U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #135, 97-09-16

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 16, 1997

Briefer: James B. Foley

ARMS CONTROL
1-2		Landmines: Oslo update; US proposal; Secretary's calls
2-4		10-year implementation phase; estimated deferral period;
		  timing of US clearing landmines in the Korean peninsula
KOREA
5-6		North Korea; attendance at New York meeting today; details
		  of the 4-party talks; US belief in famine report; US
		  assistance to relief organizations 
MIDDLE EAST
6-8		Secretary's trip to the region Impact of Jewish settlers in
		  Arab East Jerusalem; US reaction; Netanyahu's response;
		  US view of moving settlers out; US senior officials in
		  contact with Netanyahu
8		Syria: Report of Scud missiles across Turkish borders
11		Visit of PUK and KDP Leaders to Washington
CYPRUS
8-9		Security Talks
CUBA
9-10		Amcit allegedly to face death sentence; Amcit's activities
		  in Cuba; assurances by Cuban government; consular access;
		  Amcit's condition; Cuban cooperation 
10		Bombing update
MEXICO
11		Mexican citizen to be executed in Virginia; alleged denial
		  of consular access; State Dept. response
KAZAKHSTAN
11-12		Peacekeeping exercises
CHINA
12		Refusal of medical parole for Wang Dan
BOSNIA
12		Upcoming elections in Yugoslavia; absence of observers from
		  Helsinki Commission; US response; US low-key approach
DEPARTMENT
9,13		Secretary's UNGA schedule; meetings with Israeli Foreign
		  Minister Levy and Syrian Foreign Minister Shara,
		  separately.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OFF-CAMERA DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #135

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997, 1:00 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

QUESTION: You have a lot for us today, is that why you're late?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have any announcements to make, so I open the floor.

QUESTION: Could you bring us up to date on the land mines conference?

MR. FOLEY: Negotiations in Oslo are in their final stages. Discussion is intense because we're in the endgame in Oslo. The conference participants are evaluating the US proposal I noted yesterday and other states' suggestions for improving the treaty. I'm not in a position to give a play- by-play account.

As you may know, we're in a pause right now to permit all participants to thoroughly consider the new proposals. The conference president has postponed the plenary session until tomorrow, Wednesday, September 17. So today is a day for discussions and for reporting back to capitals, and I'm not going to have a lot to say, I'm afraid. They reopen again tomorrow, and we remain hopeful that our proposals that we unveiled over the weekend will find favor and that a consensus will be able to emerge around them.

QUESTION: Is this a "take it or leave it" package? Or are you negotiating around the edges, or even in substance on the package you put forward at the weekend?

MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, we moved substantially over the weekend in an effort to modify our original proposals so that our humanitarian objective of achieving a global land mine could be achieved while nevertheless protecting our national security interests. We made this proposal in an effort to respond to the concerns of others while, again, maintaining our objectives. I think that this latest proposal has elicited responses from other delegations.

As I said, I'm not in a position to give a play-by-play account, but this is a diplomatic process, and delegations are talking back and forth. I can't tell you whether there are any new ideas that are on the table or not, but our bottom line, though, is as I've been describing it, one that achieves both our humanitarian and our national security objectives.

QUESTION: It sounds like you're saying yes to both propositions that Carol put forward. On the one hand --

MR. FOLEY: I'm saying that discussions are continuing. Clearly --

QUESTION: But you won't accept --

MR. FOLEY: -- we're anticipating tomorrow's resumption of the plenary talks, but I'm not in a position to talk about what the private discussions may be addressing at this moment.

QUESTION: But you also referred to the US bottom line and the fact that you, in your analysis, moved over the weekend, suggesting that was it, you moved?

MR. FOLEY: We moved in the way I described it, over the weekend, yes.

QUESTION: Are the Secretary and/or the President making any calls on this? Are they making any telephone calls?

MR. FOLEY: Well, the Secretary and her party had a grueling trip to the Middle East, as you know, and they came in in the wee hours of the morning. I think that at least some members of the party - and I would note, some members of the traveling press - are recovering and recuperating today.

