U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #141, 97-10-01

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

Wednesday, October 1, 1997

Briefer: James B. Foley

STATEMENTS
1		Nigeria: US Presses Nigerian Government to Account for
		  Disruption of Reception for US Ambassador
1-2		US-EU Joint Statement: Demonstrations and Police Violence
		  in Serbia
2		International Affairs and state Department Strategic Plans;
		  publication schedule
NIGERIA
2-3		Nigerian response to US demarche; US view of Albacha's
		  commitment to elections
RUSSIA
3-4		Update on US view of Lebed's report; Assurances of nuclear
		  safety
4		CSIS/Webster report; Russian mafia cartel-drug connection
9-10		Yeltsin criticism of US position on the Total deal; Gore in
		  Moscow
JORDAN
4-5		Crown Prince visit to US; release of senior Hamas figure;
		  Hussein's alleged call to US re poison gas on Hamas
		  official
ISRAEL
5-7		Details of Sheinbein case; Livingston's suggestion of
		  penalizing Israel
6		Secretary-Livingston meeting
7-8		Israeli expansion of existing settlements; legality of
		  settlements
GREECE/TURKEY
8-9		DOS statements; Greece and PKK cooperation; alleged US
		  acceptance of Turkish/Kurdish faction in DC; US view of
		  Pangalos statement
FRANCE
10		Secretary's contact with Foreign Minister; Total deal;
		  applicability of US law
ARMENIA
10		Foreign Minister meeting with Talbott
LIBYA
11,13		Report on abduction case; visit by Liberia's president
CUBA
11		Robaina/Richardson meeting; US request to investigate
		  recent bombings
CONGO
11-13		Kinshasa; ejection of UN investigative team; aid
		  figures/channels of assistance
12		Kabila's uncooperative stance; US deadline to act if no
		  progress
CARIBBEAN
13		Secretary's meeting with Foreign Ministers of Caribbean;
		  agenda
EUROPEAN UNION
2		Representation in EU delegation
14-15		Update on Helms-Burton; WTO judgment on bananas; US-EU
		  Summit; Trans-atlantic Agenda; investment protection;
		  view of Total deal; D'Amato law/sanctions; WTO claim
IRAN
15		British-Canadian investment; ILSA sanctions

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #141

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1997 1:00 P.M.

MR. FOLEY: (audio difficulties, started in progress) the disruption by Nigerian security personnel of a farewell reception for Ambassador Carrington hosted by Nigerian pro-democracy and human rights groups. We noted that we had convoked the Nigerian charge d'affaires to inform him the disruption was unacceptable. We had also asked the Nigerian Government to provide an official explanation and to hold accountable those responsible for the disruption.

Since then we have reiterated our concerns at senior levels of the Nigerian Government. We regret that we have yet to receive a satisfactory explanation of events from the Nigerian Government. However, we fully expect the Nigerians to ensure that there are no further incidents and that Ambassador Carrington will depart Nigeria on the scheduled departure date later this month without further incident. The commitment of the United States to human rights and democracy in Nigeria is well-known. We will continue to press these fundamental objectives with the Nigerian Government at every opportunity.

Secondly, there is a delegation of the European Union in the State Department today for meetings, and the US and the European Union took advantage of this meeting to come together and agree upon a joint statement, which I will post and draw from for you now about the violence last night in Belgrade and this morning in Kosovo, and I will read from it now.

The EU Presidency and the U.S. Government strongly condemn the use of force against peaceful demonstrators in Kosovo today and during last night's rally in Belgrade and call for the international community to join in condemning this action. The use of force against peaceful demonstrators is unacceptable. The leadership in Belgrade, including FRY President Milosevic, bear responsibility for the actions of the police. We renew our call on the Serbian Government to fully respect the rights of citizens to assemble peaceably.

The removal of Mr. Djindjic as the Mayor of Belgrade, the replacement of the editor of Studio B television, and the packing of the station's managing board -- apparently reversing democratic gains from last November's municipal elections -- raise serious questions. We are deeply concerned over any attempt to reassert political control over the media in Serbia and call on the authorities to work to promote, rather than restrict, the development of press freedoms and editorial independence. We hold President Milosevic accountable for this.

