U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #182, 97-12-17
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
998
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, December 17, 1997
Briefer: James B. Foley
CHINA
1,15 Issue of VOA broadcast policy referred to White House
1 Administration support for VOA independence in broadcasting
CUBA
1-2 Sentencing in court case against Cuba government for BTTR
shootdown
IRAQ
2-3 Tariq Aziz press conference: US supports UNSCOM authority
to inspect all suspected weapons sites in Iraq
2-5 Butler to report and provide recommendations to UNSC
Thursday, 12/18
4-5 Timing of UNSC response
5-6 UN SecGen Annan to report on oil-for-food implementation,
potential modifications
11 US requires full compliance with UNSC resolutions by Iraq
TURKEY
6 Operation Northern Watch to be discussed with Turkish Prime
Minister Yilmaz
6-7 EU decision not to begin membership talks with GOT; Turkish
Western orientation
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
7-8 Utility of upcoming Albright-Netanyahu talks; Israeli
re-deployment in West Bank
ISRAEL
8 Allegation that Under Secretary Eizenstat pressed GOI to
purchase Boeing aircraft
RUSSIA
8 Albright-Primakov talks in Brussels; no readout available
IRAN
8-12 No change in US policy of openness toward bilateral
dialogue
8,10 US concerns re Iranian actions; US maintains sanctions
8 Effect of potential Iran role in al-Khobar bombing in Saudi
Arabia
10,12 Europe's "critical dialogue" with Iran
11 US assessment of President Khatami's speech
BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA
12-14 US assistance to Republika Srpska, waiver of FOAA
provisions re war criminals
13 Ability to withhold assistance from towns where war
criminals are harbored
COLOMBIA
14 Penalties Reform Bill amends terms of release for jailed
common criminals; weekend pass provision
15 Request for US evaluation of Colombia's cooperation on
anti-narcotics cooperation
DEPARTMENT
15 Daniel J. Terra interment at Arlington National Cemetery
GREECE / TURKEY
15-16 US policy on resolution of all Aegean disputes, territorial
integrity
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #182
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1997, 1:00 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Welcome. I don't have any announcements today, so I will turn
to our dean, Barry Schweid.
QUESTION: Should we clear away this ordeal with this VOA business? I
don't know if you noticed, but it's been in a couple of papers -- the
notion or the idea that the idea that the ambassador, Mr. Sasser, called
the NSC or got in touch with the NSC and tried to prevent an interview with
a prominent Chinese dissident. Do you have anything about that?
MR. FOLEY: I've been asked to refer those questions over to the NSC and
to the White House. They'll be prepared to answer in regard to that
question.
QUESTION: Does the State Department have a general view about whether
broadcasts to China should be carefully monitored not to offend the Chinese
leadership?
MR. FOLEY: We believe strongly in the independence of the VOA and its
right to make its own journalistic decisions. So I think this is a matter
for the VOA to decide for itself. But again, Barry, I've been asked to
refer specific questions on the articles that appeared in the press today
to the White House.
QUESTION: On Cuba, do you have anything on that sentencing today by a
federal judge on the families of the four pilots that went down last
year?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, well, we've seen the press reports concerning the
decision. The court case that you refer to is the result of a private
lawsuit filed against the government of Cuba by the families of the victims
of the February 24, 1996, downing of two US-registered aircraft by Cuban
MGs. Under the provisions of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act, US citizens can file suit against foreign governments that
sponsor terrorism for extra-judicial killing.
QUESTION: And the judge said that the money may be taken out from the
funds that the Cuban Government has frozen here in the United States
because it's unlikely that Castro is going to send any money.
MR. FOLEY: Well, this has been a matter that has been in private
litigation. We have not seen the judgment of the court, only the press
reports; so I'm not in a position to comment further at this point.
QUESTION: But this is a possibility, because this thing has been done in
the past, I guess.
MR. FOLEY: Well, again, I'm not in a position to comment on it at this
point.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Can we move to Iran?
MR. FOLEY: Sure.
QUESTION: Tariq Aziz had a fairly fulsome news conference this morning,
responding in part, at least, to President Clinton's remarks yesterday. His
position doesn't seem to have changed. Are you aware of his remarks, and do
you have any reaction?
