U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #169, 97-11-25
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
735
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Tuesday, November 25, 1997
Briefer: James B. Foley
STATEMENTS
1 Secretary of State Albright's Statement on Under Secretary
Tim Wirth's resignation
1 Secretary of State Albright's trip to Africa - Dec. 8-15
AFRICA
1 Schedule of Secretary of State Albright's visit
1,2-3 Updates on the investigative team in Congo and Rwandan
refugees
1,2,3-4 US interests in Great Lakes
3 Update on Africa Crisis Response Initiative
IRAQ
4 UNSCOM as a deterrence to weapons of mass destruction
programs
4,5,7-8 Executive Director of UNSCOM, Richard Butler's visit and
access to sensitive sites
5,6-7 Russian interests and intentions
5-6 Conditions for lifting sanctions
6-7 US build-up of military forces in Iraq and US policy goals
12 Reported cease fire between Kurdish factions in Northern
Iraq
MEXICO
8-9 Extradition/deportation of Jose Luis del Toro/Mexican
cooperation
CROATIA
9-10 Court cases involving Soros Foundation employees
BOSNIA
10-12 Brcko bridge and SFOR
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #169
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1997, 12:45 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department 12:45 p.m. briefing - a little
closer to 12:30 p.m. today than yesterday.
I have a couple of announcements. One I'm just going to post; it's
concerning the departure of Under Secretary Tim Wirth and the Secretary of
State's message saluting Mr. Wirth for his significant accomplishments in
the field of the post-Cold War agenda -- which he helped to define and
helped re-orient American foreign policy in the direction of the new
challenges of the 21st Century -- and also wishing him well in his new
assignment.
Secondly, I'd like to announce today that Secretary of State Albright is
planning a visit to Africa, from December 8 to 15. She is scheduled to
visit Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South
Africa and Zimbabwe.
This trip will focus on three main themes: advancing US interests in the
Great Lakes region, justice and the rule of law, stability and economic
opportunity -- that's the first rubric; secondly, developing a partnership
with the new generation of African leaders; and thirdly, reaching out
directly to people - particularly youth - who will take Africa into the
21st Century.
The trip, which is her first to Africa as Secretary - not her first trip,
because she has been there, I think, on at least two occasions as the
American permanent representative to the United Nations. But this, her
first trip as Secretary, demonstrates the importance that the United States
attaches to Africa; to our relationships with the countries there and to
rapidly growing US business interests; and finally, to the aspirations of
millions of Africans for freedom, stability and prosperity.
The first stop on the Secretary's trip will be Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on
December 9, where she will give a major speech at the Organization of
African Unity. From Addis, the Secretary will go to Kampala, Uganda, on
December 10. She will then travel to Rwanda on December 11 and will be in
Kinshasa on December 12. The Secretary will proceed to South Africa on
December 13 and Harare, Zimbabwe, on December 15.
QUESTION: You mentioned the Democratic Republic of Congo. What is the
update on the US quest to get these folks to allow UN inspectors to see
what happened to the Rwandan refugees?
MR. FOLEY: Well, our understanding is the UN team leaders who returned to
Kinshasa on November 11 have met with various officials of the government
of the Democratic Republic of Congo and they are now awaiting a meeting
with the minister of reconstruction. Once that meeting takes place, our
understanding - and indeed, expectation - is that the team should proceed
to the field and begin its work immediately.
QUESTION: Why the minister of reconstruction?
MR. FOLEY: I believe he's had some responsibility in the past for- I
think it's been within his portfolio -- the issue of the UN team's work in
Kinshasa.
QUESTION: Is she going to meet with Kabila?
MR. FOLEY: She expects to meet with the President, yes.
QUESTION: Yeah, I didn't hear that.
MR. FOLEY: We don't have a list because we've just announced the trip.
We've just communicated over the weekend, I believe, with the host
governments. We're working on the schedule and on her meetings. We'll have
that for you probably sometime next week or later next week.
QUESTION: You spoke of US interests in the Great Lakes region. Could you
elucidate what the interests are?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think you won't be surprised that they run the gamut
of issues. I think, in our view, Africa presents a real opportunity,
following the period of Cold War and the paralysis, the political paralysis
that existed in Africa. We've seen transitions across the continent, and a
willingness on the part of some of the new governments on the continent to
work towards economic reforms and integrating Africa with the world
economy.