We are also concerned about the arbitrary detention of Mr. Statovci, the rector of the parallel Kosovo Albanian University in Pristina, as well as a number of prominent Kosovo Albanian student leaders. As long as such behavior continues, there will be no relief from the outer wall of sanctions. We reiterate the call by Contract Group ministers in New York for Belgrade to establish a dialogue with the Kosovo Albanian leadership.

And lastly, I won't read this but we are going to make available in the Press Office a copy of the State Department's Strategic Plan which is accompanied by the International Affairs Strategic Plan which Secretary Albright sent to the Congress and the OMB yesterday, as required of all U.S. Government agencies by the Government Performance and Results Act.

I recommend this document to your attention. It's a very serious and, I think, novel, even unprecedented, attempt by the State Department and the international affairs agencies to define our strategic objectives looking into the 21st century and to link those as Secretary Albright has consistently called for to meeting the real needs of the American people and making that connection between our domestic interests and our foreign policy interests. So again, that will be available in the Press Office.

QUESTION: Is that an annual submission? Or is it something new?

MR. FOLEY: It's something new. I believe the legislation was passed by Congress last year. All government agencies were mandated to meet a September 30 deadline. Although, I understand within this building efforts had already -- even prior to the legislation being passed --had already been underway to begin really what is for this building a revolutionary process of rethinking American foreign policy in light of our post-Cold War needs. Carol.

QUESTION: Who is here from the EU? Who is behind the joint EU statement?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have the names of the delegation members. My understanding is they are representatives of the presidency - in other words the Luxembourg presidency - as well as Commission members. Perhaps we can get that for you later. Yes, John.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) on Nigeria.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: You say the response has been unsatisfactory. Do you plan to do anything about that, like expel any Nigerian diplomats or take any other sort of action?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I wouldn't want to get out ahead of ourselves. We need a response from the Nigerian Government. We are very displeased with the fact that they have not seen fit to respond to our demarche and our protest. We want to see, first of all, what they plan to do in terms of shedding light on the incident, on responsibility, determining accountability, and seeking redress against those who perpetrated this diplomatic outrage.

QUESTION: Also on Nigeria, General Abacha says that he is now committed to elections within one year. Have you seen that? And do you believe him?

MR. FOLEY: I have not seen that report.

QUESTION: How long do you wait for Nigeria? If they chose not to respond, are you left in a position of waiting until you respond? Or is there a cut- off period somehow?

MR. FOLEY: I couldn't say how long we're willing to wait. As you know, the general state of our relations with the Nigerian Government currently is not good. I'm not sure there is much room for a worsening of that relationship. But our position on the need for democratic reforms and eventually for free and fair elections in Nigeria is well-known. That is certainly what we are looking towards.

We believe that that responds to the desire of the Nigerian people for restoration of democratic rights and privileges, and also for a restoration of a healthy productive relationship between the people of Nigeria and the people of the United States. Yes, John. I'm sorry, you had a follow-up, John?

QUESTION: Same subject.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Without getting specific, will some sort of retaliatory action be taken if you don't get a satisfactory response from the Nigerians?

MR. FOLEY: I would rather not signal that. We are expecting, as you say, a satisfactory response. We have not seen it yet. Judd?

QUESTION: Alexandr Lebed is repeating his charge about the lack of security for Russian nuclear weapons, the loose-nuke story. Does the State Department still think that everything is secure in Russia on this question?

MR. FOLEY: Of course, it is difficult for us sitting here to be 100 percent certain. Russia is a vast territory and control of nuclear weapons is obviously a matter of critical importance to Russia,-- to the Russian Government as they have indicated to us. It is also a national security concern of the United States.