MR. FOLEY: I'm aware of his remarks. I don't have a full text of what he
said. I wasn't watching when he was on t.v., because I was preparing to
meet you this afternoon. So we'll have to evaluate his comments. As I
understand it, though - and of course, this really awaits Ambassador
Butler's report to the Security Council tomorrow, so I'm not going to say
very much about it at this stage - but it appears from what we have seen
that Iraq is not budging from its refusal to allow access to the so-called
presidential sites. But this is a matter that will be taken up in the
Security Council tomorrow.
The President yesterday, here in the State Department, made it crystal
clear that the UN Security Council resolutions call upon Iraq to provide
full and unfettered access to all sites that UNSCOM deems necessary to
inspect. And that certainly has the - Ambassador Butler has the backing of
the United States and, we believe, the Security Council, in pursuing
that.
QUESTION: I'm a little confused, because other inspections preceded. I
don't know, maybe there's a contradiction here; maybe it's imaginary - but
when he - when Iraq tried to keep out American inspectors, it was an all-
for-one, one-for-all proposition, and off they went, if we can't operate
unfettered - we don't take orders from Iraq.
Iraq won't let the inspectors see the palaces this time, and the UN says,
okay, we'll just look at whatever you'll let us look at.
What's happening here? Does the US approve of this type of whatever you'll
let us look at is okay, and we'll worry about the other stuff later?
MR. FOLEY: Well, Barry, I'm not aware that Chairman Butler, or UNSCOM or
the United Nations has indicated, in any way, any kind of acceptance of a
restriction on their ability to do their job in Iraq.
QUESTION: They're holding inspections on a restricted basis. They have
been told they can't go X, so they're going Y.
MR. FOLEY: Well, Barry, they've been back a matter of weeks, and I
believe that UNSCOM's initial purpose in returning to Iraq was to try to re-
establish their baseline that had been interrupted and, in some degree,
undermined by their absence. That was their initial focus.
I can't speak from this podium on behalf of Ambassador Butler. This will be
his call as to where UNSCOM goes, and we'll have to see how the Iraqi
authorities respond. But I think that you cannot assume that, in UNSCOM's
view, any sites are off-limits. They have a mission; they have a mandate,
and they intend to pursue it. And you'll have to see what they're going to
be doing in the days to come, I think.
QUESTION: What does the Clinton Administration think should be the next
steps by the Security Council?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not prepared to discuss hypotheticals at this point. We
are going to hear Chairman Butler, first of all, and then we're going to
discuss with him what his recommendations are for proceeding. We'll be
discussing with our partners on the Security Council what steps we think
are necessary. But today, Wednesday, I'm not in a position to talk about a
report that Chairman Butler has yet to give, that he'll be giving tomorrow.
I think we'll be able to say more in the following days.
QUESTION: So perhaps canceling the bi-annual review of sanctions, might
that be an option?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I indicated I'm not prepared to talk about the options
that we will be considering when we take this up in the Security Council.
We will have steps; we will have measures that we will want to pursue with
our partners on the Security Council. But let's hear Chairman Butler's
report, first of all; let's hear his assessment; let's hear his recommendations.
And then we're going to be consulting within the US Government, and
then with our friends and allies to determine the next steps.
But I just can't foreshadow for you today, Wednesday, what those might
be.
QUESTION: I assume you all had some sort of preliminary discussions with
the other Security Council members. Can you say whether the Russians and
the French are still standing with you on the way you'd like to proceed?
Can you kind of --
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not prepared to discuss publicly what we've been
discussing privately with our fellow members of the Security Council. We
believe that there is unanimity on the Council that Iraq must comply fully
with the resolutions, and must provide unfettered access. We have a problem
on our hands to the extent that Iraq has not gotten the message and is not
beginning to comply with that.
But let's wait for Chairman Butler to report tomorrow, and for us to
consult formally with our allies.
QUESTION: Well, without divulging details, would you say there's
unanimity on tactics?
MR. FOLEY: I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Again, I'm
not going to talk about our private conversations to date. But I think
you'll see more about that after we receive his report and the Security
Council begins to meet and discuss the issue.
QUESTION: Ambassador Butler appeared to suggest - at least in articles
quoting him in the last few days - that there would be four or five weeks
now before this issue of the presidential sites might come to a head. Does
the United States accept that this can be allowed to slip that long?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure that we can set any kind of a timetable today, in
advance of his report to the Security Council tomorrow, and what he intends
to do.
