U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #181, 97-12-15

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

Monday, December 15, 1997

Briefer: James B. Foley

IRAN/AFGHANISTAN
1		Denial of secret US-Iran bilateral meetings
1-2		US and Iran participate in UN meetings on Afghan issues
2-3,5		Iran President Khatami remarks on potential dialogue
		  w/American people
3-5		US policy on potential for bilateral dialogue with Iran;
		  areas of US concern, including support for international
		  terrorism and lack of support for Middle East peace
		  process
3		No new developments in US-Iran claims case at ICJ in The
		  Hague
TURKEY / EU
5-8		US position on Turkey severing ties w/ EU, participation in
		  European institutions
7-8		Turkey threatens retaliation for EU accession denial,
		  allegedly including veto of NATO expansion; EU conditions
		  for Turkey membership 
7-8		Charges of European discrimination against Muslim nation
TURKEY
6		Turkey's human rights practices
CYPRUS / EU
6		US reaction to EU-Cyprus accession talks; effect on Cyprus
		  peace process
IRAQ
9		DoD Anthrax vaccinations; US concern about Iran's
		  Biological Weapon capability
CHINA
9		Importance of verification in bilateral relations
9		Administration response to charges of China's involvement
		  in US internal politics
BOSNIA
9-10		Allegation by War Crimes Tribunal Chief Prosecutor Louise
		  Arbour on France non-cooperation in SFOR's detention of
		  war criminals
MIDDLE EAST
10		Assistant Secretary Indyk's travel to/meetings in Syria,
		  Israel, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon
10-11		Issues raised by Amb. Indyk with President Assad; request
		  for readout by Amb. Indyk
11		EU statement on peace process
RUSSIA/TURKEY
11-12		US position on Russian-Turkish Prime Ministers meeting,
		  Black Sea pipeline
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
12		US policy on elections in ROK; denial of accusations of
		  meddling

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

DPB #181

MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1997, 1:00 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: Okay. Ready to start. I have no announcements.

QUESTION: There's an Israeli newspaper which says that the United States and Iran have been having unannounced discussions since the May election. Do you have anything on that?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I do. The report is false.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Could you elaborate?

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- up at the UN; right?

MR. FOLEY: I can tell you about that -- if that's what the question is.

QUESTION: Another question is whether you've had contacts with the Iranians?

MR. FOLEY: The question was - George, I don't know if you want to repeat it for the record - whether we've had secret contacts with the Iranians, as alleged -- I think it was Haaretz report. And I don't have to elaborate on something that's not true. If it were true, there would be something to elaborate upon.

In terms of the UN, though, Sid, you're right that we have participated in meetings that the Iranians have also attended at the United Nations. The UN special envoy for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, has convened Afghanistan's immediate neighbors, the US and Russia, to search for ways to help end the conflict between Afghan factions.

Ambassador Brahimi believes -- and we agree -- that Afghanistan's neighbors can play an important role in encouraging the factions to stop fighting and move toward a political settlement. The United States fully supports this process, which is part of the continuing central role of the UN in bringing peace to Afghanistan.

Now, the group has met three times at the UN since, I believe, late summer, in New York, under the chairmanship of Ambassador Brahimi; and the group includes representatives of Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, China, Russia and the US. The US has been represented by Assistant Secretary for South Asia Carl Inderfurth. But again, I would just note that the group meets under the auspices of the UN. The fact of the matter is that Iran shares a long border with Afghanistan, and this is the home of 1.4 million Afghan refugees. Iran has been a full participant in this process.

QUESTION: Would you say that within this forum, though, that there's been a focus on US-Iran contacts in trying to advance peace efforts in Afghanistan?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we have participated, along with quite a number of other nations that I just enumerated, including Iran, in this forum, to discuss Afghanistan. But it is to discuss Afghanistan.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR. FOLEY: Assistant Secretary Inderfurth is responsible for South Asian Affairs in the State Department, not for Near East-Asia.

QUESTION: There must have been a number of meetings like this, on different subjects, where you and the Iranians had been grouped together. I mean, I wouldn't expect this is the only time. There was the test ban -- probably some test ban meetings where you all were with the Iranians, maybe some global climate stuff.

MR. FOLEY: Well, there's a claims settlement forum in The Hague, as well. I don't have the information at my fingertips concerning what international fora meetings where we might have simultaneously been represented. I think that's not surprising. We both belong to the United Nations and would ordinarily find ourselves, in the course of work, present in the same room. But this is a completely separate issue from the question I received at the beginning of the briefing -- bilateral contacts, as such.

QUESTION: It would hardly be unique for the Iranians and the Americans to be in the same room in an international forum over the last 20 years.