The Secretary's hard at work, however, and she's been on the phone all morning, as I understand it. I don't know if she's been addressing these issues. But as I said, in all capitals, these issues are being examined intently, in view of the re-opening of the plenary talks tomorrow.

QUESTION: Could you try and find out if she has been personally making any - doing any lobbying on this?

MR. FOLEY: I could look into it. I'm not sure that, in advance of the resumption of the session tomorrow, that I would have anything more to say, though.

QUESTION: Jim, maybe you could clarify something on this nine-year deferral. The reports I see from Oslo say that what that really means is that the United States and other signatories wouldn't have to do anything about land mines obligatorily for 19 years - since there's a ten-year delay already built in.

MR. FOLEY: I think there's some misunderstanding on that. This is a technical issue, and it is complicated. But the ten-year period that you refer to is in the text. The ten-year implementation phase is in the existing text of the treaty.

I'm not sure that, in the event that we're able to sign a treaty and the implementation begins, that the United States would require anything on that order of magnitude.

As I understand it, our experts at the Pentagon believe that what is required is nine years. That refers to the deferral period I discussed yesterday to field an alternative. That's what they're looking for.

Now, in terms of the implementation element itself, there are different aspects to that implementation period. There are some elements that must be implemented basically immediately - the production ban, for example, and use. There are others in which the ten-year period is covered involving the clearing of marked fields.

In our case, we believe that the nine-year deferral period would be enough for purely anti-personnel land mines. Our concern has been over mines that, for example, are not necessarily in the ground - that might need to be deployed in the event of an attack.

So what I'm saying is that in the event that we are able to agree to implement the treaty within that nine-year time frame, that we would not require that lengthy implementation period, as other nations might.

I would --

QUESTION: Jim?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Just - you're right, it is complicated. But as put forward by the United States, would the implementation period begin after the nine- year deferral or during that nine-year period, or when?

MR. FOLEY: Well, the period would begin from the moment of implementation. As I discussed yesterday - and I can restate what I said yesterday - that we would require this nine-year deferral period to address a number of concerns that we have involving, obviously, the question of security on the Korean Peninsula and involving our efforts to field an alternative to anti- personnel land mines.

Let me say that it is the consensus assessment of our government that our national security concerns are fully addressed and satisfied with this latest proposal that we've made that allows for this nine-year deferral period. There has been some press reporting indicating that perhaps there had been a difference of views, that there had been some contentiousness surrounding the elaboration of our latest proposal. Those reports are not true.

I can say, on behalf of Secretary Albright, for example, that as much as she has been a leader around the world in the push for a global ban on anti- personnel land mines, I think there are few people in our government who have personally witnessed to the degree that she has and have understood the concerns that our military has over this issue. She has been to the demilitarized zone in Korea. She understands and appreciates our military's concerns and the fact that the US military has unique responsibilities around the world.

So there really is a strong and unified approach on this issue within the United States Government. I'd like to make that clear.

QUESTION: Let me try that question from a different perspective. Absent a political and military change on the Korean Peninsula, in other words, assuming the status quo, when would the United States begin - if this treaty were to be adopted in the form the US is proposing - when would the US begin clearing land mines on the Korean Peninsula, after the nine-year period is up?

MR. FOLEY: Well, the nine-year is a deferral period that any signatory can avail itself of.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. FOLEY: It's not a mandatory nine-year; nine-year would be the maximum period. At any point in that period when the United States deemed that it could implement the treaty, it would announce its willingness to do so and commence to make that operative.

QUESTION: So it's that period plus however long it would take to --

MR. FOLEY: Well, as I said in reference to Jim's question, we don't believe that we would need a ten-year implementation period. That's in the text of the treaty.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. FOLEY: That's, I think, agreed by the treaty drafters around the table. But the magnitude of the time involved -- we don't think we would need to avail ourselves of to make the treaty operative.

Yes.

