U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #177, 97-12-09

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

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

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Tuesday, December 9, 1997

Briefer: James B. Foley

MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
1		Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's Comments re Israeli
		  Troop Redeployment
1		Secretary Albright's Upcoming Meetings with Netanyahu and
		  Chairman Arafat
1		Anniversary of the Intifada
TERRORISM
2		Terrorism Issues in Egypt and United Kingdom
IRAQ
2-3		Building of Mosques in Baghdad/Saddam Hussein's Resources
BOSNIA
3-5		SFOR's Mission re Indicted War Criminals/Apprehension
5-6		State Department Employee Killed in Car Accident
COLOMBIA
5		Reported Agreement for US to Provide Presidential
		  Protection Training to Colombian Police
RUSSIA/FRANCE
6		Recent US Citizen Cases (Bliss/Einhorn)
TURKEY
6		Turkish Prime Minister's Visit
RUSSIA
6		Update on Richard Bliss Case
IRAN
2		Iran's Call for a permanent UNSC "Muslim Country" Seat
7		President Khatami Comments re "Open Dialogue" among Cultures
8-10		US Position on Dialogue with Iran
KOREAS
10		Four-Party Talks
GREECE
11		F-15E Fighters

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #177

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1997, 1:00 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: Welcome. I have no announcements.

QUESTION: Did you see the comment by Prime Minister Netanyahu a little while ago, in which he said Israel plans to take its time with respect to the West Bank withdrawal plans?

MR. FOLEY: I've not seen the comment, George. I've seen his comments following his meeting with the Secretary in Paris, in which he talked about what is at stake for Israel in the Middle East peace process; that the issues of security are paramount, and that he has to approach those security issues accordingly. We understand and respect that.

At the same time, Secretary Albright has made clear her view that there has been a crisis of confidence in the Middle East that cast a cloud over the future of the peace process throughout much of the year 1997. She has called upon the parties to redouble their efforts to renew their commitment to the peace process and be prepared to take tough decisions. She recognizes that there are tough decisions, not easy ones, involved. But she has appealed to leaders on all sides there to approach those tough decisions with a willingness to make courageous decisions and tough calls to advance the peace process.

She recognizes the security concerns that the Israeli Prime Minister must deal with, but she has asked the parties to look upon the month of December as one which can cast the overall picture concerning the Middle East peace process in a new light - one which ends the year 1997 on a positive note, and carries us into the next year with some momentum and some prospect of achieving some real progress.

So I'm giving you a very general answer to your question, obviously, because I'm not going to comment on specifics. I don't think the quote your referred to dealt with the specifics of the negotiations. But she's looking forward to achieving progress in her next meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat next week in Europe.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to say on the anniversary of the intifada?

MR. FOLEY: No; just that clearly violence of all kinds in the Middle East is what we're endeavoring to overcome. Violence is the other side of the coin to progress and the peace process. The whole aim of our negotiating efforts is to ensure not only that violence of that nature ceases, but that a comprehensive peace between Israel and all of her neighbors is achieved on a solid and long-term footing.

QUESTION: In the aftermath of the Luxor massacre, a lot of attention has been placed on London as being a center of terrorism. President Mubarak, the other day, had asked for the extradition of terrorist Alsiri* (as heard). It was reported in (inaudible) that there are 1,400 terrorist groups operating freely in London, putting out their videotapes, making their calls, publishing their information. Most of this, of course, is aimed against the United States. I was wondering if the US has taken any measures to bring the subject up and to demand action from the British Government about terrorists who are operating on British soil.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I was going to say that the question, as you posed it, struck me as being a bilateral question or issue between Egypt and the United Kingdom. However, as far as we are concerned, you're familiar with the fact that the Secretary has made designations of terrorist groups, and we feel that we've done our part to ensure that groups engaging in terrorist activity are not allowed to do so on American soil.

We have, clearly, a very intense and thorough dialogue on security, on terrorism, with our friends and allies around the world. I'm sure that's something that we discuss privately with them, but I'm not prepared to discuss publicly the nature of those exchanges.

QUESTION: If there's no change on the issue, would the United States be prepared to put pressure, in the form of sanctions or whatever, on the British to stop this activity?

MR. FOLEY: I really think that's a preposterous assumption on your part. We have, as I said, a thorough-going and very productive security and terrorism dialogue with the British authorities, who face the same kinds of threats in other arenas as we do around the world. We see eye to eye on the issue. I see no daylight between us and the UK on that important subject.