Now, we have been in ongoing dialogue with the Russians about this issue, about the control, the safety, the security of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons materials. It is obviously in their interest to see that that security is ensured. They have assured us that the situation is under control. They have discounted those reports that were uprooted by General Lebed and others. We have no information that indicates that the case is otherwise. I would add, as well, that we have significant assistance programs under the Nunn-Lugar legislation that authorize American support for Russian efforts to maintain control and security over their nuclear weapons establishment.

QUESTION: How recent are these assurances?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I would only be guessing because I do not have any information about what contacts we might have had in the last days; but, certainly, it was something that would have been raised during the Gore- Chernomyrdin meetings in Moscow last week. Yes, Bill?

QUESTION: Jim, the CSIS report, headed by William Webster, was released on Monday said that even the Russian Government was unsure of the reliability of the people safeguarding their nuclear devices. In the report, it says unless more is done, there will be no longer - will be a matter of speculation about loose nuclear weapons. And the British, I believe, a couple of weeks ago announced that they were going to dedicate more of their intelligence,-- I think the M-6 Intelligence Unit would be shifted to the Russian mafia cartel-drug cartel connection that was outlined in that Post article on Monday. I would just ask, is the United States Government shifting more of its intelligence and other law enforcement assets to preclude any exchanges, sales of nuclear and other types of high tech weapons?

MR. FOLEY: I think you won't be entirely surprised, Bill, if I confirm our policy of not commenting on intelligence matters as such. However, as I stated in response to the previous question, this is a great priority of American foreign policy and of our relationship with Russia. We believe it is a great priority of the Russian Government, itself. The article you mention without getting into it, because I do not have it before me, though, talks about the problem of law enforcement and the growth of so-called mafias in Russia. The report by Mr. Webster is undoubtedly a serious study. We also cooperate with the Russians on law enforcement matters, and the whole issue of international crime and international mafias in the post- communist era is a trans-national issue of critical importance that is also at the top of our agenda with the Russian Government.

QUESTION: Did the State Department basically accept the connection between the Colombian cartels and the Russian mafia on weapon sales and drug transfers to Russia, et cetera? Is that accepted as accurate?

MR. FOLEY: I'd have to ask our experts on counter-terrorism, counter- narcotics if they make that connection. Dave.

QUESTION: Jim , could I change subjects? Could I ask you what is the Crown Prince of Jordan here to discuss and can you tell us anything you know about alleged swaps between Israeli agents in Amman and the recent release by the Israelis of the senior Hamas figure and also about whether or not it's true that King Hussein called the on United States to ask it to intercede with Mr. Netanyahu and find out for him what the antidote was to the poison gas that was used on another Hamas official?

MR. FOLEY: That's a lot of questions all in one and I don't have any information on the latter question. However, the issue concerning the release of Sheikh Yassin is clearly an issue among Israel, the Palestinians, and Jordan. The United States Government was not involved in his release and I can state that clearly. I'm sorry, was there another question now?

QUESTION: What is the Crown Prince here for?

MR. FOLEY: Oh, yes. Well, I think you'd have to ask the White House for a specific readout because I understand he did meet with the President today. My general understanding, though, is that his visit had to do with - as a follow-up to the Secretary's visit to the Middle East and the peace process in which clearly Jordan is playing a critical and positive role.

QUESTION: Was he meeting with anyone here?

MR. FOLEY: I don't know. I don't know. Not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: Do you know whether or not there is a quid pro quo for the release of Sheikh Yassin?

MR. FOLEY: No, I don't. I think you'd have to really refer your questions particularly to the Israeli and Jordanian Governments.

QUESTION: If my colleagues will indulge me, I'll stay in the Middle East and ask you another question. On Mr. Sheinbein, the 17-year-old who's in Israel -

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: What's the Administration's view of Congressman Livingston's suggestion that unless the young man is extradited to the United States, he's in favor of withholding $50 million of Israel's aid from the United States?

MR. FOLEY: Well, the Secretary has been in contact with Congressman Livingston. I believe she met with him yesterday and received a letter from him. And I'm not prepared and, in fact, I'm not aware of the status of their discussions and so I can't really comment on that. But clearly, though, the issue of this alleged murderer and his travel to Israel is one of real importance to the people of Montgomery County, and our Justice Department is involved with this.

