomed both. We think both can help contribute to resolution of tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean, to a resolution of the Cyprus problem. But we don't take positions from this podium.

I explained our diplomatic position on the issue of Cyprus, and our diplomatic relations. But I wouldn't go further than that.

Yes.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, I have to go back to that Beijing meeting for just a minute. I apologize if you said it yesterday, but can you tell us why the United States thinks that this meeting between Kartman and Kim Gye Gwan is necessary? What do you hope to accomplish in it?

MR. FOLEY: We think meetings of this nature are always helpful. I wouldn't draw any extraordinary implications from the meeting. We think, in the circumstances, that it's timely for Mr. Kartman to have this meeting.

Just the incident that occurred on the DMZ highlights the need for the four- party talks, generally, which are aimed at establishing a permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula. In this context, regular communication such as Mr. Kartman's meeting tomorrow with the North Korean Vice Foreign Minister can help move the peace process forward.

Yes.

QUESTION: Do we expect to hear of whether the four-party talks will go on as scheduled? Is that part of Mr. Kartman's query?

MR. FOLEY: I have nothing to say on the specifics of his meeting tomorrow. I can repeat for you what I've been saying for several days about the four-party talks. We have no change.

There was someone who was asking something over there. Yes.

QUESTION: This is on Azerbaijan.

MR. FOLEY: Well, let me just finish Bill. I don't want to go on ad nauseam because I've said it many times; that we have nothing concrete to report of any news value.

Yes.

QUESTION: The government of Azerbaijan has announced that it plans to arrest former President Abulfaz Elchibey. Mr. Elchibey is the leader of democratic opposition in Azerbaijan, and he seeks to return to Baku to contest the new presidential election in 1998. President Aliyev was in Washington last month, and he promised to respect democratic law. What reaction the people of Azerbaijan should expect from the State Department?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I've not heard of this. This is a press report you've seen?

QUESTION: Yeah, a press report.

MR. FOLEY: I'd be happy to take a look at the report.

QUESTION: Because some opinion in Azerbaijan that this contest - that US interested only in oil development in Azerbaijan, not in democratic development.

MR. FOLEY: That's not true. When President Aliyev was here, certainly our interest in seeing progress on the democratic front in Azerbaijan was on the table and was discussed. So I can answer that question generally, but I'd have to look into it. I'd be glad to do so for you.

Any other questions. Yes.

QUESTION: Yesterday Italian Foreign Minister Lamberto Dini and Secretary of State, Ms. Albright, did they discuss about the Turkish-Greek conflict or Aegean conflict when they were handling the European community and US relations?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that that came up for discussion.

Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:25 P.M.)

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