U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #183, 97-12-18
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
631
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Thursday, December 18, 1997
Briefer: James B. Foley
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 Kenya Elections
Mexico-AmCit Killed
TURKEY
1 Report of Turkey to annex Turkish occupied area of Cyprus
9-10 Prime Minister's Washington meetings and agenda of issues
10 Status of pipeline across Iran to Turkey
CYPRUS
1 EU or NATO for Cyprus
MEXICO
1-2 Release of kidnapped AmCit
2 US policy on payment of Ransom
VIETNAM
2-3 Vietnam and Jackson-Vanik Amendment
3 MFN status
BOSNIA
3,4,5,7-8 Arrest of alleged war criminals
4 Status of Kradzic
5-6 Aid package to Bosnian Serb Republic
SOUTH KOREA
8 Elections
IRAQ
8-9 Butler report and next steps for US and UNSCOM
MIDDLE EAST
9 Ross travel
9,10 Presidential meetings with Netanyahu and Arafat
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #183
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1997, 1:00 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Where's the Associated Press? Do we have a quorum?
I have a couple public announcements that I'm going to post - one connected
with the upcoming elections in Kenya. The other one involves Mexico, and
the sad news that an American citizen was killed, was murdered on December
15 in Mexico City, in an apparent taxi robbery. What the public announcement
does is to strongly urge American citizens to only use taxis summoned
by telephone, and it gives some detail about the nature of regularized,
official taxi service that American citizens and residents of Mexico City
are advised to follow in the interest of their own safety.
I'll take your questions.
QUESTION: How do you respond to the Turkish Government's statements, even
by Prime Minister Yilmaz, that Ankara is proceeding now to annex the
Turkish occupied area of the Republic of Cyprus in response to the recent
EU decision?
MR. FOLEY: I'm certainly not aware of any such comments, and we believe
that the focus should be on the UN-sponsored talks between the two
communities. The United States supports that point toward the establishment
of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. That's the only solution we think is
a viable and fruitful one to bring peace and reconciliation to the island.
It's a process that we're supporting, that Ambassador Holbrooke is involved
with. We look forward to a resumption of those talks, following the
Cypriot elections in February.
QUESTION: One follow up - since a lot of discussion is going on after the
EU decision, do you prefer to see Cyprus to become first a NATO or EU
member?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of the status of any consideration on the NATO
side. I'd be happy to check the record to see if there is anything on
that.
But we've stated from this podium our belief that the accession of Cyprus
into the European Union is a potentially positive development that offers a
perspective for improving chances of a resolution of the problems between
the two communities on the island.
QUESTION: Can we go back to Mexico? This American who was kidnapped, I
think last week, appears to have been released. Do you know if any ransom
was paid?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that. I really could make no comment on any
actions that the victim's employer may have made.
I can tell you that it is the policy of the United States Government to
oppose the making of concessions. We will not pay ransom, the US Government
to free prisoners, to change our policies or agree to other acts that might,
indeed, encourage additional terrorism. But I can confirm that the US
citizen was released yesterday after being held for over a week in Mexico.
We are obviously very pleased that he is safe.
The US Embassy in Mexico City has been in close contact with Mexican
authorities and with the victim's family. We understand that he is in
Acapulco now. We don't have a Privacy Act waiver from the American, and
therefore, can't really provide further information at this stage.
QUESTION: In such cases, do you advise the employer or the family not to
pay ransom?
MR. FOLEY: We state clearly our policy, which is against the payment of
ransom, yes. But I can't comment on what private firms or the employer's
views and actions might have been in this case. I'm not aware of the answer
to the question that you pose.
QUESTION: Do you make a recommendation?
MR. FOLEY: I'd want to be careful, because you've asked a very specific
question - whether we proactively discourage the payment of such moneys in
those cases. I do know that we make clear what our policy is. But it's a
fine point, and I'd like to check the record and get back to you.
QUESTION: Could you tell us something about a decision towards declaring
Vietnam exempt from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, I can. The Administration has decided to begin consultations
with Congress this week on that question of waiving the Jackson-Vanik
Amendment. Waiving Jackson-Vanik is one of the statutory requirements to
allow OPIC and EXIM to support American businesses operating in Vietnam;
but it will not in itself permit these programs to begin operations.
