U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #185, 97-12-22
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
467
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, December 22, 1997
Briefer: James B. Foley
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 Welcome to French Embassy visitors
1 Under Secretary for Global Affairs Tim Wirth briefing
12/23/97 11 a.m.
IRAQ
2-4 Impending UN Presidential statement condemning Iraq's
denial of UNSCOM access to suspected weapons sites; Next
steps
2 Assessment of Iraqi compliance with UNSC Resolutions
3-4 Maintaining international sanctions
LIBYA
4 USG reaction to Louis Farrakhan travel to Libya
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
4 Israeli reports of plans for Dennis Ross travel to the
region
7 Netanyahu comments on Israeli sovereignty over West Bank
territories
IMMIGRATION VISA
5 Alleged State Department directives to employees re cut-off
of welfare benefits for legal immigrants
JAPAN
5-6 Okinawa referendum on relocation of helicopter facility
5-6 Terms of the Special Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO)
agreement
LIBERIA
6 Liberian Charge d'Affaires allegedly hijacked in
Washington, DC
IRAN
7 Actor Anthony Quinn travel to Tehran for film festival
7 State railway to purchase locomotives from France; no ILSA
application
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OFF-CAMERA PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #185
MONDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1997 12:55 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: A big crowd today.
First I'd like to welcome some visitors from the French Embassy, whom I met
in the hallway - welcome -- from the press section of the French Embassy.
Second, I'd like to announce that Under Secretary for Global Affairs,
Timothy Wirth, will give sort of a farewell press briefing tomorrow morning
at 11:00 a.m. here in the briefing room. He will be reviewing his tenure
as Under Secretary - the first in that position - talking about the range
of issues that he worked on here in the Department.
It's his last week in the job, and he'll be taking questions on the work
that he's accomplished, and also his views on where we're going on some of
the global issues that the United States will be facing in the years to
come.
QUESTION: Is that on camera?
MR. FOLEY: I don't believe so.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Why not?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we haven't fully addressed the --
QUESTION: No, but it's on the record --
MR. FOLEY: It's on the record, yes. I didn't know that was a concern,
Barry, of AP.
QUESTION: Sure it is. Well, no, it's a concern of - AP has t.v., but
besides that, if something's on the record, it should be available to all
forms of reporting.
QUESTION: I agree.
QUESTION: No matter what tie he's wearing.
MR. FOLEY: We'll look into that.
QUESTION: Lots of things to ask you about, but let me start with Iraq.
The obvious question - how well --or poorly, it may be -- is the US doing
in getting its friends and would-be friends and so-called friends to
support a condemnation of Iraq?
MR. FOLEY: As you know, we've been discussing the issue with our
colleagues on the Security Council since Chairman Butler's report to the
Security Council last week.
My understanding is that we expect to have a presidential statement agreed
sometime today. I don't have the elements of the statement, but my
understanding is that it will clearly reaffirm Security Council resolutions
that call upon Iraq to comply fully with the requirements of UNSCOM; in
particular, UNSCOM's requirement to have full, unfettered, unqualified
access to all sites it deems necessary to inspect inside Iraq.
QUESTION: Well, I was wondering about condemning particularly because, as
we both know, that establishes a legal threshold for taking military
action.
MR. FOLEY: We'll have to see what comes out of it. As I said, I don't
have the text or the draft as it's being worked in New York.
But what I can tell you is that we're looking for a united and extremely
firm call upon Iraq to cease its obstruction and to cease delay in fully
implementing UN Security Council resolutions.
So we expect that the result will be that the ball will be back in Iraq's
court, having witnessed a demonstration of Security Council unanimity on
the all-important question of 100 percent compliance with the inspection
regime.
QUESTION: There's a story out this morning that Iraq's obstructionism is
actually more verbal than actual; that they're doing a better job in
complying, and that their deeds are better than their words, citing a
senior US official. Do you have any comment on that?
MR. FOLEY: I'd have to refer you to UNSCOM in terms of their view, their
assessment of how their work is proceeding.
I'm not aware to date that there has been blockage of UNSCOM activities
thus far, since they returned to Iraq. But certainly Chairman Butler
received a negative verbal message from the Iraqi Government when he was
there in which, at least rhetorically, they reiterated their view that
certain sites within Iraq were off-limits to inspection. So I don't
believe that that story is over. That question will be answered on the
ground at the appropriate moment.
QUESTION: Is the US disappointed that it's only a presidential statement
rather than a full Council resolution, which obviously would carry more
weight?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure that we were seeking anything different from
that. We're looking for a presidential statement that utterly rejects
Iraq's claim to selectively implement UN Security Council resolutions.