I think the Secretary spoke to this on television this morning, that she has been working with the Justice Department to sort this out. The United States Government has requested Mr. Sheinbein's provisional arrest with the view to extradition from Israel. Our preference would be to have him stand trial in Maryland. In any case, we understand that on the Israeli side, just judging from press reports, they're beginning to raise questions as to whether the suspect's father is, indeed, an Israeli citizen and, therefore, whether the son can, in fact, claim Israeli citizenship.

QUESTION: To reiterate my question, what is the Administration's reaction to Chairman Livingston's suggestion that aid to Israel should be withheld if this young man is not extradited?

MR. FOLEY: Well, again, I can repeat what I said which is that the Secretary's conversation and meeting with Congressman Livingston was a private discussion. I don't have information about their discussion. So I can't comment at this point now on our position on that.

QUESTION: Not perhaps in specific terms. Does the U.S., in general, sometimes favor withholding some aid in these kinds of cases?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we think that our aid to Israel, as our aid generally around the world, meets specific and tangible American national interests. So I am not prepared, as I said, at this point to answer your question with the specificity that you are seeking. I would be happy to look into it further to see if I can say more about her conversation with Congressman Livingston. I think our focus, though, is on the case itself and our desire to see the suspect brought back to this country where the crime was allegedly committed. We are working with the Justice Department. The Justice Department is working with Israeli authorities. We understand that there may be some questioning now as to the father's claim of citizenship. We are hoping it can be worked out because we think he ought to be tried in this country.

QUESTION: Did Albright and Livingston speak today?

MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary --

MR. FOLEY: I don't know. She spoke with him when she was here on a brief visit in Washington yesterday.

QUESTION: I don't understand your reluctance to answer that question, because Livingston is asking Israel - would penalize Israel if it didn't violate its own law. So how can the State Department countenance that?

MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry.?

QUESTION: Well, it's Israeli law. If he is an Israeli citizen, he cannot be extradited. Livingston is asking the State Department to punish Israel unless it violates its own law.

MR. FOLEY: Well, it's clearly a knotty problem. We are hoping that it can be worked out in a way that Mr. Sheinbein is brought back to this country to stand trial. But I couldn't get into this with any more specificity at this point. As I said, David, I would be happy to take the question.

QUESTION: Before you leave it --

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: You say your preference is for him to be extradited for trial in this country?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: And that said so, isn't the Livingston threat helpful?

MR. FOLEY: You would have to ask Congressman Livingston and you would have to ask the Israeli Government.

QUESTION: Would it be helpful to the State Department's preference to have him tried in this country?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I couldn't comment on that. I think that Congressman Livingston expresses a very legitimate feeling that's probably shared by many Americans that in this case where a crime was committed on American soil, that an attempt to avoid American justice is one that we don't appreciate. That is why we are seeking to have him extradited back to the United States. But this, as I said, is a knotty, complicated problem. We are in discussion with the Israeli authorities, and we hoping that it is something that can be worked out. I don't think it would help us in the working out of this problem if I got too much more into detail about where are at this moment. Charlie.

QUESTION: Was the Secretary's conversation with Representative Livingston a meeting in person? Or was it a telephone conversation?

MR. FOLEY: I believe that she went up to the Hill briefly before she returned to New York. Yes, Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: On September 24th --

QUESTION: While we're still on Israel, can I ask one question?

MR. FOLEY: Still on the Middle East. We will come back to you, Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: Specifically on Israel.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: On something I know you love to talk about.

MR. FOLEY: What's that?

QUESTION: Settlements. Does the U.S. Government accept the Israeli justification for expansion of existing settlements, the concept of natural growth? That there is a natural growth which - of the population, which justifies and makes acceptable an expansion in the number of housing units?

MR. FOLEY: We have never accepted that proposition. Our view has consistently been that the settlement activity is unhelpful and is counterproductive to the effort to achieve a negotiated settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. So there is nothing new on that.