So certainly the Secretary is going to encourage that trend. She also
believes that there are opportunities for American business in this area.
Then finally, she believes that the United States can be a catalyst for the
consolidation of political change in Africa. I think the broad range of her
visits that are planned reflects the broad range of our interests across
Africa.
QUESTION: And so when you say interests, you mean mainly state interests
or national interests or commercial interests?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'd say all three. But in addition, I think I noted in
the announcement that she believes that her trip is an opportunity to reach
out to people. She's going to make several speeches. I mentioned one for
the OAU; I think there are others planned. There will be meetings that
emphasize some of the issues that are dear to her heart and that reflect
our desire for closer people-to-people ties between Americans and
Africans.
QUESTION: In previous occasions when people have asked the United States
to get involved in some way, through peacekeeping or other forces, the
answer has always been that you didn't have any interest at stake there and
couldn't justify it.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think you're probably harking back, Roy, mostly to the
Cold War period. I think we see Africa in a new light. Certainly that's
been a hallmark of President Clinton's Administration -- and Secretary
Albright supports that vigorously -- of reaching out to Africa on a new
footing with new leadership and new opportunities, really, to help
integrate Africa into the world economy, to develop trading relations
between the United States and Africa, and to consolidate the political
gains and improvements of recent years.
Obviously, there are serious problems in Africa. There is still the danger
of instability in many of these new governments. I think the DRoC is the
obvious case in point - a nation which has enormous economic potential,
enormous promise to serve as a stabilizing factor in a region that has
known quite a bit of instability, and where the Secretary hopes to add her
voice to the political developments on the continent, encouraging further
movement towards peace and consolidation of the stability that we hope to
encourage in the region.
QUESTION: Another subject?
QUESTION: I still have one on Africa. Does this schedule mean that the
Secretary is not planning to attend the opening of the Korea talks in
Geneva on December 9, a day when - according to what you just read out -
she's supposed to be in Addis Ababa?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, well, she's going to be in Africa. I think that's a
logical conclusion. I think she's demonstrated on her last jaunt around the
world that she's capable of being in many places within a very narrow time
frame, but not two places at the same time, no.
QUESTION: The last major Africa trip was by Secretary Christopher 13
months ago, when the focal point was the Africa Crisis Response Initiative,
which was supposed to have been off the ground earlier this year. I've
heard very little about it all year long, and I just wonder whether you
have any guidance you could offer us on that subject?
MR. FOLEY: On the Africa Crisis Response Initiative?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. FOLEY: Well, we had teams in Senegal and Uganda - one battalion
trained in Senegal in September and another in Uganda in October. I don't
have the list for you, George, but there are a number of other ACRI teams
planning to do similar work in other African countries in the coming
months; I think at the turn of the year. But I can get that for you,
George. There's a schedule of activities planned.
Anything else on Africa, or on the Secretary's trip?
QUESTION: My reference to interests - a request for US participation in
peacekeeping has just been one year ago, during the whole Rwanda-Zaire
crisis. Then there've been other occasions in the meantime, when countries
seem to be collapsing and the United States and other major powers - other
than France - do not get involved. So it just seems to me, "interests,
" when you use it like that, doesn't really mean - I don't understand
the meaning, as you're stating it. I'll just leave it as a comment.
MR. FOLEY: Okay. I'll take it as a comment.
QUESTION: Okay to Iraq?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: I draw from Secretary Cohen's Q and A this morning, his press
conference, in part. Does the State Department feel that it is very
important that Saddam Hussein not get away with - not succeed in his
programs of weapons of mass destruction, in order that the 25 other nations
that are involved in developing these types of weapons might be discouraged,
deterred?
MR. FOLEY: I think you make an important point. We've rightly focused,
throughout this stand-off and crisis of the last few weeks, on the
situation in Iraq, which is critical -- critical to the safety and security
of nations surrounding Iraq and beyond. But there is a larger issue at
stake -- and I'm glad you asked the question -- because if the international
community fails to achieve its goals in Iraq, if the inspection regime is
not allowed to function effectively and come to a final, successful
conclusion, certainly that will set a bad precedent for its work elsewhere
in the world.
So a lot more is at stake here. As much as the situation in Iraq is of
critical, near-term, immediate importance, the whole world community has a
stake in the successful completion of UNSCOM's mission in Iraq.