QUESTION: You know, we didn't bring up -- the thought of the virtue or
the value of condemning didn't originate on this side of the podium; it
originated on that side, in the midst of one of these tussles with Saddam
Hussein where the State Department said it was considering asking the
Council to condemn Iraq, becausethat in some way that I'm not fully aware
of establishes some legal footing for taking military action.
I mean, for the president of the Security Council to say it would be a good
idea if Iraq permitted unfettered inspection doesn't seem to carry the - we
could wait for the statement, but I don't know how that advances your
pressure tactics at all.
MR. FOLEY: Well, we have to cross each bridge as we come to them. And I
say them because there could be many stages as this crisis continues to
play itself out. Right now, we believe that it is appropriate to pursue
this kind of a statement that very clearly emphasizes the unanimity of the
Council on this all-important question of 100 percent access to sites.
I'm going to answer your question, though, Barry, if you'll bear with me.
QUESTION: Yes. Sorry.
MR. FOLEY: The reason is that, as has I think been made clear by
different American spokesmen, for example, we believe that Saddam Hussein
grossly miscalculated when he triggered this crisis, believing erroneously
that he could drive a wedge through the international community, and
through that wedge obtain some sort of early or partial or premature
lifting of sanctions.
I think it must be coming crystal clear to Saddam, and it will be even more
so following what we expect will be passage of the statement, that that
idea was nothing but an illusion; and that for so long as he fails to
cooperate 100 percent without restrictions or conditions with UNSCOM and
its inspection regime, the hope of ever seeing a lifting of sanctions will
be unrealistic and never fulfilled. So that's where we are now.
As I indicated, I think the ball will be kicked back into his camp. He
will find that the prospect of sanctions relief has been further set back,
further removed in time by his actions of the last two months.
Where we go after that - after that realization sinks in - we would hope
for cooperation. But let's, as I said, cross each bridge as we come to
them.
QUESTION: I mean, nobody's going to drive a wedge between the United
States and Britain. But Russia, France and others have had different views
-- I don't know about a wedge -- and the way to get unity is to take the
least common denominator and everybody agrees to it. That sounds like
what's going on.
MR. FOLEY: His strategy, we believe, was to obtain early, partial,
premature sanctions relief. That is not going to happen.
We have unanimity on the Council in that regard, and we expect that to be
reaffirmed today.
QUESTION: If he doesn't comply with the UN resolutions despite what our
allies do or don't do, would the United States consider unilateral military
action? Would it consider military action in concert with another ally?
MR. FOLEY: Well, that's not the first time, of course, that question has
been posed to Administration spokesmen. I can only repeat what
Administration spokesmen have consistently said, which is that we don't
rule any options out; we have other options at our disposal. But we are
endeavoring to resolve this challenge successfully and, at this stage,
diplomatically. That process has not played itself out.
QUESTION: Libya, Farrakhan. Do you have any comment on the remarks that
he made during his visit there, which I guess coincided with the
anniversary of the shoot-down?
MR. FOLEY: I would have not seen his specific remarks.
Our view on his trip we've stated from the podium, including the visit to
Iraq, but also the visit to Libya. Libya is an international pariah. It
was really stupefying timing, if you will, the idea that he would be there
actually on the very date of the anniversary of the downing of Pan Am 103.
We think that in anyone's communication with the Libyan authorities there
ought to be a single message, which is to comply with UN Security Council
resolutions and make available the two suspects to the courts where they
are wanted for trial.
QUESTION: This doesn't sound like Christmas week on t.v. - revivals.
Let's revive the third old chestnut: Dennis Ross going to the Middle East.
The Israeli Government thinks he'll be there in January. Could you flesh
that out a little bit?
MR. FOLEY: I haven't spoken to him today. It's unfortunate; maybe I
would have a specific answer to your question.
QUESTION: We were talking on background.
MR. FOLEY: I believe he has not set plans for a visit to the region. I
wouldn't rule it out, but I'm not aware of any specific plans at the
moment.
QUESTION: Do you think the Israelis are wrong, do you think?
MR. FOLEY: As I said, Barry, I've not spoken to him this morning, and I'm
not aware of his specific plans.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: You may not have an answer to this, but bear with me for a
second. There's a story in this morning's L.A. Times about state and
federal officials who are demanding reimbursement of legal, health and
welfare benefits given to immigrants who leave the country and come back.
They go back to Mexico or whatever and come back. These are benefits that
were legally granted and legally obtained. There is a State Department
tie-in here, in that State administers the visa program --
MR. FOLEY: I was wondering if there was.
QUESTION: Yes, well, the visa program, in which a lot of these people
come in in the first place. Apparently, according to the story, the State
Department sent, along with INS, directives to its employees saying that
this was of questionable legality, and to cease and desist. Do you know
anything about this?