QUESTION: However, in her Today Show interview this morning, the Secretary was asked if the settlements are legal. And she said, quote, "they are legal." Was she talking about legal within the context of Israeli law? Or was she talking about international law, specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention?

MR. FOLEY: No, she was not talking about international law. Our overall position on the question of the legality of settlements remains the same. We are, of course, not taking a legal position on that overall issue. We believe, as I stated, that settlements are very unhelpful to the peace process. We are hoping that the peace process itself, if it is allowed to get back on track and reach culmination, will render these problems moot.

But as to her interview this morning, though, she was answering a rather - you have to take a look at the context of the question -- but a rather technical question in a technical way. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing in the interim agreement, as such, and under Oslo that prohibits settlement activity. We do not support the settlement activity. We think it is unhelpful and counterproductive. But as a technical answer, though, the statement was technically correct. Anything else on the Middle East?

QUESTION: Another subject.

MR. FOLEY: Yes, on the Middle East? Because I promised Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: No, on something different.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: On September 21st, DOS in their written first statement said that additional Greek-Turkish territorial disputes began Imia. On September 26th, however, DOS in another written second statement via press guidance clarified, quote, "The spokesman was only referring to the usefulness of those international mechanisms for settling disputes like Imia-Kardak when they arise." Could you please clarify for the record? Do you revoke then the first statement?

MR. FOLEY: I think the second statement came second and it is the operative statement and I think it speaks for itself. Yes?

QUESTION: Yesterday, we asked a question about the British Observer newspaper news items about the Greece and the PKK cooperation. Do you have anything about this subject?

MR. FOLEY: Yes. As the April 1997 edition of our publication, "Patterns of Global Terrorism" noted, the Greek Government continues to tolerate the official presence in Athens of offices of two Turkish terrorist groups, the PKK's ERNK political wing and the revolutionary People's Liberation Party Front formerly known as DevSol. The latter group is responsible for the murder of two U.S. Government contractors in Turkey. The Greek Government is clearly aware of our concerns. We are also aware of a recent allegation - I think you or one of your colleagues noted yesterday -- by a self- described former PKK member or operative of involvement by Greek Government personnel in operational PKK terrorist activity. I have no information on that report. We are assessing it as we take all such reports seriously.

QUESTION: Hold up. Why do you talk about toleration by the Greek Government? Why?

MR. FOLEY: The toleration by the Greek Government of these offices --

QUESTION: Yes, could you just clarify? Yes, that's correct.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think, Mr. Lambros, it speaks for itself. The Greek Government continues to tolerate the official presence in Athens of these two offices.

QUESTION: But there is a similar condition -- organization here in the town and why are you tolerating this Turkish organization faction here? And you are criticizing the Greek Government from the other side?

MR. FOLEY: Are you referring to a specific organization, Mr. Lambros?

QUESTION: That's correct. ATIN, A-T-I-N.

MR. FOLEY: I would be happy to look into that for you. Yes?

QUESTION: I have to follow up, sir.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Yesterday, I also asked another question about the Greek Foreign Minister, Mr. Pangalos' statement about Turkish side. Do you have concern about this kind of a statement?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we are always concerned about the tone of remarks on all sides in the Eastern Mediterranean. It won't be any surprise to you that we are constantly arguing from this podium for a toning down of rhetoric. We think that the tone used in that particular exchange was unproductive. Carol?

QUESTION: On the Total deal.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Yeltsin, today, apparently issued a statement slamming the United States for its position on this issue and I just wondered if you had a response to that.

MR. FOLEY: We have made clear our views about the Total deal before the contract was signed. We made our views clear to the companies involved and to the governments involved, so I do not think President Yeltsin could have been surprised by our reaction, our regret that the contract was signed. We have a difference, clearly, of view on this important issue.

QUESTION: Did this issue come up last week when Gore was in Moscow?

MR. FOLEY: I am not aware that it did. It may have. I could look into that for you.