QUESTION: The Executive Director of UNSCOM, Richard Butler, is going to
Iraq next week. I'm wondering if you have any expectation that his talks on
access to sites will yield some agreement?
MR. FOLEY: Well, Mr. Butler would have to speak for himself, in terms of
the aims of his visit, what he plans to discuss with the Iraqi authorities.
But in our view, when Iraq welcomed, so to speak, the return of the UNSCOM
inspectors last week, they did so unconditionally. We've seen some comments
on television that indicate that the Iraqis cling to other views. But
until UNSCOM is allowed access to all the sites it deems necessary
to inspect, we won't be able to really answer that question.
Presumably, this will be an issue of discussion between Mr. Butler and the
Iraqi authorities. But again, if, as is obvious, the Iraqi regime wishes to
have the hope of emerging from the sanctions regime, they will have to
cooperate 100 percent, not 95 or 99 percent, but 100 percent with Mr.
Butler's efforts.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on that news account this morning, to the
effect that the Iraqis had advance knowledge of visits by UNSCOM to
suspected weapons sites, and therefore had an opportunity to conceal what
was there?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have direct information, but we do know that UNSCOM,
as well as the IAEA, simply assume that Iraq is applying all available
means to spy on UN inspectors, particularly attempting to learn in advance
about planned inspection operations.
It's certainly not a new development. Since the inception of the inspections
operations in 1991, for example, Iraq has assigned a large number of people,
or "minders" I think they're called, to escort the inspectors. One of their
primary tasks is to engage the inspectors in conversation, seeking to learn
more about future inspection operations.
I think it's safe to assume the worst, if you will, in terms of Iraqi
intentions or aims to learn all that they can in advance of UNSCOM
operations. I think that's a fact of life that UNSCOM is attempting to deal
with. You'd have to ask them how, operationally, they seek to preserve the
integrity of their work, but it's obviously a critical question.
QUESTION: There seem to be some discrepancies about how - the number of
sensitive sites in Iraq. Do you all have a figure that you're working with,
as far as --
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think it's a moving target, and I think that the
Iraqis have a tendency to add to the figure. You saw Secretary Cohen on
television over the weekend, and he mentioned, I think, the figure was 63.
I've seen press accounts that it might be more. Our view is that the number
should be zero, and there's no question about that.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on what you said the Iraqis are saying, and
also to follow up what's happened over the last week, Iraq seems to be
under the impression, or they were given the impression by Russia, that
Russia would obviously be the advocate for them and push to ease sanctions.
They are operating under that impression, but the United States has said,
as well as UNSCOM seems to be saying, that they are a long way off from
even thinking about lifting sanctions, when you can't even get to the
weapons sites and you know what Iraq's doing.
Then Iraq said, I believe last week, that if they don't get what they want,
another crisis is on the brink. They were almost suggesting they were going
to disrupt the inspections yet again. So what do you think it's going to
take to get Iraq on the same page with the UN? There's all this kind of
discrepancy.
MR. FOLEY: Vigilance and commitment on the part of the international
community to persevere until the day comes when UNSCOM is granted the
access it needs and is able to certify, at the end of the day, that Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction programs are finished once and for all.
I would note that insofar as Iraq is interested in having sanctions lifted,
that they took a tremendous step in the wrong direction when they
precipitated this crisis last month. Indeed, the UNSCOM inspectors in their
early days, back in Baghdad in Iraq since Friday, have been attempting to
reconstruct the baseline that to some degree or another may have been
compromised during their absence.
So, Crystal, your question is a good one; but only Saddam Hussein
ultimately is capable of answering that question. His actions alone will
determine when the sanctions lifting can be considered.
QUESTION: So you think you can get cooperation with Iraq without
incentives being offered?
MR. FOLEY: Well, clearly there was an attempt on Saddam Hussein's part to
drive a wedge through the international coalition and the Security Council
in precipitating this crisis; and it didn't succeed. I would note, we are
not surprised that Russia, to one degree or another, is playing the role of
advocate or lawyer for some of the concerns of Iraq. But I've seen no
evidence - and certainly the Secretary saw none in Geneva in the meeting
with Minister Primakov - that the Russians have deviated in any way from
the demands shared by all members of the Security Council that Iraq must
comply unconditionally and fully with all the requirements of the sanctions
regime.
QUESTION: Can you give me a better sense of the purpose now being served
by the enormous build-up of US forces in neighboring countries? I gather
some more aircraft arrived today.