MR. FOLEY: It wouldn't be unprecedented. I couldn't answer specifically how many times it's happened, but certainly Afghanistan is an issue that has brought us around the same table in New York.

QUESTION: You mentioned --

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the comments by the Iranian president yesterday?

MR. FOLEY: Well, President Clinton has already spoken to that this morning, and you noted that he expressed a desire on the part of the United States to have a dialogue with Iran. He said that he was encouraged by President Khatami's remarks. We have welcomed the new tone we have begun to hear from the Iranian president, and we regard the remarks, as reported, as a positive statement.

From our perspective, it is not new that we have favored a serious dialogue between the United States and Iran, as long as all the issues are on the table. Of course, we're looking for a change in Iranian actions as well as an improvement in Iranian statements. And as we have often said, in any dialogue, we would raise our concerns about Iranian actions -- specifically, support for terrorism, sponsorship of violent opposition to the peace process, and efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

QUESTION: Jim, you talked about the tone of Iran, but has the US tone changed, in any way, over the course of the last, I guess, month or so, in light of this new tone coming out of Iran?

MR. FOLEY: I think you have to go back to the election of President Khatami as a development that we regarded and stated publicly as an interesting one, which perhaps had carried the potential for change on the part of Iranian actions and opening the possibility for a dialogue between the United States and Iran on issues of concern.

We've seen, over the course of the last few days, further statements on the part of the Iranian president which indicate a desire to find common ground with the world community, and statements which indicated a desire to achieve a different, qualitatively better relationship with the Arab world, including, most notably, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I believe President Khatami referred to that yesterday.

He's made comments recently about civil society and the rule of law. On the negative side, we found his rejection of the Middle East peace process and comments on Israel were of a nature to be continuing to be troubling to us. And now, yesterday he's talked about a desire on his part for a dialogue with the American people.

He appeared to make a distinction, perhaps, between the American people and the American government. He also indicated that he might have more to say on the subject in the near future. We are continuing to watch developments, to listen carefully to everything that is being said, and if, in fact, he were to address the American people, as he said he might, we will be listening carefully.

But it is not new, though, that the United States has declared itself open to having a dialogue with Iran. I believe that goes back at least to the Bush Administration. But as President Clinton made clear this morning, we're seeing encouraging signs, certainly a new tone, which we welcome, but we look for changes in Iranian actions. I don't need to repeat, because I just did a few minutes ago, what areas of concern we have with the Iranian Government. We'll have to stay tuned for further developments to see if Iran is willing to address areas of concern and to move toward more concrete actions in this regard.

QUESTION: Jim, the actions, do you have any evidence that Iran is at present supporting international terrorism?

MR. FOLEY: Do we have any evidence that --

QUESTION: As of now, Iran is supporting international terrorism.

MR. FOLEY: Well, in the three areas of concern that I noted, that we have with Iranian actions, we have not seen any changes in - we've not seen changes, measurable changes, in those areas.

QUESTION: Well, the specific question: Have you new evidence that Iran continues to support terrorism?

MR. FOLEY: Well, you're referring to --

QUESTION: Terrorism.

MR. FOLEY: -- to issues that are not easily discussed from the podium, and I couldn't comment specifically the nature of all the information that's available to us. I would simply reiterate what I just said, which is that we've not seen changes in the areas of concern to us, concerning Iranian behavior.

QUESTION: Well, on the peace process, as I understand what Khatami said, was that Iran does not like or support the peace process, but accepts the willingness of others to engage in it. Is that not --

MR. FOLEY: I've not seen that comment. If he, in fact, said that, that would mark some movement, I believe, in their standard line until now. Although, I would note that in the OIC meeting itself, which concluded last week, that the resolutions on the Middle East peace process were also not indicative of standard Iranian blanket opposition that we've seen for years and years and years.

QUESTION: You mentioned earlier the claims settlement in The Hague. Is there anything new on that?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of any new developments, no.

QUESTION: Has the United States - have the US and Iran discussed their bilateral relationship through any third parties?

MR. FOLEY: Not to my knowledge. We have an interest section, of course - I'm sorry -- the Swiss represent us, diplomatically, our interests in Iran. But I'm not aware of a third-party dialogue.

As you know, I've had numerous occasions over the last week or so to talk about the nature of a dialogue that we would like to have with the Iranian Government; and I've made clear on all such occasions that we would want any such dialogue to be authoritative and for Iran to be prepared for the dialogue to be acknowledged publicly.