QUESTION: In the last 24 hours, has the Secretary been in contact with the French Foreign Minister on this issue?

MR. FOLEY: Again, I think you would have to check with your colleagues in New York who might be able to find out there. I do not have her daily telephone log available. I am not sure that that would have been necessary. The fact is our understanding is the contract has been signed. It is a fait accompli at this point. What our role now must be is to look into the details as best we can of the contract and to determine the applicability of U.S. law in this regard. This may take some time to fully assess the contract and assess the options and the tools available that will best advance our interests in conformity, in strict conformity with the law. The facts I think are on the table. We are going forward from here.

QUESTION: And just one last one.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have any better sense today than you did yesterday as to how long that would take? Has there been a charge to those who are actually investigating this contract to try to wrap it up in a month or just take whatever time you need?

MR. FOLEY: We are actively pursuing the investigation. It is a complex issue. As I said, it is going to take time to investigate and complete our deliberations. But my understanding is that the act, ILSA, does not expressly place limitations on the time allowed the Secretary to make a determination. We are proceeding with due vigor. It is an important issue. We do not intend to duck our responsibilities. Yes?

QUESTION: Yesterday Deputy Secretary of State Mr. Talbott met the Foreign Minister of Armenia in New York. Could you give some information about details of this meeting?

MR. FOLEY: Could I give information on what?

QUESTION: About the details of the meeting.

MR. FOLEY: I would be happy to look into it for you. I do not have a readout yet on the meeting. Yes, Jim?

QUESTION: Libyan abduction case. An Arabic language newspaper published in London, Al-Kuds, I think it's called, carries an interview with a Libyan official who has informed the family of this abductee that he is not, in fact, dead but is in Libya under house arrest. Are you aware of such a report? Are you looking into it?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of the report. It appeared just today?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. FOLEY: Did it? The source, again, was?

QUESTION: Al-Kuds -- it's an Arabic newspaper published in London.

MR. FOLEY: Our information, which we transmitted to his family, --our understanding is that, unfortunately, he had been killed. If that proves to be incorrect, that would obviously be very good news. But that is the first I have heard of this report, so I really couldn't comment on it. Carol?

QUESTION: Can you confirm that the Cuban Foreign Minister talked to Ambassador Richardson last night about the series of bombings in Havana and that Richardson, again, asked - said the United States was interested in investigating it and the Cubans turned him down?

MR. FOLEY: I have a general comment about that meeting yesterday which, hopefully, can be of some help to you. Ambassador Richardson met with Cuban Foreign Minister Robaina yesterday afternoon. The foreign minister requested a meeting with Ambassador Richardson in his capacity as President of the UN Security Council. It is well-established Security Council practice for the Security Council President to meet with any UN member state which so requests a meeting. This includes states with which the United States does not normally have dealings. As President of the Security Council, Ambassador Richardson's first responsibility is to brief the Security Council on meetings with member states of the United Nations. Until he has fulfilled that responsibility, the meeting has to be considered private so I really can't comment on the subjects that were discussed.

QUESTION: Does the United States Government have a reaction to the statement of Laurent Kabila to eject the UN inspection team that has not been allowed to go into the field allegedly because the massacre sites are being cleaned up, covered over, et cetera?

MR. FOLEY: It is a good question, a timely question, Bill. The fact is, to this point, we have been unable to confirm the press reports. We have seen the press reports. They are obviously very disquieting, not to say more. Our ambassador in Kinshasa, Ambassador Simpson is presently trying to contact Mr. Kabila to clarify what he may or may not have said and what he may or may not have meant and what this may portend for the United Nations team. So it is hypothetical until we are able to confirm it.

Obviously, there has been a lot of back-and-forth on this whole issue over the UN team going back many months. There have been moments when positive statements have been made that have not been followed up in action. I think the same can be true of negative statements or threats that have also led to further negotiations. It is unclear what this may mean, but the bottom line, though, is that the team remains stuck in Kinshasa. If it is true that the DROC Government did intend to evict the UN team from Kinshasa, this would be an enormously significant setback to the goal of achieving accountability for human rights in Central Africa.