Obviously he's had discussions with the Iraqis. We need to learn precisely
what it is that they have told him, and what he is continuing to insist
upon and, as I indicated, what his recommendations may be.
We have entire confidence in his commitment, his fidelity to his own
mission - which is to get to the bottom of Iraq's programs of weapons of
mass destruction. We have to keep our eye on the ball. I think the
questions of tactics, the questions of timing are secondary to the
essential issue, which is eliminating Saddam Hussein's programs of weapons
of mass destruction. How we get there is something that we'll need to be
discussing and deciding over the weeks to come. But I am not, certainly, in
a position today to lay out any kind of a timetable for you.
Certainly the President made clear yesterday that Iraq has no hope of ever
seeing movement in the direction of lifting of sanctions as long as
Chairman Butler is not able to give Iraq a clean bill of health on their
programs of weapons of mass destruction, number one. Number two, the
President made clear that he's not ruled out any options. But we're not in
the business of discussing those options, or even of discussing a timetable
concerning those options.
QUESTION: I'm not wanting to belabor the point, but I would have thought
that timing was of the essence, or could be of the essence, when you're
talking about weapons of mass destruction that can be developed and put
together in quite short spaces of time.
MR. FOLEY: Well, this has been a long-term effort, though. As you know,
UNSCOM has been at work for six years. It has achieved a remarkable amount
of progress in terms of identifying programs whose existence the Iraqis had
denied; in terms of beginning to roll back their programs.
I would not sound the alarm over a question of days or even weeks. The main
point is to keep the pressure on; to keep the international community
united; and to make clear to Saddam Hussein that his attempt to divide the
international community, his attempt to achieve a partial lifting of
sanctions or an entire lifting of sanctions is completely unrealistic; and
that he get the message that the only way, the only avenue toward sanctions
relief comes with full, 100 percent cooperation.
I think, as I noted, we have a lot of confidence in Chairman Butler to
determine the timetable of his inspections. The question was raised as to
what sites UNSCOM may be seeking to inspect. We've not heard the last word
on that, and certainly we have to hear what he has to tell the Security
Council tomorrow.
QUESTION: But the President, even without Butler reporting back, didn't
have any problem saying yesterday that he thought the exception to permit
sales for food and medicine, he'd be happy to see it broadened. Is the US
ready to do anything in the Council to give Saddam more room to sell more
oil?
MR. FOLEY: I think the President was very eloquent in describing his
personal feelings, and I think he spoke for the American public about our
concern over the plight of the people of Iraq, the victims - the first
victims - of Saddam Hussein's repression and policies. And the President
made it crystal clear that Iraq has been the single most factor - the Iraqi
Government - in preventing the provision of food and medicine to the Iraqi
people.
We have indicated in the Security Council that we will look forward to
Secretary General Annan's report, I believe next month, as he assesses the
current oil-for-food program. And whatever adjustments or improvements he
may recommend, I think we're going to take up in a constructive spirit.
QUESTION: So nothing before then, and no initiative by the US; you're
waiting for the report?
MR. FOLEY: Exactly.
QUESTION: Yeah, but - all right. But you realize those heartfelt remarks
of the President are indeed the main argument opponents of sanctions use
against the United States -- that you're responsible, the sanctions are
responsible for the death of thousands of Iraqi children. And Saddam knows
that.
MR. FOLEY: Well, we think it's a false argument. I can repeat for you,
Barry, what we've said many times, that we've tried to institute the oil-
for-food program for quite some time.
QUESTION: Yes, I know.
MR. FOLEY: I believe it took Iraq a year and a half to agree to
it.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. FOLEY: And they've delayed the pumping of oil. They have failed to
cooperate fully with all the requirements for the provision of food and
medicine.
We regard this as a false argument, as a hypocritical argument, and we're
happy to help take this argument away from Saddam Hussein. We've always
regarded the issue of the humanitarian plight of the Iraqi people and the
sanctions regime related to weapons of mass destruction as separate; and
we're willing to address the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. The
President made that clear yesterday. And it's certainly in our interest and
in the world community's interest to make sure that Saddam Hussein
cannot hypocritically use this argument.
QUESTION: On the Middle East.
MR. FOLEY: Another question on Iraq? I'll come to you in a second.