Completion of a bilateral trade agreement would be required, in addition to
Jackson-Vanik, before MFN status could be considered for Vietnam.
Now, our decision to proceed with congressional consultations was based on
our assessment that granting a waiver would further the Jackson-Vanik goal
of freer emigration from Vietnam. We believe it would also advance our
interest in encouraging Vietnam's integration into world markets and
regional organizations, and also help American companies compete in
Vietnam.
I'd like to emphasize that the central goal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver
would be to promote continued progress by the Vietnamese Government toward
allowing its citizens to emigrate freely. Achieving the fullest possible
accounting of our missing from the Vietnam War remains our highest priority
in relations with Vietnam, and we believe that Vietnamese cooperation in
this area has been and continues to be excellent.
Now, we also believe the Vietnamese authorities have developed a solid
record in their implementation of the orderly departure and Amer-Asian
refugee programs. This year we have seen additional progress on freedom of
emigration for Vietnamese, particularly for those eligible for the
resettlement opportunity of the Vietnamese returnees' program. In January
of this year, Vietnam signed an agreement to implement the program. In
early October of this year, the Vietnamese authorities decided to drop the
requirement that candidates have an exit visa before being allowed to have
their Immigration Service interview.
So, as I indicated, the Administration has decided to begin consultations.
The actual waiver decision has not been made, but we're launching the
process.
QUESTION: How about MFN, will it be included in the concessions?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as I indicated, we would need to pursue the Jackson-
Vanik waiver and to complete a bilateral trade agreement before we could
consider MFN for Vietnam.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about the arrest of the alleged war
criminals, the Bosnian Croats?
MR. FOLEY: Potentially, I have a lot to say about it, so I can launch in
on it, if you'd like. If you have specific questions, it might be --
QUESTION: Start by saying who actually made the arrest? Were they NATO
folks, were they some sort of local gendarmarie?
MR. FOLEY: They were SFOR forces who conducted the operation, but I'd
have to refer you to the Pentagon for more precise operational details. I'd
be happy to take questions about the fact of the arrests and any policy
questions you might have on the event.
QUESTION: Can we look forward to more such encounters?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as we've said numerous times, we're not ruling out any
actions in this regard. I think I'd like to put this in some context,
though. The fact of the matter is that the international community had
expected the signatories to the Dayton Accords to live up to their
obligations; and that included ensuring that those indicted for war crimes
be brought to justice before the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia.
The fact is that, largely, the parties have failed to do so; and this
convinced us of the need to take action. This instance was determined to be
an appropriate moment. But all possible options for future action,
including additional operations, will be kept open, if the parties continue
to fail to meet their obligations.
QUESTION: Jim, can I ask, the President this morning made some interesting
comments about Karadzic. He said that if he flees the country, if he's deep
enough underground, if you can't have any impact on it, you might make the
peace work anyway. Is that suggesting that the United States has given up
on trying to arrest Karadzic or the prospect that he might be arrested one
day?
MR. FOLEY: No, not in the least. I think that's a misconstruction of what
the President said. He was asked a specific question, which was, I believe -
you'll have to check the record - whether we could go forward and
successfully implement Dayton in the absence of Mr. Karadzic's transfer to
The Hague, by one means or another. And he certainly did not rule out any
options regarding Mr. Karadzic's future movement towards The Hague. But he
did say that we have made considerable progress over the last two years in
helping to rebuild Bosnia and solidify the peace there, and we've
made accelerated progress in 1997, since the springtime, on any number
of fronts.
We've seen, in the Republika Srpska itself, where he wields influence, that
his influence has begun to decline. That was reflected in the legislative
elections that were held there recently. So we think he's becoming
increasingly marginalized, his influence reduced. But let there be no doubt,
his place is in The Hague. He's been charged by the War Crimes Tribunal
with serious crimes. He has claimed his innocence, but apparently his
conviction of his innocence is not sufficient to compel him to make his way
to The Hague, as he's supposed to as an indicted war criminal. But if he
believes that he's innocent, he ought to make himself available to
the Tribunal. And certainly authorities in the Republika Srpska have
an obligation under Dayton to apprehend and transfer him to The Hague.