QUESTION: Potentially, other signatories of this treaty could take that long. It could take 19 years. I mean, they could choose to take the maximum deferral period of time - let's just say nine years - and then claim to require ten years to de-mine.

MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure. Not being an expert on the issue, I really would hesitate to venture into such uncharted territory. But I would be surprised that many or even any of the countries present in Oslo would face such a problem. I think, as I said, that major parts of the implementation would be immediate upon signature, and other elements involving the clearing of mines marked in fields would perhaps take, theoretically, ten years. I'm not aware, though, that there are nations present in Oslo that have such land mines deployed.

I think that these are issues that involve, perhaps, conflicts or latent conflicts in certain parts of the world. I'm not sure, where those issues are relevant, whether the countries involved are present in Oslo.

Any other questions on this subject?

QUESTION: Did the North Koreans show up in New York today for the big meeting?

MR. FOLEY: I can confirm that, George.

QUESTION: What else can you confirm about that?

MR. FOLEY: I was afraid you might ask a follow-up question.

The four-party talks, as you know, are scheduled to begin Thursday at about 10:00 a.m., at Columbia University's School of International Public Affairs.

Both today and tomorrow we expect that members of the four delegations will be holding a series of bilateral meetings with each other in advance of the Thursday four-party talks.

The US is meeting today with the North Korean delegation. Tomorrow we will hold bilateral meetings with the Republic of Korea delegation and the Chinese delegation.

I believe that the meeting that we had this morning may have ended by now. I can't confirm that, but it was taking place this morning. I don't have - you won't be surprised - a read-out of that meeting. I don't expect to provide any precise details about any of our bilateral meetings in advance of the Thursday talks.

QUESTION: But as far as you know, the North Koreans are sticking around for Thursday?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, yes. In conformity with the announcement that was made last Friday, we fully expect the talks will go ahead as scheduled on Thursday.

QUESTION: Andrew Natsios of World Vision is putting out a number of two million people having been starved to death in North Korea. I guess the German Government called the famine in North Korea the worst since World War II. I understand the United States believes it's a serious problem. But do you share - is that number consistent with what you believe to be true? Two million?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have any numbers at my fingertips today. Of course, it's very difficult for us, as the United States Government, to arrive unilaterally at reliable figures on this issue, given our lack of a diplomatic presence in North Korea. Indeed, we therefore rely heavily on international relief organizations for their assessments.

I just read the wire report coming in, within the last hour on that. I found it quite interesting, because according to this press report - and I'm not really speaking in an official capacity, but merely citing what was said in the report-- apparently, their estimates were based on some witness testimony of North Koreans who had moved into China. There were World Food Program representatives quoted as questioning whether this figure reflected a really comprehensive countrywide analysis.

So we're going to continue to be in very close touch with international relief organizations, particularly the World Food Program. I don't have anything new to say on that. But Carol, you're right, we treat it very seriously. It does look, indeed, as though a major humanitarian crisis has been unfolding. I think the North Korean Government itself, in that same press report, judged that those estimates were quite inflated, apparently.

But that does not belie the fact that there is a serious crisis underway. We remain, I think, ready to respond appropriately and positively to future requests from international relief organizations.

QUESTION: Now that the Secretary is back in the United States, can you talk about the Middle East?

MR. FOLEY: Well, in principle, yes, but I have to say that I have not spoken yet to any of our experts who were on the trip. So I really hesitate to characterize much of what occurred and much of what was accomplished on the trip itself. I think I would leave that for Mr. Rubin when he resumes his place at the podium tomorrow.

QUESTION: I have a specific issue which is separate from that.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to the Jewish settlers moving into dwellings in Arab East Jerusalem? And do you have any views on what impact that might have on the whole complex?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we think it would have a negative impact on the overall process. The Secretary spoke clearly on her trip about the need to avoid unilateral actions or actions which tended to undermine confidence -- the fact that both sides ought to be treating themselves as the partners that they recognized each other to be in Oslo. And I believe she may have said, on the flight back last night, something to the effect that this latest move in East Jerusalem was unhelpful and detrimental to the peace process. I would also note that Prime Minister Netanyahu has basically said the same thing himself.