QUESTION: Iran today called for a permanent UN seat for Muslim countries on the UN Security Council. I wondered if you had given any thought to the idea, or had any reaction?

MR. FOLEY: I've not heard that announcement, so I'd have to wait before commenting on it specifically.

Your question, I think, relates rather to our position on reform of the Security Council, and this was announced earlier this year -- our initiative to have regional representation on the Security Council, from Latin America, from Asia, and - in any case, it involves three regional bodies that we believe ought to be represented on a permanent basis. It was not constructed in those terms, in religious or confessional terms, no.

QUESTION: Do you have any response to the announcement in Baghdad today that Saddam Hussein has ordered that a mosque be built that could accommodate 30,000 worshippers in Baghdad, and also that mosques be built in all of the provinces, in his name?

MR. FOLEY: No, I have no comment on that.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) spending his money--

MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry.

QUESTION: You don't think there might be a better way for him to be spending his money, with all these children and women supposedly starving in the streets?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not going to comment on a subject insofar as it truly is a religious subject and involves worship in Iraq. That does not require, I think, comment from this podium.

If the question, though, Sid, as you're suggesting, has to do with how Saddam Hussein spends the resources at his disposal, even the reduced resources under United Nations sanctions, I think the question is appropriate; because we've seen evidence that while on the one hand he has complained about the plight of the Iraqi people - one that we care about and have been trying to do something about - he's involved himself over the last several years in the building of untold numbers of so-called presidential palaces and residences that have to do with himself and the clique of people surrounding him.

I think in that context, certainly it is obvious that the way he spends his resources has to do with his own personal priorities, as well as, obviously, the Iraqi Government's insistence on maintaining their weapons of mass destruction programs. Clearly, this is something that only highlights his own lack of credibility concerning the humanitarian needs of his own people.

QUESTION: Did you see the story in the Post this morning about Bosnia? The thrust of which was that there is a war crimes suspect who wanted to surrender, but at the insistence of US Army generals, he was, in fact, not picked up by NATO forces.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I have to refer you to the Pentagon on the details, and also to SFOR and eventually to the ICTY in The Hague.

I would note that the article itself was full of contradictions. It quoted different people saying different things about the same things that happened. So I'd have to refer you to the authorities involved for their view of what happened.

But I understand that General Nix, who is mentioned in the article, has cooperated fully with the ICTY, and has been fully supportive of SFOR's mission concerning indicted war criminals in Bosnia and in the former Yugoslavia.

I think what I would like to do, though, is to restate what the facts are concerning the issue of war criminals in Bosnia. First of all, I'd point you to the Dayton agreement and to numerous UN Security Council resolutions, which put the onus and responsibility for the hand-over of persons indicted for war crimes by the ICTY squarely with local governments and authorities, on whose territory those indictees are residing.

SFOR's policy itself is to detain indicted war criminals if they encounter them in the course of their duties, and if the tactical situation permits. And I would also note, in the context of that article, that it is pretty clear that the indicted war criminal in question was not signaled to SFOR at the time he allegedly wanted to volunteer for surrender; that that had not been communicated to SFOR. But again, I'd refer you to the Pentagon for details on that.

But I would also want to emphasize the fact that we have really nothing to be ashamed of concerning our track record on the arrest of indicted war criminals or their detention over the last several months.

There's been a concerted effort to assist the ICTY, to enhance our cooperation with the ICTY, and that has translated into several concrete accomplishments. Since April of this year, 12 indictees have been turned over to the Tribunal. In July, SFOR acted to apprehend two Bosnian Serbs in Prijedor; the one was killed while resisting arrest. In October, on October 6, Croatian authorities, after much diplomatic effort by the international community, notably by the United States, Croatian authorities handed over ten ethnic Croat indictees, including Dario Kordic, to the tribunal.

I would note that the Bosnian side has fully complied with its obligations, but the Bosnian Serbs and the FRY have completely ignored their obligations thus far. Of the total 78 indictees on public indictment, more than 55 Bosnian Serbs remain at large. Overall, however, one-quarter of the indicted war criminals are currently in The Hague.