MR. FOLEY: Well, you asked that question yesterday, Roy. I would simply
say that the situation has not changed in any way.
I noted yesterday that the inspectors have only been back in Iraq several
days. It's much too early - way too early - to declare that the crisis has
passed. We'll see, as UNSCOM goes about its work. In terms of operational
details of US deployments in the region, I'd have to refer you to the
Pentagon.
QUESTION: My question is what the mission is now, in terms of policy
goals that you hope this force will accomplish.
MR. FOLEY: Well, as I indicated to Crystal a moment ago, the stance is
one of vigilance now, first and foremost. In terms of how long the crisis
may last, when we will be able to relax our guard, if you will, and
determine that the crisis has passed, we're certainly not there yet. I
can't give you a day or a week or a month, Roy. We'll have to see what
happens.
QUESTION: So the crisis is still in full tilt, as far as you see
it?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think it's ebbed somewhat since the Geneva meeting and
the Iraqi willingness to allow the inspectors back. But the true test is
coming and is occurring as UNSCOM goes about its work on the ground. We'll
have to see how that goes.
QUESTION: Doesn't it seem to be contradicted by the arrival of new
aircraft, including B-2 bombers?
MR. FOLEY: I think I've answered that.
QUESTION: You said you weren't surprised that Russia is playing the
advocate of Iraq. I'm just curious, why aren't you surprised that Russia is
taking Iraq's side over the side of the world community?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure Russia is taking the side of Iraq over the world
community. First of all, this is not a new development. We've seen this
over the years. The inspections regime has been in place since 1991, and at
various points, Russia has been a voice for Iraqi concerns, without, again,
I emphasize, challenging or deviating from the principle that Iraq must
fully comply with the Security Council resolutions.
QUESTION: Are we ready for a new subject?
MR. FOLEY: Carol?
QUESTION: Just wanted a clarification on my earlier question on Butler. I
know you can't speak for UNSCOM, but there was an agreement, I think, in
June, setting out some guidelines on access to sensitive sites. Are you of
the view now that this agreement with these guidelines no longer holds
because Iraq, in your view, has pledged to allow unfettered access to
sites?
MR. FOLEY: They've allowed the return of UNSCOM without conditions, as we
understand it. The proof, obviously, is in the pudding, as UNSCOM goes
about its work and seeks access to sites it deems necessary to inspect.
We'll have to see that.
In terms of Mr. Butler's previous work or negotiations with the Iraqis,
again, as you suggest, I'd have to refer you to Chairman Butler. But
regardless of what his previous discussions with the Iraqis may have
entailed, my understanding is that he's always insisted, in order for his
people to do their work, that they have full, 100 percent, unfettered
access. I'm not aware that there's been any change in his position.
QUESTION: This morning during his briefing, Secretary Cohen said that
oftentimes UNSCOM doesn't have the information and they have been lucky
enough to get it from people such as Saddam's brother-in-law and then,
recently, from a "60 Minutes" interview. It seems to me that UNSCOM is
always one step behind; they just get these lucky breaks occasionally and
find out more information. So maybe the present process that they're using
to discover weapons in Iraq isn't working, that they need to find
a different method, because they'll never know everything.
MR. FOLEY: Certainly, they have a Herculean task. Iraq is a big country,
and it's a secretive country. It's a police state, with all the assets that
a police state can deploy to control its territory, to control its
population. And yet they've done a remarkably good job, under remarkably
difficult circumstances. They have been able to find out so much more, I
think, than what the international community assumed Iraq was working on
and developing before the Gulf War.
Certainly, they've had some lucky breaks. The defection was one, as you
mentioned. But just from press accounts, I'm aware that they've been able,
in spite of Iraqi efforts, to uncover documents maybe in places where
people had forgotten to secret them, or forgotten they were there. They've
had testimony, and each piece has opened up new vistas in areas that had
been denied or covered up. They've been able to accomplish a lot. And the
fact of the matter is that their very presence there and their work
itself has led to more avenues of inquiry.
QUESTION: But as long as Saddam Hussein is in power, they're never going
to have access to all the sites; they're never going to catch up. They'll
always be a few steps behind.