As far as SFOR is concerned, it remains part of the SFOR mission, as was
demonstrated in the wee hours of this morning, to apprehend war criminals.
It's largely a question of the tactical situation permitting such action to
take place. SFOR commanders have to approach this with due discretion, with
concern for the operational context, but SFOR's mandate has always
permitted apprehension of persons indicted for war crimes.
I can repeat to you what the guidance is, that under the North Atlantic
Council guidance to IFOR and SFOR, it's specified that troops "should
detain any persons indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal who come
into contact with IFOR in its execution of assigned tasks." Now, SFOR
having encountered these individuals, awaited a favorable moment for their
detention. The primary concern by the commanders in such situations is to
seek to minimize risk to SFOR forces and to innocent bystanders.
But they acted fully within their mandate. And, again, as far as Mr.
Karadzic is concerned, I think, as we noted in July, at the time of the
Prijedor operation, this success today ought to serve as a warning to those
indicted for war crimes who remain at large -- a warning that they will be
held individually accountable for their actions. And I repeat they should
surrender voluntarily, like the ten Bosnian Croat indictees who did so in
October of this year.
QUESTION: Can you say whether this is part of the beginning of a new
campaign, or is this just one offensive that happened to arise because the
SFOR forces - they were there and saw an opportunity?
MR. FOLEY: I can't tell you that, for obvious security reasons. We're not
going to be in the habit of signaling what SFOR may or may not be doing.
There's a list of indicted war criminals. SFOR has a mandate to apprehend
them, and it will continue to do so in the performance of its mission and
in the context of the prevailing tactical situation. The action today,
again, should be considered as a warning.
QUESTION: Do you know if these two were on that public list of 66 or so --
MR. FOLEY: I'd have to refer you to the Tribunal. I would hazard to say -
my understanding is that one was on a public list and one was on a sealed
list. But you'd have to go to the Tribunal to confirm that.
QUESTION: Could you just clarify the aid package to the Bosnian Serb
Republic? There's just the World Bank loan, and is there bilateral
aid?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I can go over what has been done bilaterally.
QUESTION: No, is there new bilateral US aid in the offering to Republika
Srpska?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I won't go through what AID has done in 1996 and 1997,
since you don't want me to do so. But I can say that AID intends to
continue the bilateral aid programs it has in the foreseeable future,
although it does not yet have final plans for projects in the Republika
Srpska for 1998. That's something that they are developing, and information
on that we'll be happy to bring to your attention when it's available.
QUESTION: Did it add substantial aid programs?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, Barry, if you'd like -- even though Carol --
QUESTION: In the Republika --
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: In Srpska?
MR. FOLEY: Yes. We announced some of this, you will recall, earlier this
year -- aid targeted at certain municipalities in the Western Republika
Srpska.
QUESTION: Yes. But you know how this has been presented in the media as a
three-point program: the bank loan; more US aid -- larger, in fact, than
the bank loan -- and then hoping to elicit more than twice as much from
other countries.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I spoke to the World Bank issue yesterday.
QUESTION: Well, the World Bank's taken care of.
MR. FOLEY: And you and your colleagues asked me, after the briefing,
about further bilateral programs. And believe me, we've done some asking
since the briefing yesterday, and we're told that AID is not yet in a
position - it hasn't finalized its plans, but there will be a continuation
of programs for next year.
QUESTION: Anything --
MR. FOLEY: I don't have anything on the substance.
QUESTION: No, but I mean - all right. Well, if you don't have anything -
MR. FOLEY: Yes. I'll try to continue to follow that and get back to you
when I get something.
QUESTION: Is there an end to US troop involvement in Bosnia? I mean, I
ask in this sense -- by the Administration. The Administration is keeping
the troops there, and the same Administration sees the Dayton accords
working out quite well - much better, probably, than certainly most people
in Congress anticipated. They expected Americans to be hurt, and they were
very dubious about the agreement.
So I'm trying to sort of pursue the Administration logic. If things are
going well, but not all problems are resolved, and you still need the
troops there, can you anticipate a day when there won't be problems - when
things will be going well enough so that there will be no problems? That's
hard to imagine; isn't it?
MR. FOLEY: First, let me say, Barry, that --
QUESTION: There's no deadline, is why I asked.