QUESTION: You acknowledge yourself that the overwhelming majority of those who are indicted - and we don't know how many have been privately indicted and have not been made public - remain at large. And US officials have repeatedly said that apprehending these criminals is a high priority, and some even say it's the number one priority, and that the failure to do so undermines everything else that you're doing in Bosnia. So the question remains, why is this situation allowed to continue?

MR. FOLEY: I would say, first of all, Carol, that we've achieved some progress on this front. Yes, it is a priority, if not the priority of the international community in Bosnia. We have to bring them to justice. The Secretary of State, Secretary Albright, has made clear that there's no statute of limitations on war criminals, and I would say that the jury is still out on this issue.

We fully expect that more indicted war criminals will be brought to The Hague. I can't describe to you the circumstances under which that's going to happen, obviously, for obvious reasons. First and foremost, it's their responsibility to turn themselves in, under Dayton. Clearly, there's a reluctance to do so. Secondly, it's the responsibility of the states or entities on whose territory they reside to turn them in. And thirdly, SFOR and NATO retain all options, and this is a matter for the commander on the scene to determine, on the basis of tactical considerations, as to whether it's possible to apprehend an indicted war criminal in a given circumstance or not. That's not something I can really describe or signal in detail, but it remains a live possibility.

But you're absolutely right that this is an outstanding issue that we have to still work at. But I would simply point out to you the fact that it's not over, and there is no statute of limitations, and we fully expect that indicted war criminals will end up in The Hague.

QUESTION: Are there any more negotiations going on concerning the voluntary transfer of any indicted war criminals?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not able to describe from the podium, in any kind of public way, the nature of our discussions with interested parties, including the tribunal, including our allies in NATO and in SFOR, and with the governments themselves. This is an ongoing matter, and we're always hoping to achieve more progress.

QUESTION: Also on Bosnia, what can you tell us about an American Government employee recently killed there on the 3rd of December?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I believe we may have said something to note and regret his passing at the time, or shortly thereafter.

But we deeply regret that Thomas Jennings, who was an administrative officer working on fiscal affairs, who was on temporary duty in Bosnia with SFOR, was killed in an auto accident, I believe, on December 3rd. He was driving in a four-car convoy. He was alone in his vehicle, which went off a road and rolled over into a creek. The accident apparently was caused by bad road conditions, bad weather conditions. I guess there was ice on the road, and this was at nighttime, which may have further exacerbated the conditions.

I understand that his funeral was held yesterday. We offer our deepest condolences to his family, and we honor the service he gave to his country.

QUESTION: Where did the accident take place?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have the exact location. I would want to check that for you. I believe it was not far from Sarajevo, but I have to check the record for you.

QUESTION: He was an administrative officer for the State Department?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have any details on the agreement with the national police and the US Secret Service to provide training for the plainclothes policemen in Colombia to protect the presidential candidates?

MR. FOLEY: I'd have to look into that for you and get back to you.

QUESTION: Could you take it?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I'll take it.

QUESTION: You've made some rather extended public statements about the Bliss case in Russia. I wondered, US officials have said they regretted how France handled the Ira Einhorn case, but I wondered if that was why the disparity between your reactions? You've come down really hard on the Russians, and yet the French seem to be able to keep this man from being brought to justice.

MR. FOLEY: I don't see any comparison between the two cases at all. One involved an extradition request on our part, concerning an American citizen who's been found guilty of a capital case in Philadelphia. We believe that we had a good case. We regretted the decision by the French court. We respect their prerogatives and their ability to make that decision. We regretted the decision; we understand, though, that French authorities there may be preparing an appeal of that decision, and we support that.

The case involving the American in Rostov, in Russia, involves an innocent American citizen, who was going about doing legitimate business activities in conformity with his contract in partnership with a Russian firm. We believe that the charges against him are unjustified, and that there's really no way to compare the two cases in any way.

We have good relations, obviously, with France, a long-standing friend and NATO ally; with Russia, a good and growing friend of the United States. But if the roles were reversed and there were an American in France, say, who was unjustly detained for something, I assure you we would not in any way be sugar-coating or hiding our feelings about it.

QUESTION: Has there been any movement on the Bliss case?

MR. FOLEY: I have nothing new on that today for you.

QUESTION: About the visit of the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Yilmaz, which is next week. First you announced that it is a working visit. Is it still a working visit, or have you changed it to official visit? And secondly, do you have any unusual agenda, other than just bilateral issues?

