U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #98, 98-08-11
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1051
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Tuesday, August 11, 1998
Briefer: James B. Foley
KENYA / TANZANIA
1 Casualty Figures: Deaths / Injuries / Missing / Medevaced
1 Search and Rescue: Accounting for Missing FSNs / Searching
for Trapped Victims
1-2,8,15 Assistance: US Rescue Teams / Medical / K-9s / Equipment /
Security / Airlift Missions / International / Blood
Donations
3,9 Secretary's Travel to Germany / Return of Remains of US
Victims
3 Investigations into Bombings / Film in Cameras
3-4,8 Suspects & Link to Iran / US Access to Suspects
4 Secretary's Future Travel to Region
4-5 Comparison with Bombing in Al Khobar
8 Rewards for Bombers
9 US Help to Kenyan Victim Employees & Families
10 Reopening Embassies in Nairobi & Dar es Salaam
US EMBASSIES
5-9 Closings at Discretion of Ambassadors / Threats Against US
Embassies / Categories of Risk Factors / Resources for
High-Risk Facilities / Inman Standards
10 Funding Categories for Embassy Security
BURMA
10-11 Detention of AmCits / Consular Access Granted / Charges /
Privacy Act
CYPRUS
11-13 Alleged US Document on Turkish Forces / Settlement Formula
/ Assessment of Document by US Embassy in Athens /
Overflight Moratorium
ST. KITTS-NEVIS
13 US Position on Referendum / CARICOM Concerns About Breakup
13-14 Update on Extradition of Charles Miller from St. Kitts /
Status of AmCits / Regional Security Arrangements
COLOMBIA
15 US Visa Revoked from General Ramirez / Links Between
Military and Paramilitary Groups re Narcotics
CHINA
15 Boeing Sales
CAMBODIA
15-16 Election Results / Irregularities
SECRETARY
16 Personal Leave This Week / Visit to New Mexico
IRAQ
16-17 Allegations That Sanctions Cause Deaths / Improvement on
Humanitarian Assistance
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #98
TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1998, 3:25 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department. Again with us
today are two senior State Department officials, Assistant Secretary for
Administration, Patrick Kennedy, and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for African Affairs, Ambassador Carson. They will assist me in this
briefing as we get into the particulars of your questions.
Let me start just by bringing you up to date on some of the facts that
you're interested in, especially those involving the casualties. Some of
this information is not new, but I'm giving it to you again to confirm the
figures. As you know, the number of Americans killed in Nairobi remains at
12, and we expect that is the final figure. Our Foreign Service Nationals
in Nairobi, we have lost 33 of our colleagues; and the number of civilian
dead, of course, is well over 200. As I indicated yesterday, I don't have
authoritative figures on that. That would be for the Kenyan authorities to
answer.
We have no missing Americans we're aware of in Nairobi. There are,
unfortunately, still eight missing Foreign Service Nationals in the
explosion. In terms of those we've Medivac'd from Kenya to Germany; the
total of Americans is 10 - nine in Germany, one has now been moved onward
to Walter Reed Hospital. The number of Kenyan Foreign Service Nationals in
Germany is now 12; I believe another seven were transported to Germany
today, and it's possible that there will be further numbers of Kenyan
Foreign Service Nationals transferred in the coming days to an American
hospital in Germany.
In Dar es Salaam, those numbers have not changed. The Americans - none
dead. We had one Medivac and nine of our employees, Tanzanian, I believe -
mostly Tanzanian - but Foreign Service Nationals, deceased in the bombing
in Dar es Salaam; and approximately 70-plus local citizens injured.
In terms of the search and rescue efforts, I can tell you that they do
continue. The rescuers will continue to search and visit morgues and
hospitals and maintain contact with family members in Nairobi in an attempt
to locate the eight remaining missing Foreign Service Nationals I
mentioned. Eleven bodies were pulled from the rubble of the Ufundi Building
in Nairobi late last night and early this morning. Workers are continuing
to dig through the rubble around the clock - not giving up in their efforts
to find other trapped victims.
In terms of US assistance to Kenya and Tanzania, some of this you have; I'd
like to give it again, though, for the sake of thoroughness. Some of it may
be new. In conjunction with the FBI, the Department of Defense and other US
Government agencies, we are providing a broad range of assistance around
the clock to Kenya and Tanzania. This assistance includes, as you know, the
66-member Urban Disaster Support Team from Fairfax County, which is
conducting search and rescue efforts of the US Embassy in Nairobi and the
neighboring area. We've also sent a six-person disaster assessment
response team to Nairobi. The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta
have dispatched two officers to assess Kenya's medical needs. We've
provided four specially-trained dogs for use in the search and rescue
efforts in Nairobi - that's both in the embassy building and the adjacent
Kenyan building.