QUESTION: You know this month, at the end of this month, Operation
Northern Watch will be expired, and according to the Turkish sources, the
new procedure, the US Government asking for more flexible rules of
engagement. Do you plan to discuss this subject with the Prime Minister of
Turkey when he and Albright meet in Washington, DC?
MR. FOLEY: Well, the Prime Minister is here on Friday for meetings with
the President and other senior US Government officials. There's going to be
a wide-ranging agenda, and undoubtedly, the situation in Iraq, the Northern
Watch operation, the international efforts concerning the enforcement of
sanctions in Iraq will be on the table. We look forward to a productive
discussion.
QUESTION: Do you think the European Union's view of Turkey is going to
cast any kind of a shadow over these discussions with the Turks? Are the
reasons not being in the best of moods?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think you were absent the other day - a couple of days
ago, Barry, when I took quite a number of questions on this subject. I
don't believe for one minute that this will cast a shadow over the Prime
Minister's visit here. Certainly it will be a matter for discussion, as
President Clinton said yesterday.
The United States believes very strongly that Turkey ought to be anchored
in the West. We've stated also that we believe Turkey has a European
vocation, and that Turkish membership in the European Union ought to be, in
our view, something that does happen. We, of course, recognize the European
Union's right and ability to set the terms for membership and a timetable
for membership, and we're not questioning that. But we believe that over
time, this is something that ought to occur.
This will certainly be discussed in the meetings with the Prime Minister of
Turkey when he's here. But the President referred specifically to Turkey's
anchoring in the West. We believe that the relationship between the United
States and Turkey is absolutely fundamental to such anchoring.
I think the President talked at some length about Turkey's critical role in
the world, during the Cold War and now in the post-Cold War era. We regard
Turkey as a critical and strategic ally.
QUESTION: I think you did say membership should happen. This is a
straightforward statement. You're not saying that they should be put in
this on-deck circle, or what is - or in the ready lane. I mean, you're
talking about -- the Europeans can set the rules - you recognize it's their
union.
MR. FOLEY: Right.
QUESTION: But you want to see Turkey as a member of the European Union,
ultimately?
MR. FOLEY: Over time, yes, ultimately, yes.
QUESTION: What do mean by Turkey having a European vocation?
MR. FOLEY: We believe that Turkey is a European nation. Obviously it's at
the point where Europe and Asia meet. It plays a role in various regions -
in the Caucuses, in the Middle East, in the Mediterranean, and in Europe.
We believe that vocation ought to be reflected in Turkey's relationships
with Europe and with the West.
Obviously, Turkey is a critical member of NATO today. But we look forward
to continued Turkish integration economically with Europe and with the West
at large.
QUESTION: The Middle East? The Israeli Government has said that Netanyahu
is going to Paris, but will not discuss troop withdrawal. Also, as you know,
Foreign Minister Levy is not going. So how useful is this meeting going to
be tomorrow?
MR. FOLEY: Well, the Secretary has arrived in Paris, and you're familiar
with the podium rule which stipulates that the spokesman doesn't discuss
the Secretary's meetings when she's about to have them or is in the course
of having them. So I'd really have to refer you to the party.
I can just say, generally speaking, though, that the Secretary regards this
as an important meeting tomorrow. She's looking forward to making progress
with Prime Minister Netanyahu in Paris, and then with Chairman Arafat in
London. But I'd really leave it to the party and leave it to the Secretary
herself to discuss those meetings.
QUESTION: You don't want to say anything about London because she's not
there yet, huh?
MR. FOLEY: She's in the course of these meetings.
QUESTION: Are there areas of Europe that are open to questions?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, there are.
QUESTION: Just kidding. No, I know it will all come out of there, but
there have been rumors afloat - already dismissed by Mr. Netanyahu - that
he's privately given -- some Israeli legislators say he's already told the
US, that the Palestinians can have another 12 percent of the West Bank; but
he's denying it. You've heard of this report?
MR. FOLEY: Not officially. I've read the newspaper, as you do, Barry. I'm
not prepared to comment on those. We think that the Israeli Cabinet's
decision a couple weeks ago, in principle, to support a further redeployment
was a positive step. Now the Israeli Prime Minister, working with his
Cabinet, is fleshing out the modalities and the details.
We look forward to a fruitful discussion on this subject with Secretary
Albright tomorrow in Paris.
QUESTION: Have you seen this report that Stuart Eizenstat has pressed
Israel to buy planes from Boeing, instead of Airbus?