We think that all efforts ought to be concentrated not towards undermining but rather towards restoring confidence in each other, and we've made our views clear on this to the Israeli Government. But, again, our understanding is that Prime Minister Netanyahu shares this concern.

I would make just one final point on the issue. From our perspective, especially at this critical point in the Middle East peace process, and in view of the crisis of confidence that we've seen occasioned by the terrible bombings that occurred and by the lack of progress on the political front, that what is important in this particular instance is not really the question of what is legal and what is not legal; the question is what can restore confidence and promote movement towards a settlement which can meet the parties' needs. We believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu understands this problem in that light.

Yes, Judd.

QUESTION: But he hasn't done anything about it. The settlers remain. A cynic might say he's having it both ways, complaining about the action but allowing facts on the ground to be created.

MR. FOLEY: Judd, first, I wouldn't accept that characterization, and second, I wouldn't venture down that road, in any case, so soon after the event. I think we have to give the parties time to work this out.

QUESTION: He himself said --

MR. FOLEY: We understand that the Israeli Government understands that this is a problem and that given the equities involved in the peace process that it needs to be resolved in a satisfactory way. But it's not our job, and certainly not mine from this podium, to try to tell people what specifically they need to do. This is, I think, something that he recognizes is a challenge and a problem and that, we trust, he will find a way to work out.

Yes, Crystal.

QUESTION: Should the Israeli Government and Mr. Netanyahu, in particular, decide to move the Jewish settlers out of the area, would that be a decision that you would characterize as wise and productive?

MR. FOLEY: We rarely, if ever, answer hypothetical questions, as you know. But we do hope that the issue can be resolved in a way that is helpful to the peace process. Certainly that is in Israel's interest as much as anyone's interest in the Middle East.

Carol?

QUESTION: Netanyahu has said that he has no power, apparently, to move these settlers out of these houses. But Ha'aretz is reporting today that US officials have demanded that Israel do this. Is there any truth to that report?

MR. FOLEY: I believe we've been in communication, I said so, with the Israeli authorities to communicate our views. I'm not aware - and I would be surprised if we are, as I said a minute ago - trying to micro-manage the Prime Minister's action and agenda.

Again, we think that we see eye to eye on the problem that this represents. But I think we have to give him the leeway and the time to work it out.

QUESTION: Can you say definitively, though, that no one - that no senior official in this government has advised Netanyahu to act to move these people out of these houses?

MR. FOLEY: I couldn't comment on it. As I said at the beginning, I haven't been in touch with our experts at this point because, as I said, they returned literally in the middle of the night.

I think our representatives, though, on the ground have been seized of the matter.

Anything else on the Middle East? Yes.

QUESTION: Two more questions on the Middle East.

MR. FOLEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: One is on Syria. As you know, yesterday I asked a question on the Syrian Scud missiles deployed right across Southern Turkish border. I was wondering if you could find any information on it. And what's the US position, attitude toward such deployment?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we have no information suggesting this activity that has occurred. So I can't comment on something that the state of our information indicates has not occurred.

QUESTION: Okay, then, on Cyprus, Secretary Albright said yesterday she welcomed this focus on core issues. I remember just a month ago when the issue was raised, and the State Department Spokesman said that the United States supported the UN approach, which was basically side-stepping the core issues and focusing more on humanitarian issues - the more softer issues. Could this new approach be a reflection of the realization that the calendar is running out, time is working against all parties involved? How do you explain this perceptible shift in policy?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't see a perceptible shift in policy or an imperceptible shift in policy, by definition.

(Laughter)

QUESTION: That was your next question.