MR. FOLEY: I wouldn't know how to characterize an unusual agenda, what that might constitute. In terms of the working versus the official visit, I'd be happy to get that for you. We'll have to check with the White House, in terms of how it's being characterized.

But we described when the Foreign Minister was here last week, Foreign Minister Cem, really the manifold relationship we have with Turkey. There are so many issues it's hard to know where to stop in describing them, any issues that we - the interests that we share in common, the interests that we have to discuss.

The Prime Minister's visit is an important one, and we're looking towards defining a road map of our relationship, to improve it, to enrich it over the coming year. And we're looking forward to a very productive visit with the prime minister next week.

QUESTION: Yes. Ayatollah Khamenei said today that - in Tehran - that the Muslim leaders should not fear from Iran's regime, but rather that "poisonous breath of the United States." What do you think of what he said? And second, Khatami spoke of a dialogue among civilizations and cultures. Are there any possibilities for the United States to open a dialogue with Iran? Thank you.

MR. FOLEY: You're referring to, first of all, the Khamenei statement?

QUESTION: Yes, Khamenei, and then Khatami.

MR. FOLEY: President Khatami, yes.

QUESTION: Yes, Khatami spoke of the open dialogue among civilization and cultures, if there are any possibilities.

MR. FOLEY: Well, certainly we would welcome and support the idea of an open dialogue between different cultures and civilizations. I think President Khatami has been endeavoring to emphasize the commonality of world civilization and of world values. And we hope that those kinds of remarks begin to be reflected also in the foreign policy sphere, in the way nations deal with each other on a state-to-state level.

We have long stated our position on relations with Iran. I would hesitate to read too much into the two different statements. Even within the OIC itself, like any gathering of many nations, it's not a monolithic group, and we see a multiplicity of views emerging in the conference and, as you indicated, emerging within the Iranian Government itself, on the basis of those two, separate declarations or speeches.

I'd like to reiterate, just for the record, what our policy is, though, towards Iran. The US has no quarrel with the Iranian people, and we do not question their choice of government. We are not seeking to change the nature of the Iranian regime.

As I said, we've been concerned over the years with a pattern of behavior that violates international norms, and which, in some cases, affect our vital interests, as well as those of our friends in the region. These include support for terrorism, subversion of other regimes, violent opposition to the Middle East peace process and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

But we've also said that we have been intrigued by the Iranian people's choice of a new president, and we are watching carefully the evolution of Iranian policies, particularly in the foreign policy area, which, for obvious reasons, is of greatest concern to us. We've also long been open to a dialogue with the Iranian Government. Our only stipulation has been that such a dialogue take place with an authorized representative of the government, and that it be acknowledged publicly.

QUESTION: A follow-up on the OIC meeting.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Iran and the European Union, at the initiative of the German Government, resumed again full diplomatic relations. Any comment?

MR. FOLEY: Iran with --

QUESTION: European Union.

MR. FOLEY: You're referring to the return of the European ambassadors?

QUESTION: Yes, exactly.

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I believe that's taken place several weeks ago. I would not have any new comment on that today.

Q On Greece, anything on the F-15 --

MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry, are we finished with - Bill, you had a question on - -

QUESTION: Yes, thank you, Jim. Have you anything that you can share yet from the four-party talks in Geneva? And then I have a --

MR. FOLEY: Let me come back to you in a second, if we still have a question in the region.

QUESTION: Has there been any discussion between the United States and Saudi Arabia about Saudi Arabia possibly - mediator, I think, is too strong a word - but somehow facilitating conversation between the United States and Iran?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we have discouraged in general the idea of back channels or secret channels to Iran. We want to have a dialogue with the Iranian Government. They have things they would like to take up with us. We have things that we would like to take up with them. But we found that in order for it to be productive, it's important for us to put our cards on the table and to have an open dialogue with an authorized representative of the Iranian Government. We're prepared to do that, and we've stated that for some time.

I wouldn't exclude the possibility that nations with which we have close and friendly relations can voice the concerns that we have with specific areas of Iranian behavior that we enunciate clearly and quite often.

QUESTION: Well, I wasn't suggesting some sort of - something surreptitious. I just wondered whether - I mean, as you say, has Saudi Arabia communicated any of these messages to Iran directly, on behalf of the United States?

MR. FOLEY: We would hope that all of our friends and allies who have any kind of influence and dialogue with the government of Iran, with which, until now, we do not have formal diplomatic relations, would convey the concerns that we have and that we hope our friends and allies share with the Iranian Government.