MR. FOLEY: I have no information on that. I do know he has been in Israel
- at least he was there yesterday, I believe, for regular economic meetings
having to do with the Israeli economy and American technical advice and
support for Israeli economic developments. But I'm not aware of that
particular information.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary meet with the Russian Foreign Minister today?
And if so, was the subject of Bliss discussed?
MR. FOLEY: The Secretary, I believe, had breakfast with Foreign Minister
Primakov this morning in Brussels, prior to the joint meeting between NATO
and Russia that took place this morning. I don't have a read-out of her
meeting, though.
QUESTION: Can we go to Iran? It seems that the comparatively warm and
fuzzy rhetoric earlier in the week has given way to newspaper stories, at
least, that call the United States, Iran's number-one enemy. They also say
that if a dialogue is to proceed between the United States and Iran, it's
up to the United States to do, among other things, unfreeze all the assets
that have been languishing in the country. Any reaction to that?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we have called for a dialogue for a long time. The
President reiterated that yesterday. Basically, we've called for a dialogue
without preconditions. Insofar as the parameters of such a dialogue are
concerned, we've only said that the representative from Iran should be
authorized by the Iranian Government, and that Iran be prepared for such a
dialogue to be acknowledged publicly.
But we don't accept preconditions as to the nature of such a dialogue. We
have made very clear, as the President did yesterday, that we would address
in such a dialogue our three areas of critical concern with Iranian actions
in the field of terrorism; of violent opposition to the Middle East peace
process; and to development of weapons of mass destruction.
But we also recognize that the Iranians may have issues that they want to
raise with us, and that they would be free to do so. So in that sense, we
don't accept preconditions, but we would be prepared to discuss the range
of issues.
QUESTION: The President also said, on that topic, that the Khobar
investigation is still unresolved. Perhaps you could explain why the United
States is willing to meet with Iran when their role in Khobar is still in
question.
MR. FOLEY: Well, Sid, I can't comment on that investigation. It's an --
QUESTION: Well, the President said yesterday it's still ongoing.
MR. FOLEY: That's what he said, and I can point you to his comment that
it's ongoing. He was careful not to discuss the investigation. It's a law
enforcement matter that's being handled very seriously by the FBI. It's not
something we can comment on from the podium.
The offer of a dialogue with Iran is not a new offer. It's not something
that was placed on the table this year or last; it dates back, at least, to
the time of the Bush Administration. The President has reiterated that
offer of dialogue with authorized representatives of the Iranian Government,
in the context of some encouraging statements by the president of Iran
concerning his desire to have an improved relationship with the American
people and some moderate tone that we've seen in Iranian declarations in
the last few weeks.
QUESTION: Well, some of the - a few of the families of the 19 servicemen
who were killed in Khobar took note of what the President said yesterday,
and have raised some objections about his mad dash to meet with the
Iranians, as long as their role in Khobar is still unresolved. Can you
explain, perhaps, for those handful of parents, what the Administration's
thinking is on that?
MR. FOLEY: I reject that characterization. The President reiterated long-
standing US policy of openness to a dialogue, an official dialogue, with
authorized representatives of the government of Iran.
The investigation into the Khobar bombing is a very serious matter being
pursued vigorously by the FBI. It's not something we can comment on.
QUESTION: We don't have the dual containment policy anymore?
MR. FOLEY: I was asked that question the other day. Our policy hasn't
changed, Barry.
QUESTION: Could you say the words "dual containment"?
MR. FOLEY: Dual containment.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: What is the US policy?
(Laughter)
No, many of us have been asked by very independent, diverse sources.
MR. FOLEY: No, it's a serious question.
QUESTION: And I know it's taken seriously.
MR. FOLEY: Our policy has not changed. I've laid out, as the President
did yesterday, three areas of serious concern with Iranian actions in the
area of terrorism, violent opposition to the Middle East peace process, and
development of weapons of mass destruction. And these are preeminent
national security concerns on our part.
I think you would have noted the Secretary of State's remarks yesterday,
before the North Atlantic Council, in which she described, for example, the
issue of weapons proliferation as really the number one international
security threat facing us as we move into the next century.
So these are extraordinarily important issues, and we have not seen changes
in Iranian actions in these critical areas of concern.