MR. FOLEY: First of all, the President spoke at length about this, and
that was followed by a briefing at the White House by Mr. Berger and Mr.
Gelbard.
QUESTION: Sure.
MR. FOLEY: And they spoke at length, and I really don't want to sort of
try to cover their tracks.
QUESTION: Yes, yes, sure.
MR. FOLEY: Your specific question was asked of the President himself this
morning, and he made clear that this is not an open-ended commitment; that
there will be no permanent stationing of American forces in Bosnia. But he
also described the fact that we've made substantial progress over the last
two years, and we see the opportunity to solidify that progress, especially
in the civilian implementation area. We believe that a continued international
security presence under NATO can permit the coming to fruition of those
efforts. It's not open-ended.
The President also talked about benchmarks, and the achievement of the
mission to enable us to depart. He didn't set a time frame. He also noted
that no final decision has been taken, because we have to see what the NATO
options are that are developed, and also the kind of concrete plan towards
mission achievement that will be elaborated at NATO, before he makes his
final decision.
QUESTION: Jim, how come you say it's not open-ended, when there are no
dates for the ending of it?
MR. FOLEY: Well, Barry's question had to do with whether we would ever be
departing Bosnia. The obvious answer is, yes, we will.
QUESTION: But open-ended, by definition, means no end date. And there is
no end date.
MR. FOLEY: Well, we haven't picked a specific end date now on --
QUESTION: The President said he won't.
MR. FOLEY: That's right.
QUESTION: So how is it not open-ended?
MR. FOLEY: Because he also made clear that this is not going to be a
permanent presence. The President would not be going forward to seek, in
principle, as he described today, the prospect of American forces remaining
in SFOR, if he believed that such a continued deployment would have to be
permanent.
He indicated that we believe the mission can be achieved. He didn't set a
specific time limit on it, but we've seen such progress achieved in these
two years - and accelerated progress in the last seven, eight months - that
we believe we can achieve a self-sustaining peace in Bosnia; that the
progress that has been achieved gives us reason to believe that, and with
some more effort, we'll be able to leave Bosnia without having the
situation return to the way it was when the war was going on until
1995.
QUESTION: Just for the record, Jim, why are SFOR troops going after
Bosnian Croat indicted war criminals, and not more notorious ones, like
Karadzic and Ladic?
MR. FOLEY: Well, again, I am not going to rule out any possible options
whatsoever. The key consideration - SFOR has a list of indicted war
criminals. It has a mandate to detain those who it comes across in the
performance of its mission. But the ability to apprehend is also circumstantial.
It depends, in specific circumstances, on choosing a moment which is
favorable to the SFOR forces in terms of minimizing risk to them,
minimizing risk to innocent bystanders. But we don't rule anything out. It
so happened that the tactical situation permitted this successful
apprehension today.
QUESTION: But the bigger the war criminal, does that mean the bigger the
risk? I mean, nobody's going to - who's going to rise up and attack
peacekeepers if some two-bit criminal is apprehended. But if Karadzic - if
you try to put your paws on Karadzic, don't you suppose some of his devoted
cohorts would - in other words, aren't you laying off Karadzic because
you're afraid it would be disruptive?
MR. FOLEY: I can't accept the premise. It's obviously something that's
kept under constant review; and it's also something that can't really be
discussed in detail from this podium.
QUESTION: No, but you sort of - when you talk about risk --
MR. FOLEY: I think it's a matter of public information that the gentleman
in question is exceedingly well guarded. But I think he should not be
sleeping easier; on the contrary, he should be sleeping more fitfully
tonight after what happened today.
QUESTION: New subject - (inaudible) - do you have any comment on the
ongoing outcome of the Korean presidential election, in which the
opposition party candidate is winning, according to the recent tally?
And are you considering inviting the president-elect to visit Washington,
D.C., to consult with the pending issue --
MR. FOLEY: Well, a presidential visit would be a matter of presidential
invitation. So I would have to refer you to the White House. Of course,
it's hypothetical at this point, because we don't know who the winner is.
The final results are not yet in.