So, we very much hope that this is not the case. We have been active in urging both the government, the DROC and the UN to resolve their differences on this issue. We continue to urge them to come to an agreement. Our hope is that hope is not over in that regard. We continue to the give to the former Zaire some humanitarian aid and additional assistance through NGOs, non-governmental organizations, for the promotion of good governments and civil society. It's basically people-to-people assistance. It's not much but it is symbolic and it goes toward where the purpose is. We would envision continuing this type of assistance to strengthen civil society which, of course, had been much racked and undermined over the course of the civil war and the deteriorating situation in the latter years of the Mobutu regime. However a continuing impasse over the UN team could make it truly difficult for us to provide direct assistance to the government. Yes, Carol?

QUESTION: You've said that before, and Kabila doesn't seem to be moved by that kind of a carrot. As time goes by more evidence either deteriorates or can be tampered with. And I'm just wondering how long you feel that you can wait before, you know, your ability to investigate these crimes is really lost?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think it's a very pertinent question. We can't wait forever. I'm not expert enough on the situation involving the alleged massacres and the evidence that may or may not be tampered with and what status we might be in right now and how much time there is left. It's a critical consideration. And I have to think that not only on the part of the United States but on the international community as a whole that patience is wearing thin, and I think that's an understatement.

I believe you're right that there may be a crunch point and we may be nearing it now and it's something that the UN is going to have to - and the Security Council -- take under consideration if we don't see progress soon. You say that the government there has discounted the question of aid. I don't think fundamentally that that's true. I think their integration into the world economy and the kind of investment and assistance that could be brought to bear is undeniably critical to their future.

And so we think that they ought to see it is in their interest to cooperate with the Tribunal. You're right that that hasn't sunk in yet, but if we're nearing a crunch point as I think we may be then we're going to be arriving at a moment of truth clearly.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, Charlie.

QUESTION: Can you give the dollar amount involved? And can you go over again - because I'm slightly confused whether it's going through -

MR. FOLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: -- through NGOs or to the government. And would you consider - are you saying if it goes through NGOs, would you cut it off anyway if they kick the UN team out?

MR. FOLEY: I can't forecast what we might do because we have to see exactly if there were, you know, hypothetically a definitive end to cooperation with the UN which we truly hope is not the case. We want to be able to continue this kind of assistance. It's not much: about $4 million goes towards immunization, about $2 million into regional centers to promote locally based development and democracy, which we're hoping to get started; and $2 million on overall democratization, one part focused on the justice sector and the other on democratization.

So we hope we can continue with that, but that sort of relatively modest aid that's channeled, as I understand, through non-governmental organizations, that and more largely the prospect of important assistance on a government- to-government basis on a multilateral basis clearly is hanging in the balance. Yes, George?

QUESTION: Speaking of leaders that don't always toe the line, did you notice that Liberia's new President visited Libya in recent days?

MR. FOLEY: I haven't seen that. I'm surprised that it hasn't come to our attention. Was there a press report, George?

QUESTION: Well, I think the Libyan news agency reported it. And if you want to say something about it -

MR. FOLEY: No. I would have to take the question.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. FOLEY: That I think is a fairly significant development, if it's true. I'm not aware that it has happened and it would be certainly a significant violation of United Nations sanctions if it were true. Yes?

QUESTION: Tomorrow morning Secretary of State Madeleine Albright meets with the foreign ministers of the Caribbean. I was wondering whether or not you can give us some specifics as to how long the meeting is going to be and what specific issues are going to be addressed?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have her full schedule. You're looking for - certainly I don't have the agenda for the meeting and I could talk to my colleagues in New York and see if we can get something for you. But I would think the thing to do though would be to talk to your own colleagues who are going to cover her visit to New York.