QUESTION: Yes, some of us - those of us consigned to a side room at the
Council on Foreign Relations because we're scrubby reporters, remember
hearing her, just a few months ago, saying without any hesitation,
nothing's changed. She was asked if it was time to talk to Iraq; she said,
nothing's changed.
I guess I would ask you how the President's proposition varies from what
the Europeans were doing, that you also strenuously objected to. They said,
only by talking to these folks could you hope to change their behavior.
They may have had an economic incentive or two, but they were making the
case that diplomatic contact is the way to affect change. Isn't that what
Clinton is proposing?
MR. FOLEY: We have very stringent sanctions in place against Iran, in
light of their actions in these areas of concern. And until we see changes
in actions, we're not talking about changing those policies. But what we
are saying and have said, really, for many years is that we are open to a
dialogue, that, as the President termed it yesterday, that the estrangement
between our two peoples is tragic. It's an historical aberration, and it
will be inevitably overcome over time. And the President made clear
that he was encouraged by the comments of the Iranian President. We have
been interested in the possibility of an evolution in Iranian policy, since
the election of President Khatami. We would like to see reflected in the
foreign policy sphere the move towards change and reform that he's talked
about within the country. But we believe that a dialogue is one that would
address all of the areas of concern that we've had all these years.
QUESTION: Okay, so our policy hasn't changed, but we'd like to talk to
them.
MR. FOLEY: That's right.
QUESTION: The subject of the Iranian President's speech - on Monday you
said you were going to take a closer look at it, once you saw the text.
Have you had a chance? Do you believe that he is speaking for the Iranian
Government, or is he speaking for himself and a faction?
MR. FOLEY: Well, he's the President of Iran; he speaks as the President
of Iran. And as I've noted before, he's made interesting comments on a
number of issues - on the rule of law, on the role of women in modern
society, about dialogue amongst civilizations - that we think represent a
change. We're hearing things come out of Iran that we haven't heard in 20
years.
So I think it would be futile for me to try to analyze the internal
political situation in Iran. It's clearly in ferment and we can only
ultimately base our policies on Iranian actions.
QUESTION: Some of the reporting - he said that Iran objects to the Arab-
Israeli peace process, but respects the rights of other countries to take
their own views about it. Is that not a weather change in your point number
two that has to be changed?
MR. FOLEY: I think that I was asked that question the other day, yes, and
I noted that it may be a nuance change in a positive direction.
The President yesterday, I believe, noted that the United States does not
dispute the right of any country, including any Islamic country, to have
its opinion on the Middle East peace process, including an opinion that
differs with ours. Where we draw the line, where we can be only uncompromising,
as he said, has to do with the actions, with support of terrorism to
undermine that peace process.
QUESTION: Well, the question is, does this not represent a weather change
on the part of the Iranian Government, which in part would satisfy the
requirements of the United States?
MR. FOLEY: It is a rhetorical nuance that represents language that we
haven't heard, I believe, previously; and in that sense, it is positive.
But support for terrorism and violent opposition to the Middle East peace
process are questions involving actions. At the end of the day, we're
looking for change in actions.
QUESTION: Also on the subject of dual containment, is the United States
also eager to set up a dialogue with Iraq?
MR. FOLEY: I think what we want from Iraq is crystal-clear. There is
really no point in speculating or expanding beyond the bottom line, which
is, full, 100 percent compliance with the UN Security Council resolutions.
They have to deal with Chairman Butler, with UNSCOM and their mission, and
they have to cooperate with it. Anything else is really a sideshow and
irrelevant, as far as we're concerned.
QUESTION: Back to Iran. Are there any dividends from the conversations,
from the dialogue - I forgot the Europeans' quaint phrase for it - critical
dialogue? I guess a special rapporteur must have attended; but the critical
dialogue they call it, they've been having lo these many months. Has
anything happened as a result? Have the Iranians changed? Is his - what you
were just talking to Jim about, is that a product of some very persistent
diplomacy by the Europeans? Or is it just a cover for business?
MR. FOLEY: In the three areas of concern that we have laid out, that the
President repeated yesterday, we've not seen changes in actions.
QUESTION: On Bosnia, is the United States preparing an aid package for
Republika Srpska?
MR. FOLEY: I think you're making reference to an article that was in the
press, I believe it was yesterday, concerning aid to the Republika Srpska.
I have a lengthy answer, I'm sorry to say; but you asked the question.