(Laughter)

MR. FOLEY: I see a positive step that the Secretary of State was pleased to be able to announce yesterday that we think is novel and that points the parties in the right direction. There are serious security issues between them that need to be discussed, and the fact that they have now expressed a willingness to do so is wholly positive. I would salute, in this respect, the efforts of our special Cyprus coordinator, Mr. Tom Miller, who worked with President Clerides, with Mr. Denktash, and the UN envoy, Mr. Feissel

QUESTION: So you don't agree that just a month ago the State Department was favoring the UN approach of tackling such issues as finding missing persons and other humanitarian issues first before proceeding to more serious core issues like security?

MR. FOLEY: We support the UN's efforts in this regard to address all the issues of concern that surround the entire Cyprus problem.

Yes.

QUESTION: On Syria, there was a report, I think, that Israeli and Syrian representatives are going to see each other next week, I believe, in New York. Are you aware of such a meeting?

MR. FOLEY: No.

QUESTION: Or in Washington?

MR. FOLEY: No, I've not seen that report. I do know that the Secretary will be having a meeting with Foreign Minister Levy and with Foreign Minister Shara, separately, in New York, on the margins of the UN General Assembly, but I'm not aware of this latest press report.

QUESTION: On Cuba --

MR. FOLEY: Cuba.

QUESTION: Do you have anything more today than you did yesterday about this American in Cuba who may face a death sentence?

MR. FOLEY: Not a lot, but what I can say is that we understand that a document that is called a "provisional conclusion," which was issued by the Cuban prosecutor on July 16, accuses American citizen Walter van der Veer of "armed action against Cuba." If found guilty, Cuban law allows for the death penalty. However, we are not aware of any US citizen ever having been put to death in a legal proceeding by the Cuban Government.

Now, the United States has longed expressed its serious concerns about the nature and functioning of the Cuban legal system. In this case, our principal officer in our Interests Section in Havana has personally emphasized our concerns to the Cuban Government on August 28, the day after our Interests Section was informed of the Cuban prosecutor's intention to seek the death penalty in this case.

QUESTION: What do you know about van der Veer's activities in Cuba?

MR. FOLEY: I don't know a lot about it. Apparently, he stated around the time of his arrest that he had entered Cuba to work with local church groups, but beyond that I don't think we know very much about his intentions and activities. But we're going to be following this case closely, as you can imagine.

QUESTION: When the US official talked with Cubans, did he or she get any assurances?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have that. As I understand it, the case is going to go forward.

QUESTION: Jim?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: You've had consular access to him. Anything you can say about his condition?

MR. FOLEY: Well, consular officers from our Interests Section have visited Mr. van der Veer regularly since the first visit was permitted on September 13 of last year, 1996. We have sought to assist him with his dietary needs, to ensure that he has access to a lawyer, to the prison doctor, and that messages are passed between him and his wife.

We're going to continue, as I said, to follow the case very closely.

QUESTION: Does he have any special dietary needs?

MR. FOLEY: Not that I'm aware of.

QUESTION: Oh, and have the Cubans cooperated on consular access whenever that's been suggested?

MR. FOLEY: That's my understanding. We've had regular consular access to him.

Yes.

QUESTION: Jim, has the US again sought information from Cuba on the rash of bombings that have taken place recently?

MR. FOLEY: Well, Betsy, I'm not sure how much we can do in this regard. As I stated last week, especially, our Interests Section did indeed demarche the Cuban authorities. We were proactive on the issue. Every day that I've been asked the question, I've delivered a public message from this podium of our willingness and readiness to cooperate in the event that the Cuban Government demonstrates a serious and credible effort to elicit such cooperation. We have not seen any evidence of that at this point.

Yes.

QUESTION: Another subject?

MR. FOLEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Mexican Government has appealed to the US Government for a Mexican citizen who is scheduled to be executed tomorrow in Virginia. His lawyers say that this man was not provided consular access - access to his counsel - timely, when he was detained. Is the State Department doing something about this? Human rights groups say that the convention of consular rights has not been respected in this case.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I understand the specifics of the case, really, are under the authority of the Virginia authorities. But your question is an important one. I don't have the answer right now, but I'd be glad to look into it for you.

Yes.