QUESTION: Well, when you talk about supporting terrorism, for instance, that's a broad term. I mean support could range from financial help, to supplying weapons, to simply making positive statements about what terrorists have done. Do you have a benchmark? I mean, what concrete steps would Iran have to take to satisfy the United States on that issue, sir?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we don't have a nuanced view of the terrorism issue. We think that terrorism is to be condemned and rejected in all of its forms, and all support for terrorism - be it financial, logistic or even rhetorical - ought to be condemned and rejected.

QUESTION: You mentioned that Khatami appeared to be making a distinction between the American people and the American leadership. What does that tell you? Why did you note that?

MR. FOLEY: I noted it because he appeared to have made that distinction. He also indicated that he might have more to say on the subject in the near future. So we'll have to see if he and the Iranian authorities are willing to move beyond a general formula and to indicate a willingness to enter the kind of open dialogue that we have been calling for.

QUESTION: Well, isn't that an actual mirror statement of what you and other spokesmen have been saying from that podium - that the United States has no quarrel with the Iranian or even the Iraqi people; it's the policies of the government that the United States finds objectionable.

MR. FOLEY: Well, we've believed all along that the estrangement between the Iranian and the American peoples was unnatural. I think if you look at historical perspective, if you look at decades and decades, this is something that will end at some point. We ought to have a normal, civilized relationship with the people of Iran.

Our problem is that the government of Iran has pursued policies which are not in conformity with the policies of a state that wishes to normalize its relations with the rest of the world and play the role which it ought to play as a leading member of the international community.

QUESTION: Just for the record, this won't be the first time or the last time, for the moment the policy of the US Government is still described as dual containment; is that right?

MR. FOLEY: There's been no change in American policy.

QUESTION: It is dual containment?

MR. FOLEY: There's been no change.

QUESTION: Do you have any comments on the Prime Minister's announcement on the weekend, severing of its political ties with the EU?

MR. FOLEY: Well, our position on Turkey's relationship to Europe is well- known. As far as the United States is concerned, Turkey is a part of Europe. Our diplomatic efforts have worked to encourage Turkey's fullest possible participation in European institutions.

Turkey and the EU are both close friends of the United States. We will be discussing these and related issues with Prime Minister Yilmaz during his visit here this week, as well as with the EU - including with the British presidency when it takes over in January.

QUESTION: Do you agree with the statement made last week by President of the EU, Jean-Claude Junkers, that Turkey engages in an unacceptable level of torture of prisoners?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I would refer you to our human rights report. The issue of human rights is one that we often discuss with our Turkish friends. We have a productive dialogue. I expect it to be continued during the Prime Minister's visit this week.

QUESTION: Do you think it's needlessly provocative for the EU to open the door for membership for Cyprus? And what do you think the impact of this move and the apparent distance Yilmaz is putting between Turkey and the EU will have on the American Cyprus initiative?

MR. FOLEY: The United States' position on the Cyprus dispute remains that we support the UN efforts to find a solution based on a bi-zonal, bi- communal federation.

We continue to believe that the EU accession process offers positive incentives for a Cyprus solution. In this regard, we take note of the EU summit statement language that favors Turkish-Cypriot community participation in the accession talks.

QUESTION: On China --

QUESTION: What do you mean the EU accession for Cyprus offers positive incentives for the peace process?

MR. FOLEY: That's not a new statement. We've made that at least since I've been here at the podium and going back some time, since the prospective of Cyprus accession was opened by the EU.

It means that the process of negotiating Cyprus' entry into the EU can be a catalyst if all sides are willing to approach the issue with a constructive spirit; offers itself as a catalyst for resolution of the issues that are dividing the communities on the island.

QUESTION: The Turkish Government's reaction against the EU latest action, they are planning to break all kinds of political relations with the EU. Do you have any reaction on this subject?

MR. FOLEY: Well, this is a decision for Turkey to make. We believe that Turkey's place is in Europe. This may have been a setback in recent days, but we believe that over time, Turkey ought to have a strong and open perspective on membership in the EU. We hope that progress can be achieved down the road, and we would not want to draw definitive conclusions from what happened last week.

QUESTION: Also the Turkish Government is planning to veto the new NATO members in the NATO Council. What do you have? Do you accept this?

MR. FOLEY: I've not heard that. I think that is not a sentiment that would be shared by the NATO allies. The Madrid summit was clear on its offer of membership to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. I have no reason to believe that NATO does not remain unified on that important issue.

QUESTION: -- the anti-Semitic bent in this decision? I mean, there's a lot of unspoken talk about Europe not being ready for a Muslim country to join the EU? Do you have any comment on that?

MR. FOLEY: Anti-Semitic, Sid, did you say?