MR. FOLEY: That's assuming the absence of a political decision on the
part of Saddam Hussein to cooperate fully with UNSCOM and with the terms of
the UN Security Council resolutions. If he understands that the international
community remains firm, and he is attached to the lifting of sanctions
someday, then he will have to come to that conclusion at some point;
otherwise, the sanctions will not be lifted. Our job is to present him with
an either/or choice. So far, I think we've done a very good job of doing
that, over the last six years.
QUESTION: So you actually believe it's a realistic assumption that he
will come to terms with the international community and provide access to
all of his weapons?
MR. FOLEY: We're certainly not going to in any way diminish our
commitment to making sure that he does comply with the UN Security Council
resolutions and that he does not emerge from his box, from his isolation,
or from the sanctions regime until he cooperates 100 percent and UNSCOM is
able to give Iraq a clean bill of health, in terms of the elimination of
its weapons of mass destruction and its programs of developing weapons of
mass destruction.
Anything else on Iraq?
QUESTION: Croatia. Do you have any comment on what happened to the Soros
Foundation?
MR. FOLEY: Can I go over here, Roy, since we're leaving Iraq?
QUESTION: Sure.
MR. FOLEY: Yes. We'll come back to you.
QUESTION: Mexico continues to call the Del Toro case an extradition case.
Do you have anything new on that from our previous briefing?
MR. FOLEY: I don't know if they continue to call it an extradition case.
As I mentioned yesterday, our understanding was that they were initially
treating it as a deportation case. The United States did make a request for
Mr. Del Toro's provisional arrest to the Mexican Government and, indeed, he
was subsequently arrested in Monterrey.
Mexican authorities, having initially indicated they were considering
deportation, now have decided to pursue the case through the extradition
process, pursuant to our bilateral treaty. He is currently being held in
Mexico City, but I would refer you to the Mexican Government for an
explanation of this decision.
QUESTION: If I may follow up, has the Mexican Government indicated that
it will refuse to extradite, should he be subject to the death penalty, and
is the US Government --
MR. FOLEY: I certainly don't think they've made any such indication;
certainly not to my knowledge.
Now, in accordance with our bilateral extradition treaty, as soon as the
United States makes a formal request for extradition and I believe-- and
I'd refer you to the Justice Department -- that we're in the process of
preparing that, then Mexican authorities will present it to their
courts.
But again, I think any further questions about how this is proceeding would
best be addressed to the Department of Justice.
QUESTION: The Soros Foundation in Croatia has been put under immense
pressure by the government there. Do you have any reaction?
MR. FOLEY: There were verdicts announced in the case involving some of
the Soros Foundation employees last week, I believe, Roy. It appears,
however, that the proceedings may not yet be concluded and that an appeal
may be in preparation.
We certainly expect the Croatian Government to adhere strictly to the
highest standards of law in these proceedings. Freedom of speech and
association are hallmarks of democratic societies. We remain concerned
about the Croatian Government's discussion of draft legal measures and
selective application of existing legal measures, including criminal
prosecution and taxation policies to intimidate prominent opposition
journalists and non-governmental organizations.
We find unacceptable the public defamation in Croatia of George Soros and
the Soros Foundation, which we believe is making a valuable contribution
throughout Central and Eastern Europe, including in Croatia, to free speech
and democratization.
We call on the Croatian Government to resolve this situation with the Soros
Foundation in such a way to allow the Foundation to continue operating in
Croatia. We expect good faith efforts from the government of Croatia to
foster the growth of a healthy and active NGO sector.
QUESTION: In fact isn't this directed at the broader NGO sector, as far
as you can tell?
MR. FOLEY: As I noted in my comments, we have general concerns about
measures which tend to penalize opposition journalists and other non-
governmental organizations. We're working with the government of Croatia on
this. I think we have a healthy dialogue on the matter. Certainly we're not
pleased with aspects of this case and with the general situation. But on
the other hand, it's not a dialogue of the deaf between ourselves and the
government of Croatia.
They have shown themselves receptive to the concerns of the international
community. It's something that we're working on with them in a constructive
spirit.
QUESTION: But of course, President Tudjman is part of this dialogue. And
he seems to be using ever more strident rhetoric in dealing with it. I mean,
he talked about them being an alien factor, as if they're from outer space.
He's using very strong terms about Soros, particularly --
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think I made clear in my remarks that we find such
characterizations unacceptable.