MR. FOLEY: I don't. I'd be happy to take the question and to see whether
there is a State Department dimension to it.
Clearly, immigration issues are mostly the province of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service. We may have to talk to them in order to get an
answer to your question.
QUESTION: Well, except that the tie-in is both this directive and the
fact that State administers the visa program. One of the grounds in which
people get admitted under that program is that they won't become wards of
the state.
MR. FOLEY: That's right.
QUESTION: The assumption that they won't become wards of the state.
MR. FOLEY: I'd be happy to look into it, Judd; I have not heard it.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say on the Okinawa referendum?
MR. FOLEY: Yes. In the final report of the Special Action Committee on
Okinawa, the governments of the United States and Japan agreed to the
return of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma after adequate replacement
facilities were completed and operational.
Both governments remain committed to the implementation of the SACO final
report. We are, of course, aware of the results of the referendum, but we
believe this is a domestic matter for Japan.
QUESTION: Isn't this a setback? I mean, this was the option that you
favored.
MR. FOLEY: Well, the agreement is still in place, as I noted. Under the
agreement, we are prepared to relocate, provided that adequate replacement
facilities are completed and operational.
So I don't think this is the end of the story, but I'd really refer you to
the Government of Japan on the question of where we go from here.
QUESTION: Sunday morning a Liberian official was hijacked with two
companions on North Capitol Street. Do you know anything about this, and
can you confirm that it was the Acting Ambassador?
MR. FOLEY: It's the first I've heard of it. I'll look into it after the
briefing.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. FOLEY: When did that take place reportedly?
QUESTION: About 2:30 a.m. Sunday morning.
MR. FOLEY: I'll get back to you on it.
QUESTION: I want to go back to the Okinawa issue.
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: You said - (inaudible) - the United States and Japan remained
to commit the SACO final report. Do you mean that, in spite of yesterday's
conclusion, the United States and Japan tried to proceed this program or
not?
MR. FOLEY: I'd have to refer you to the Government of Japan. Under the
agreement, we made clear our willingness to relocate if replacement
facilities could be found. But we're not - it's not for us to try to
micromanage the solution that might be found to this issue. I'd really
just have to refer you to Japanese authorities on that point.
QUESTION: As you know, the mayor of Nago City, where this referendum took
place yesterday, has said over and over that he would decide on what he
should do depending on the conclusion of that referendum.
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: So he seems to be very reluctant to accept the - to agree this
program. So how do you think - does it give a very big effect to US
alliance system?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I really wouldn't want to speculate on what happens next
or to comment further on the issue. I think, really, it's a matter that
the Japanese authorities are studying right now.
QUESTION: Can I ask about Iran? There's this report in Iranian
newspapers today that the American actor, Anthony Quinn, has been invited
to a film festival there. I wondered if you had a view on whether he
should go?
MR. FOLEY: It's not a matter that we've given a great deal of study to,
having just seen the press release minutes - maybe an hour ago, before the
start of the briefing. I don't think we have an official State Department
position on it.
I think I made clear a week or two ago in the context of the news that, for
example, Iran and the United States would be competing in the soccer arena
that we certainly think the kinds of people-to-people ties between the two
nations are a positive development; that the alienation and separation
between the two peoples that have occurred over the last 20 years are
unnatural. So I would answer similarly in regard to this press report. I
don't think it's clear whether Mr. Quinn is aware of the invitation or has
responded to it, but that's just a very quick response to something that I
haven't had an opportunity to study.
QUESTION: Also on Iran, this report - you might not have seen it yet -
that Iran's state railway company has announced it's going to purchase 100
locomotives from GEC Alston, in France.
It's a contract of $250 million. I guess it doesn't fall under the D'Amato
law, but I'm wondering if you had anything to say in terms of business
ties?
MR. FOLEY: No, I don't. As you indicated, ILSA itself covers investments
in the energy sector in Iran, so that doesn't come into play here.
Any other questions?
QUESTION: What are your comments on Benjamin Netanyahu's latest
statements where he ruled out any withdrawal from the West Bank, and that
the West Bank is a part of Israel? Do you think these statements or the
decision is against the US position and its effort to bring some progress
to the peace process?
MR. FOLEY: Well, our position is clear - that in permanent status
negotiations, which we are trying with a lot of vigorous effort to get the
parties to, that those kinds of issues will be addressed in that forum. We
look forward to making progress, including when the two leaders visit
Washington next month.
At the end of that process, if we are successful, then we will move to
permanent status negotiations, at which those issues will be addressed.
Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:15 P.M.)
|