Section 573 of the Foreign Operations Export Financing and Related Programs
Appropriations Act provides the Secretary of State with the authority to
determine with countries, entities or cantons in the former Yugoslavia have
failed to take necessary and significant steps to apprehend and transfer to
the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia all persons
who have been publicly indicted by the Tribunal.
However, the law also gives the Secretary the authority to waive any of its
provisions when she determines that such assistance directly supports the
implementation of the Dayton agreement and its annexes.
The Department of the Treasury, after consulting with the State Department,
informed relevant congressional committees on December 2 of a vote that was
originally scheduled yesterday, concerning a World Bank loan to the
Republika Srpska, which will help farmers. It will repair socially-owned
apartments, and repair water and electrical systems.
Treasury indicated that the US was likely to vote for this loan. But the
vote itself has been postponed until December 23.
Now, for the first year and a half after Dayton, the United States led the
effort to restrict reconstruction assistance to the Republika Srpska. As a
result of this policy, very little aid has gone to the Republika Srpska, as
a consequence of that entity's refusal to honor its Dayton commitments.
This lack of international assistance, we believe, gave President Plavsic,
ultimately, and those working with her, an opening to challenge the Pale
hard-liners, whose policies, including non-cooperation on war crimes,
resulted in the people of the Republika Srpska not receiving international
assistance.
What we are proposing now is to target assistance to those who have
demonstrated a willingness to implement Dayton, and we believe that it is
vital that cooperation of this sort be rewarded.
QUESTION: May I ask you a question which maybe you might not be ready to
answer, but maybe the legal department. You began with three geographic
descriptions, cantons, et cetera. I didn't get - something smaller than a
canton, though. People in the building and elsewhere who are willing to
talk about this, talk about withholding assistance from towns where bad
guys are still running things.
I don't know how you can go town-by-town under a system that seems to limit
you to making decisions based on cantons. Towns are much smaller, I guess.
You know, the theory that if Karadzic is still in charge of a town, they're
not going to get any help. You know what I'm driving at? I just wonder, can
you be really that selective, that pinpoint selective?
MR. FOLEY: It's difficult to pinpoint to the degree one would like,
ideally, when you're dealing with loans of this nature, international loans,
and not bilateral assistance, as such.
However, the World Bank's reconstruction assistance program involved here
would spend about 85 percent of its $17-million credit in Brcko or the
western Republika Srpska, those areas, to one degree or another, under
Madam Plavsic's control, in the western Republika Srpska.
Those who will receive this funding themselves do not have control over war
criminals. Fifteen percent will go to the eastern Republika Srpska; in some
cases, the cities that are under Pale's influence. This would be for
humanitarian support, to repair water and sewage systems in areas where
there are a large number of refugees. But again, the international
financial institutions' loans are complicated than bilateral aid to target,
in the sense that they are negotiated with the central government of Bosnia
rather than with the entities themselves. Therefore, any one of the three
co-presidents can block an iffy loan.
QUESTION: But - can I - back --
MR. FOLEY: Sure.
QUESTION: Pale-controlled areas would possibly get US direct assistance
or World Bank loans assistance?
MR. FOLEY: World Bank loan assistance.
QUESTION: What about - there are three categories of assistance, US, and
then they'll hope to get a lot of money out of the Europeans --
MR. FOLEY: Well, I can talk about the bilateral aid we have given, which
we announced some months ago, to municipalities that are under Madam
Plavsic's control.
QUESTION: Yes, but I mean these various stories speak of three categories.
MR. FOLEY: The USAID has done a number of mostly small municipal
infrastructure projects in the Republika Srpska, usually at the suggestion
of US troops stationed there. They've done a few larger projects,
particularly in Brcko. But I'd have to refer you to AID for the details.
QUESTION: On Colombia. The Colombia Senate last night approved a rare
bill which allows criminals, including drug traffickers, to go on vacation
for 15 days, including Mondays. Does that sound like a strange thing to
you?
(Laughter)
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm aware that the version of the Penalties Reform Bill -
- I think is what you're referring to - that was passed by the Colombian
Senate last night, amends the previous House version to only allow release
for common criminals. This has to do with the length of time of a sentence
served, after which criminals may be released.
Under the Senate version, persons jailed on narcotics-related charges, or
for kidnapping, murder, terrorism and other serious crimes, will not be
eligible for early release.