QUESTION: Yes. Turkey being --

QUESTION: Semites, as in --

MR. FOLEY: Oh, well, I think that's wrong, though.

QUESTION: I used the wrong word.

MR. FOLEY: Yes, as an ethnic characterization.

We believe that in 1997 that the world ought to be moving in a direction of ethnic reconciliation. With the emergence of the global economy and the closer and closer integration of regions, societies and countries around the world, we ought to consign racially oriented thinking to the dustbin of history.

Obviously, that has not been the case in places like Bosnia. It's a constant struggle on the part of the civilized world to address the issues of racial hatred, ethnic intolerance. We believe there's no place in Europe for such sentiments and there's no place anywhere around the world. I think as far as the United States is concerned, we stand for racial tolerance and diversity. We stand for it at home; we endeavor to achieve it, struggling against the legacy of history in our own country. We realize that it's not an easy subject for the world to grapple with, but it's not anything that we can countenance.

QUESTION: Do you see that behind the decision of the European Union?

MR. FOLEY: Really, that would be very speculative on my part. I think you'd have to ask the EU leaders themselves for their opinion on that matter.

QUESTION: Your statement there was rather extensive. Was that something you had prepared to say --

MR. FOLEY: No.

QUESTION: -- or just off the cuff there?

MR. FOLEY: Sure. Well, you asked a philosophical question.

QUESTION: Can we go to Iraq really quick?

QUESTION: I have something else.

MR. FOLEY: We'll come back to you.

QUESTION: Because there are mention of EU's "Christian Club" not accepting Muslims, the decision of the European Union, for the record, the European Union offered to Turkey participation in the European Conference under three conditions. The first one is to accept the authority of the International Court of Justice for resolving disputes. The second one is not to provide difficulties for Cyprus to become a member of the European Union during the process. And the third one is to improve its human rights records.

Does the US agree with these three principles the European Union asked for from Turkey?

MR. FOLEY: I hope you'll forgive me if I'm not going to be drawn into your question. We're not going to try to assess or evaluate the decision of the EU. I've stated very clearly --

QUESTION: I'm asking you to evaluate the decision.

MR. FOLEY: I stated very clearly our view that Turkey belongs in Europe. And we hope over time that the prospective of membership will be opened, and that Turkey one day will be able to join the EU.

In terms of the specifics of the issue, we plan to discuss those with the Prime Minister when he's here this week. I wouldn't want to comment further publicly about the --

QUESTION: As a matter of principle, the US Government many times stated that it supports all the three conditions the EU asked from Turkey.

MR. FOLEY: I wouldn't want to comment further.

QUESTION: Another subject?

QUESTION: Secretary Cohen has made a statement that the US uniformed troops should be inoculated against anthrax. Why is that now, and not before? And are you all afraid now that Saddam is threatening or is really going to use his biological warfare weapons?

MR. FOLEY: Well, the specific question really does belong in Secretary Cohen's lap, if I may say so. It's a Pentagon issue.

In terms of what Saddam Hussein may or may not do, I think it is clear that the United States has the capability to respond to any provocation or offensive action, and we remain to do so, if necessary.

QUESTION: An eminent panel on Thursday at the Press Club on the subject of China, the issue was raised about trusting the Chinese, about Mr. Wei's admonishment to Mr. Clinton about not trusting the Chinese. And Mr. Winston Lord and Mr. Kirk Campbell both said that we should trust the Chinese only with verification and with close watching. Would this parallel the policy of this Department with regard to the veracity, trustworthiness of the PRC?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think that applies to most foreign relations around the world. I think that it behooves every nation, including the United States, not to be governed by naivete or by sentimental illusions. We're realists; we're pragmatists. And we believe that, in the specific area you're raising, dealing with the People's Republic of China, that we have a manifold relationship, many subjects that bring us together, subjects including many on which we don't agree and don't see eye-to-eye, but we believe that we can do business with them, as was demonstrated during the recent summit.

QUESTION: And may I follow? Mr. Woolsey, former director of CIA, when asked about indications of intrusions into the internal affairs of the United States by the PRC, said that this was a very serious matter and that there should be a no-holds-barred investigation by the Department of Justice, some of which, of course, could not be made public, the intelligence part. Would you also agree that this is a pretty good piece of advice from Mr. Woolsey?

MR. FOLEY: I believe the Administration, various spokesmen have made clear that the allegations in this regard are serious and have to be followed up vigorously. It's not a State Department matter, as such.

QUESTION: Bosnia?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: The chief prosecutor for the UN War Crimes Tribunal, Louise Arbour, said that France is not cooperating in trying to bring war criminals to justice. I wonder if you saw her remarks and if you share her view.