QUESTION: But can I just follow-up the fact that -

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: -- EU members are here and last week Sir Leon Brittain was in town. I was wondering what specific moves have been made with respect to moving on Helms-Burton? And what position has been taken both between the EU and the United States to rectify the aggrieved parties and the WTO decision on bananas?

MR. FOLEY: Well, in terms of the WTO judgment on the banana issue, I have to get that for you. I believe I might have something to say. Perhaps later, after the briefing, we could talk. But on the status of the Helms-Burton talks I should say that the delegation that's here today, the EU delegation, has a wide agenda. Basically their mandate is to help prepare for the US-EU summit that will take place in Washington in early December. So there are a whole range of issues that follow the transatlantic agenda laid out by President Clinton and the EU Presidency a couple of years ago in Madrid.

In terms of the status of our Helms-Burton talks with the EU, we are making progress on a number of fronts, but difficult issues remain. As you know, October 15 has been our target date for reaching agreement on a set of principles and disciplines for the strengthening of investment protection. But it is too early to tell whether we will achieve that objective. We remain in constant contact with the EU negotiators and we intent to work intensively over the coming weeks.

QUESTION: Did they talk today at all about the Total deal?

MR. FOLEY: You know, again, the agenda is a wide one having to do with the upcoming summit and the overall transatlantic agenda. So to my knowledge it's not necessarily an agenda item as such, but I believe our people expected that it would be discussed.

QUESTION: Well, is there some way we can get a readout of that or at least an acknowledgment that that did come up?

MR. FOLEY: Well, probably we'd be able to acknowledge if it came up or not. I'm not sure we'd be able to give a readout of those private meetings.

QUESTION: Is there any reaction in that regard to statements by a spokesman for Sir Leon Brittain yesterday that in the event the U.S. used sanctions under the D'Amato law, the EU would be likely to file suit with the World Trade Organization? Do you regard this as an appropriate issue for the WTO or not?

MR.. FOLEY: Well, I'd rather not get too far out ahead of ourselves. We're obviously very disturbed by the signature of the contract, and we're carefully assessing the contract and our options and we intent to implement the law. But as for the law itself, though, it is not our view that this is a matter that involves those kinds of international obligations because the sanctions that are provided under the law have to do with companies doing business in the United States. We believe that we are within our sovereign rights and prerogatives to apply our law within our own borders.

I can go through what the sanctions are; I think Mr. Rubin did so yesterday. A ban on Ex-Im Bank assistance, a ban on export licenses, a ban on U.S.-private sector loans over $10 million per year, a ban on U.S. Government procurement, an import ban, and some financial institution sanctions. We believe these are the sovereign prerogative's of the United States.

QUESTION: Jim, about six months ago Carol asked about a -

MR. FOLEY: Before I arrived.

QUESTION: Before you arrived.

MR. FOLEY: I've got an out already.

QUESTION: You're absolved of all responsibility.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: But she asked about a British-Canadian investment in Iran, and I remember Nick Burns expressing grave concern about that one and how we were looking into it to see whether the ILSA sanctions would kick in and so forth. And I just wonder, you probably don't have anything there.

MR. FOLEY: Good guess.

QUESTION: But could you give us an update at some point on that series of investigations?

MR. FOLEY: Yes. I'd be glad to. I'm pleased that you're already acknowledging that I will get guidance on it. But I would have to look into also specifically the question of whether this was, for example, a prospective investment at the time that has never borne fruit. Because if it was, clearly it would be something we would have been concerned about at the time, but if it hasn't led to anything concrete, then it wouldn't be an issue of U.S. law at this point. Mr. Lambros?

QUESTION: The White House Spokesman the other day in a statement reconfirmed the new U.S. position on additional Greek-Turkish territorial dispute beyond Imia, something which has been acknowledged, as he said specifically, by both foreign ministers of Greece and Turkey, Pangalos and Cem to Secretary Albright. I would like to know when specifically Mr. Pangolos acknowledged that to Secretary of State Mrs. Albright.

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of the question if it's a question concerning Mr. Pangalos though I would refer you to Mr. Pangalos. Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:42 P.M.)

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