At the moment, the media reports indicate that it is an extremely close
race. So we're awaiting the final outcome, but we don't know what those
results are yet.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - until Mr. Butler presented his report to the
Security Council before you said anything on Iraq. He's now done so. What
can you say about the next step in this confrontation?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I can't say anything that will satisfy you today,
because he's just completed his report. I understand the Security Council,
in an informal session, will continue to meet this afternoon. The members
of the Security Council will have a chance to respond to Ambassador
Butler's remarks.
What I can say, though, is that we will be considering our next steps in
careful consultation with our colleagues in the Security Council. I believe
you might see some kind of a presidential statement coming out of the
Council in the next day or two. But I can't expand on my refusal to
entertain questions yesterday on what next steps might be contemplated.
We're going to have to discuss these first with our colleagues on the
Security Council, before we can talk about them publicly.
QUESTION: How would you characterize what Butler had to say to the
Council?
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen his report. I understand it was circulated, and
I don't think the full text has been distributed. I haven't seen it myself,
but my understanding is that if you break it down to its essence, he's
saying that Iraq is no closer to- and may even be farther from - full
compliance with its obligations to cooperate with UNSCOM than it was before
Ambassador Butler's meetings took place.
QUESTION: Is there any possibility that Dennis Ross will go to the Middle
East? There are rumors to that effect coming out, to follow up on the
Secretary's meetings.
MR. FOLEY: I have not heard those rumors. What I do know -- and it's
about all I can say, because the meetings have just concluded and the issue
is still with the party, which I think is going to be heading back now to
Washington. But I believe the Secretary has recommended a meeting with the
President and Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat in January,
separate meetings. So I think that's where we're headed. I don't have
anything official on that. You'd have to ask the White House about
it.
QUESTION: Meetings here?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: What's the purpose of those meetings?
MR. FOLEY: To follow up on the progress that was achieved. I don't have a
read-out, though, Sid, on those meetings today. So maybe we'll have more to
say tomorrow.
Any other questions? Thank you. Yes, one more, sorry.
QUESTION: You mentioned a few weeks ago that you were unaware of Senator
Albright's meeting with Turkey's Foreign Minister as including any
discussion on Turkey's illegal blockade of Armenia. In light of Turkey's
rejection from the EU, will this issue now be placed on the agenda for the
President's meeting with Turkey's Prime Minister tomorrow? And if it
already is, will it take higher priority?
MR. FOLEY: Well, the Prime Minister will be coming to Washington, is
arriving today on a working visit. He'll be meeting with President Clinton;
he'll also meet with the Vice President, with Secretary Albright and the
Secretaries of Commerce, Energy, Defense and the Treasury.
He will be discussing trade and investment issues, including cooperation
between the US and Turkey in the energy sector. But you can assume he's
going to be discussing with President Clinton and Cabinet Secretaries the
full range of bilateral and regional issues. Whether it includes specifically
that issue, I can't say. We'll have to wait until the meetings take place
tomorrow.
QUESTION: I lost track, and the files don't help me. I've lost track of
the natural gas pipeline that the US didn't like, going from Iran through
the Caucuses to Turkey for export to Europe. Were penalties recommended -
it's sort of in limbo. I think the US expressed disapproval months ago, but
I don't think you took any action. Is that correct?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not sure there was a need to take any action at that
time. I don't believe anything has happened. There have been reports of
possible deals and decisions, but we haven't seen anything concrete. What
we have done, though, is made clear our opposition to pipelines across
Iran.
QUESTION: Right, okay.
QUESTION: Didn't you find that that particular project didn't violate the
congressional -- the new laws, because it didn't involve any investment in
Iran? Wasn't that where you left it?
MR. FOLEY: I think - of course, this is going back many months to the
summertime, so I'd have to check the record to be careful. But there had
been a prospect of Turkish purchase of Iranian gas. That was, I think,
withdrawn; then it was a question of Turkmen gas, and we applauded
that.
On the question of the pipeline as such, our general view is to oppose the
building of such pipelines across Iran.
QUESTION: Okay, thank you.
QUESTION: The meeting that you suggested with the President and Arafat
and Netanyahu, is that all three men together, or a separate meeting for
each one?
MR. FOLEY: They would be separate meetings, but again, I don't have
official confirmation of it.
(The briefing concluded at 1:30 P.M.)
|