QUESTION: You never talked about Brcko from yesterday. Would you --
MR. FOLEY: Yes, I owe you an answer on that, Roy. Just to give you a
little background, though, on the situation in Brcko surrounding the
bridge. Both the rail and the road bridge at Brcko were destroyed during
the war. IFOR made a temporary repair to the road bridge and to the rail
bridge, which has been repaired by USAID, although, apparently, repairs to
the tracks north of the rail bridge will not be completed until December.
The road bridge itself is open, to answer your question directly. However,
you were correct to point out that there has been little passenger and
commercial traffic crossing the bridge. There are a number of reasons for
this. The authorities of the Republika Srpska have attempted to discourage
use of Brcko as a commercial entry point by imposing illegal fees and
setting up illegal roadblocks.
Secondly, traffic into Croatia, generally speaking, is constrained by a
lack of proper insurance and international travel documents. As I said,
these are problems all along the northern border between Croatia and Bosnia
- problems which are being addressed by the Office of the High Representative.
But realistically, it will take some time to break down all the barriers to
trade and travel which exist on both sides of the border.
Returning, though, to your question about the bridge, the Brcko supervisor,
Bill Farrand, has instructed SFOR, the IPTF and international customs
monitors to stop this and other illegal practices that I was mentioning,
both at the bridge and on the roads leading to it. We expect that SFOR will
indeed assist Ambassador Farrand in this regard.
Clearly, SFOR's principal responsibility in regard to the bridge is to
promote freedom of movement. SFOR, along with the ITPF, has dismantled the
illegal checkpoints in Brcko and all over Bosnia. But you won't be
surprised that this is a recurring problem. SFOR, IPTF are able to close
down illegal checkpoints in some areas that sprout up in others, and it
requires constant vigilance and attention, which SFOR is bringing to the
matter.
Finally, I would note that the ultimate disposition of Brcko is the subject
of binding arbitration. We expect the arbitrator's decision to be announced
early next year at some time. Certainly the presiding arbitrator, Roberts
Owen, is looking for a way that would ensure access to Brcko by all of
Bosnia's citizens. Supervisor Bill Farrand has been working hard and, we
believe, successfully towards that end.
Finally, concerning that final arbitration, we believe that if the Serbs in
and around Brcko are not complying fully with Dayton, that this will
certainly be a factor that the arbitrator has to take into account when he
makes his ultimate decision on the disposition of Brcko.
QUESTION: And when actually did Mr. Farrand go to SFOR and ask them to be
more vigilant and make sure the bridge would be opened?
MR. FOLEY: What?
QUESTION: You say that he's asked them to be more vigilant and basically
to try to --
MR. FOLEY: It's not a problem so much on the bridge itself, but it's the
access or the access roads in and around, which is a problem throughout the
Republika Srpska.
QUESTION: So when did this request go in, that you just mentioned?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have an exact date on that, but as I said, we expect
that SFOR will be responding positively to his request.
QUESTION: The indication is that this has just been recently made, and
that therefore the bridge - SFOR has not been doing it -- you're expecting
SFOR to do it now.
MR. FOLEY: SFOR had maintained a presence on the bridge for a number of
months. At some point a number of months ago, SFOR itself came down off the
bridge; but I believe the IPTF had a residual role there, with SFOR in the
vicinity. I'm not aware that that has changed since then. I can look into
it if you're interested.
QUESTION: What I've heard is that when SFOR left the bridge, that was, I
think, in early September, in the midst of some clash or other -- that's
really when the traffic stopped. So you've really gone for several months
without any traffic across this vital artery.
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of the exact timeline on that, but as I
mentioned, the problem of checkpoints is one that's been endemic.
QUESTION: In Northern Iraq, one side of the Kurdish groups declared a
cease-fire. Do you have anything on the subject?
MR. FOLEY: Savas, I don't have any new information about the situation in
Northern Iraq today. Perhaps I can get you something later in the afternoon,
because indeed I had started to look into the question just before coming
out, and didn't have anything for you. But I saw the press report.
I believe one side announced a cease-fire yesterday --
QUESTION: The other side is also blaming the United States because the
your plan doesn't work in the Northern Iraq; they said that.
MR. FOLEY: Well, we're working hard with all the parties there, and with
our partners, the British and the Turks, to try to get a cease-fire in
place that sticks. I don't have anything new for you on that, but the
announcement is at least a tiny hopeful sign. We'll need to see what the
follow-up is.
Anything else? Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:20 P.M.)
|