QUESTION: Last week in one of the Kurdish Iraqi group was in town, and they met with a State Department official. Do you have anything on that? What was the subject, and who was there?

MR. FOLEY: It was last month that the PUK leader Talebani visited Washington. Then last week Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch had useful talks with an envoy of KDP leader Barzani in Washington.

We've been in regular contact with the two main Kurdish parties, and these contacts are part of our ongoing effort to help consolidate the cease-fire between the parties, worked out last October with the involvement of the British and Turkish governments, and to further the goal of political reconciliation.

QUESTION: Any new effort to prepare some kind of summit meeting?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we are working with our British and Turkish partners to further the discussions between the parties on a cease-fire and reconciliation. I don't have any further details or anything to announce from the podium today.

Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have anything more on the peacekeeping drills in Kazakstan and the possible border disputes or ethnic conflicts that they are being conducted to quell?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have anything new today. You've seen, I think, quite a bit of press reporting about the exercise that's underway. I'd really have to refer you to the Pentagon about the details of the exercise. But they are being held, as you know, in the spirit of the Partnership for Peace, involving a number of countries in Central Asia, and also including Russia. We see this as a very positive development and a sign of our ability to cooperate and the ability of our militaries to cooperate, in the spirit of PFP and on behalf of very worthy peacekeeping objectives.

Yes, Carol.

QUESTION: China today apparently said again that it will not grant medical parole to Wang Dan, and I wondered how we felt about that, particularly in the run up to the summit.

MR. FOLEY: Well, we've seen that report. Unfortunately, because independent observers do not have access to prisoners in China, we have no basis on which to confirm the facts, because there apparently have been some conflicting reports on his health. But we have consistently urged the release of Wang Dan and others in prison for the peaceful expression of their views, regardless of their medical condition. We believe that those in prison solely for the peaceful expression of their views should be released immediately, and we again call on China to do so in Mr. Wang Dan's case.

Anything else?

QUESTION: I have a question about the upcoming elections in Yugoslavia. Apparently, the Helsinki Human Rights Committee is not going to be monitoring them. What's the US response to that?

MR. FOLEY: The Republic of Serbia, one of the two republics which make up the so-called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, will hold presidential and parliamentary elections on September 21, and a second round of those elections is scheduled for October 5. For our part, the United States will be sending observers through our participation in the OSCE.

Now, we understand the concern of the Helsinki Commission in refusing to send observers to Serbia because of the conditions that do not allow for free and fair elections. But for our part, we believe, nevertheless, that it's still important that the international community show the flag; and that these elections, as flawed as they may be, be monitored by outside observers, if for no other reason than to remind the authorities, including Mr. Milosevic, that the rest of the world is watching what's going on there. We will continue to hold him and his regime to internationally accepted standards of democracy and human rights. But we don't second-guess the Helsinki Commission's action. They exercised their own judgment, and we respect that.

QUESTION: And just a follow-up - it seems that the US so far has taken sort of a low-key approach to this. Will that continue, or will President Clinton or Madeleine Albright be issuing any kind of a statement?

MR. FOLEY: I couldn't predict what statements may or may not be issued. The elections are coming up, though, so I think you'll have your answer shortly.

QUESTION: But as far as that low-key approach goes, will that continue?

MR. FOLEY: Well, obviously our focus until yesterday - and I would say it's a continuing one - has to do with the events in Bosnia, particularly the municipal elections, which were so critical to the future of Bosnia. So we focused on that.

Secondly, we obviously have had real concerns about the prospects for truly democratic elections in the FRY. So we don't have high hopes for those elections, clearly. I think the low-key approach that you refer to reflects, to a large degree, the low-key expectations we have in regard to those elections.

Any other questions?

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - keeping.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- the Secretary getting out to the UN next week and participating in the bilateral the President is having?

MR. FOLEY: We're not announcing today her schedule in New York. But she's going to be going to New York for two weeks. She will be with the President, I believe, in New York, throughout his day on Monday. But I don't have anything specific to announce.

Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:35 P.M.)

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