QUESTION: But you don't know whether they have or not? I mean, you're just saying you hope they do.

MR. FOLEY: Well, over the course of months and years and years, I would be astonished if our friends and allies were not conveying our concerns -- again, which we assume they share - with the Iranian Government.

QUESTION: You are changing the wording here on the dialogue with the Iranians. It seems to me beforehand you used to say things like, we want to talk about these three things in any dialogue with the Iranians, to the exclusion of other things. Now you're saying that we have things on our mind, they have things on their mind. I think you're sort of moving the goal post a bit.

MR. FOLEY: I'm not moving the goal post. You're right to refer to my remarks that we have things on our mind. I've stated them clearly today, and I believe yesterday and on numerous other occasions.

Certainly, if we move to have a dialogue with authorized Iranian representatives, you can be certain that we would be talking about foreign policy issues of real concern to us, including their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, their support for terrorism, and things of this nature. I'm not excluding any of these or changing the goal posts in any way, George.

But I do acknowledge - it's a matter of public record -- that the Iranians have items and things that they want to discuss with us. That's what an authorized dialogue would be all about.

QUESTION: Have the Iranians - since the new leadership took over, have the Iranians indicated to the United States in any way, through an intermediary or directly some way, that they wanted to have a dialogue?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that. We've seen public declarations, such as was quoted today, coming out of Tehran, which suggest -- it's not necessarily directed at the United States -- but suggested a willingness on the part of Iranian authorities to have a dialogue on the basis of common values of civilization around the world.

We've said, and I repeat, that we have been intrigued by the results of the election, which seemed, in our view, to indicate a desire on the part of the Iranian people to normalize their situation at home; to enjoy greater opportunities, economic and even political. We think that movement in that direction ought to be complemented by a similar movement towards normalization with the rest of the world. And normalization, in our view, means adjusting their policies to conform with the norms of international civilized behavior.

QUESTION: Well, if you feel that way, why don't you just say, Iran, let's meet on such and such a date; send an authorized representative and see what happens?

MR. FOLEY: I think we've done that from this podium on numerous occasions, and I just did so today.

Yes, we'll come back to you. Korea.

QUESTION: Okay, what can you tell us?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have anything for you, Bill.

QUESTION: You have nothing whatsoever?

MR. FOLEY: I'm going to take the question.

QUESTION: I'd like to get your reaction to something. Defense Minister Lee at the Defense Department today spoke about the four-party talks. Several of his members of the official party afterwards indicated that the Defense Ministry and Minister Lee both had come to accept the revelations of Mr. Hwang Jang-yop as true - all, I think, the revelations - which had a bearing, then, on whether the North Koreans were going to negotiate with sincerity in Geneva or not.

So if this in fact true, and this is what the Korean Government believes, what's the US reaction?

MR. FOLEY: To be honest, Bill, I don't quite know what you're referring to. But what I can say - nor could I comment on alleged comments made over by the visiting delegation at the Pentagon. I'd have to refer you to your colleagues who covered it over there, and to officials over there.

What I can say, though, is that it is our view that it was an important breakthrough - the decision on the part of North Korea and the other parties to the talks - to go to Geneva. We spent a lot of time, through protracted and difficult talks, to get to Geneva in the preparatory phase. We've said all along that we believe these talks were in North Korea's interest, as well as in the interest of the United States, the Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China.

We believe that the establishment of a peace regime, the reductions of tensions on the Korean Peninsula and the efforts to address the issues that divide the two Koreas and to reduce tensions there are of critical importance to all the parties represented at the talks.

Anything else? Mr. Lambros, one question.

QUESTION: Yes. Anything on the F-15 fighters to Greece? Are you going to deliver them to Greece, and how soon?

MR. FOLEY: I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday.

QUESTION: On the Aegean, according to reliable sources, the ICAO disagrees totally with the new Greek-Turkish agreement in the framework of NATO, because it's against the ICAO rules pertaining to the Athens FIR. Since your government was involved up to the teeth in this process, I'm wondering if the DOS was in touch with ICAO during the consultations?

MR. FOLEY: All I can say, Mr. Lambros, is that we welcomed the agreement between Greece and Turkey, which allowed the new NATO command structure to be stood up, and we applaud that. We think it's a real contribution to the reform of NATO and to peace in the Aegean.

Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:30 P.M.)

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