You'll recall that we had expressed our dismay over passage in the House
sometime earlier, under which, I believe, any criminal who had served 60
percent of his or her term would be eligible for release under the old
program.
So in this sense, since it only applies to common criminals, it represents
a modest strengthening of the bill that came out of the House. However, we
are concerned - and this is, really, I think in direct reference to your
point - that the Senate version allows weekend passes for all criminals.
I'm not aware that it's as lengthy as you described, but even limited to
weekend passes, it would cover those convicted of serious crimes, who have
served 80 percent of their sentence. So that is not an encouraging
development in that respect.
But we understand that the penalties bill will now go before a conciliation
committee to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions.
We urge the committee to follow the Senate's lead in strengthening this
bill, not further undermining Colombia's judiciary system.
QUESTION: But, Jim, you said it's only common criminals and not narcotics
traffickers? Why do you care what they do if they're common criminals? Is
it really your place to comment on that?
MR. FOLEY: My comment refers to the fact that under this new bill, even
those convicted of narco-crimes would, after completion of 80 percent of
their sentence, be eligible for weekend passes. So I am addressing the
issue of narco-trafficking.
QUESTION: Just two weeks ago the Colombian Congress approved extradition
without retroactivity, and now this. As the year is ending, can you
evaluate how Colombia has cooperated against drug trafficking so far this
year?
MR. FOLEY: I would want to prepare carefully to answer that question, and
I'm not in a position to do that. Clearly, we'll face the certification
decision itself in the early part of 1998. Effective implementation of
tougher sentencing laws is going to be an important certification criteria
for Colombia.
QUESTION: Where does the State Department stand on the dispute between
VOA and the White House on the airing of interviews with the Chinese
dissident, Wei Jengsheng? Basically the question is, does the State
Department favor the free dissemination of this man's story through VOA, or
would the State Department prefer that this dissident story be suppressed,
in accord with an agreement with the Chinese Government?
MR. FOLEY: You must have been absent for the beginning of the briefing,
because I answered the question.
QUESTION: I was absent. Did you do that one?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, I did.
QUESTION: There's a story in a publication called The Hill today,
headlined, "42 Members Urged Arlington Burials." It talks, among other
things, about Senator Ted Stevens having sought a waiver to have a former
ambassador buried in Arlington National Cemetery, who the article says had
falsely claimed a military record; and I'm not talking about Mr. Lawrence.
I'm talking about Daniel J. Terra, T-e-r-r-a, who was apparently the
former Ambassador at large for Cultural Affairs at the State Department.
Do you have anything on this story, any reaction to this story?
MR. FOLEY: No, I don't.
QUESTION: Could you take the question?
MR. FOLEY: I'd be happy to take the question.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure that the State Department would have had any role
whatsoever in the issue, but I'd be happy to look into it.
QUESTION: Your great ally Turkey is challenging now openly even the
status quo of the Mykonos Islands. According to today's dispatch from
Ankara, a leader of the Turkish Coalition Government stated upon the
departure of the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Yilmaz, for Washington, D.C.,
our country's policy on the peaceful solution to the 12 islands in the
Aegean territorial waters should be reviewed. Could you please comment,
since you are mediating between the two countries, Mr. Foley?
In the meantime, this statement was a direct threat against the territorial
integrity of Greece.
MR. FOLEY: I'd want to see any such comment.
QUESTION: But then what is the US policy vis-à-vis --
MR. FOLEY: Mr. Lambros, would you let me answer the question?
QUESTION: Yes, yes.
MR. FOLEY: I would want to see any such comment before I answered it.
However, the US has always stated its position that Greece and Turkey are
very close and valued allies of the United States in NATO, and that we've
always urged them to resolve the issues between them peacefully. That's
very clear.
QUESTION: I have another question, despite this. What is the US policy
vis-à-vis to the present mainland initiative on the issue of the
territorial integrity of Greece? You must have a policy.
MR. FOLEY: I didn't quite understand the question.
QUESTION: Okay. What is the US policy vis-à-vis to the present
mainland and the issue of the territorial integrity of Greece? In other
words, do you recognize it as it is today, Mr. Foley?
MR. FOLEY: We recognize Greece's territorial integrity. We recognize
Turkey's territorial integrity. And that's our policy around the world.
Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:50 P.M.)
|