MR. FOLEY: I've not seen her remarks themselves; I've been made aware of them, and I'm not sure we've had an opportunity to assess them. Clearly, France is a key nation in the NATO-led SFOR force in Bosnia, and French troops, like those of the other nations involved in SFOR, are required to detain indicted war criminals under SFOR's mandate. We expect that France, as all other SFOR contributors, will be vigilant on this important point.

We would be deeply concerned about reports of the chief prosecutor that French troops are not carrying out fully their responsibilities in detaining war criminals in their sector. If SFOR troops encounter indicted war criminals, as they did in Prijedor last July, they should detain them and turn them over to tribunal authorities.

QUESTION: Do you know of any instance where they haven't?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of any such instance myself. As I said, I was just made aware of her comments before coming in.

QUESTION: Do you have any sort of update on Martin Indyck's travel?

MR. FOLEY: I have a sketchy update, if you will. I believe he was in Damascus today. He was in Israel and in Gaza in preceding days. He met with Prime Minister Netanyahu, with Chairman Arafat. He met with King Hussein in Jordan. Tomorrow he's going to be stopping in Lebanon before moving on to Europe to join up with the Secretary for her meetings with the Prime Minister and the Chairman. The focus of his trip has been on bilateral relations in all of his stops, although he's been discussing the peace process, as well.

QUESTION: What was his message for President Assad, on the bilateral?

MR. FOLEY: Well, he discussed with President Assad the full range of issues in the bilateral relationship and the peace process. We've long been interested in the possibility of restarting the track, the Syrian-Israeli track. I don't have anything new to report to you on that today. I think it's in the nature of those diplomatic conversations that they be private. I don't have a read-out yet. That took place today. But I probably wouldn't be in a position to share it even if I did have it.

QUESTION: You don't have a read-out?

MR. FOLEY: No, I don't.

QUESTION: So could - would it be possible later to give some sort of indication of whether there's positive movement forward or it's in a state of non-movement or suspended animation?

MR. FOLEY: I doubt that I'll be in a position, really, to characterize that meeting. If I am, I'll let you know. He will be traveling on and -- I think the first step for him is to report to the Secretary about the results of his visit, including his meeting with President Assad. And certainly, he'll be doing that before I would be in any kind of position to talk about his trip.

QUESTION: Since he briefed everybody in town before he left, do you think he could talk to us when he gets back?

MR. FOLEY: I'd be happy to look into it. I'm not sure.

QUESTION: Have you seen the EU declaration on the Middle East and the peace process, I think it was put out yesterday in the press, early this morning?

MR. FOLEY: I didn't see it, no.

QUESTION: Could you take a look at that, please? It was --

MR. FOLEY: I'd be happy to take a look at it. What would you like me to do with it?

QUESTION: Could you come back with a description of what it does to your innermost feelings?

(Laughter)

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Your statement last week about the north part of the Aegean, and the Turkish Ambassador released some statement that your statement is wrong because the Turkish aircraft was in the international air space, and the Greek air force plane is trying to bother or playing the dog fighting with the Turkish aircraft. And instead of the provocative action is not coming from Turkey; it's coming from Greece. And also they said that in Ankara is the Minister of Foreign Affairs, they called your ambassador, and they give them exactly what has happened. Do you have any comment on the subject, or do you want to check?

MR. FOLEY: First, I stand by my statements of last week. Second, I don't care to repeat them, because our interest in the Aegean is the tamping down of tensions. We pointed out that our concern in that instance was not over the legality, but rather over the nature and the consequences of such action. And I think in keeping with our desire to encourage a lessening of tensions, I really wouldn't want to comment further. I think the matter is behind us.

QUESTION: But blaming to one side, not the other side.

MR. FOLEY: I think we've had occasion to speak to both sides on other occasions in the past.

QUESTION: Russian Prime Minister visiting Turkey and talked to prime ministers, discuss new subjects, especially the new pipeline under the Black Sea, and the -- (inaudible). What is the exact position for the United States about these two subjects?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not in a position to comment on those meetings. I'd have to refer you to the Russian and Turkish sides. Our position on the oil, natural gas resources of the region has been to favor the development of multiple routes; and that remains our position.

QUESTION: There have been reports of American meddling in the Korean elections. Do you have anything on that?

MR. FOLEY: They're not true. It won't surprise you to know that the US policy on the South Korean election has been clear, firm and consistent. We believe it is entirely up to the people of the Republic of Korea to select their president. We do not favor any candidate over any other. We respect all the candidates, and we'd be happy to work with any of them as president of the Republic of Korea.

Our concern has always been to support the democratic process, not particular candidates.

Thank you.

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

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