We've provided 55,000 pounds of search and rescue equipment for the ongoing
rescue efforts. This includes generators, lights, hydraulic machines,
telescoping cameras, core drills, listening devices and communications.
Current support includes providing security forces for the American Embassy
compounds, medical personnel, equipment and supplies, evacuation and
treatment of Kenyan and American personnel, as I mentioned, and coordinating
airlift of personnel into and out of Kenya and Tanzania.
Eight Department of Defense missions were flown into Nairobi and Dar es
Salaam to provide urgent medical and material assistance within 33 hours of
the outbreak of the crisis. The Defense Department has now completed 17
airlift missions in and out of Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. These missions
have logged 120,000 miles.
We have well over 100 investigators who've been flown into both sites
altogether in Dar Es Salaam and Nairobi; 288 units of blood have been sent
to Nairobi alone, and we have pre-positioned another 220 units for
dispatch.
The Department of Defense - and this is in response to a question that was
raised yesterday - has provided a total of approximately 250 US military
medical and support staff to treat the victims, including surgical teams,
medical specialists and evacuation personnel. In addition, approximately
250 US civilians are assisting in these efforts.
Finally, in terms of the international assistance -- I mentioned the
notable Israeli search and rescue efforts yesterday - but I hasten to add
that there has been considerable and remarkable outpouring of support from
other nations. Great Britain has provided lighting equipment for search and
rescue and communication channels, as well as military security who
happened to be in the city. South Africa has provided three planes to help
us send our assistance people and medical people to Dar es Salaam and
Nairobi. Germany has donated 244 units of blood, and one of our FSNs is
being treated in a German hospital. The Israeli support - the two aircraft
containing search and rescue teams and dogs and medical supplies - we
noted earlier. Australia has provided security guards for our chancellery
in Nairobi. Kenya has provided, of course, and Tanzania, substantial
assistance not only in their own efforts to deal with their nationals who
suffered from the explosions, but in assistance with our own efforts; we've
worked very cooperatively. France has provided two trauma teams and there
have been other offers of general assistance. I can note Greece, Norway and
Japan; and apologize to note those nations I've neglected to mention.
Finally, Secretary of State Albright is, as you know, departing very early
tomorrow morning from Andrews Air Force Base at 6:00 a.m. to go to Germany
to Ramstein Air Base. She will proceed, as we said yesterday, immediately
to the hospital to visit the American and Kenyan wounded, and return the
next morning with the bodies of 10 American deceased for the ceremony that
the President will speak at, as will Secretary of State Albright, Thursday
morning at Andrews Air Force Base.
Finally, I know that on your minds are a whole series of questions
concerning the early stages of the investigations underway in Dar es Salaam
and Nairobi, and that's very natural; we understand your interest in these
stories. A lot of information has been leaking out, I think -- especially
on the ground, but here as well, and that's inevitable. But I can tell you
that officially speaking, we are not able to comment in any way about an
ongoing investigation of this sensitive nature. I had my own knuckles
rapped today for talking a little bit out of school yesterday about the
incident involving one of our security guards at the embassy in Nairobi - I
just say that to make graphic the point that we are being admonished by the
security people on the ground who are investigating these bombings not to
release any information about the course of their investigation.
With that, I'd like to turn to your questions, and I will cede the floor as
appropriate to Ambassador Carson and Mr. Kennedy.
QUESTION: Can you explain the discrepancy? Yesterday there were 11 bodies
to come back and today there's only 10.
MR. FOLEY: Yes. As I understand, first of all, we have had 12 Americans
killed in the bombing in Nairobi, as you know, and I noted yesterday that
one family wished to have the deceased buried in Kenya. I can tell you that
that is the family of Jean Dalizu. The other American, the remains of Air
Force Senior Master Sergeant Sherry Olds are being flown back from Ramstein
immediately by the Air Force at the request of her family. After an
autopsy in Dover, her body will be returned to her family in Florida.
We believe that there will be 10 deceased returning on that flight, but I
don't have final word on that figure until, I think, we're over there in
Germany.
QUESTION: There's a report out of Dar es Salaam that the cameras at the
embassy were, in fact, turned on but had no film in them, citing an
American security official. Can you comment on that, please?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENNEDY: That falls under two rubrics which I can't
comment on; one is the ongoing investigation and second is the exact nature
of the security procedures we use at our facilities.
QUESTION: Just probably the same thing - you're not going to be able to
go very far because it's the investigation. I know you've spoken to the
question of suspects before, but would you rule out that this attack could
have been coming from Iran and is targeted at the new president's moderate
approach and wanting to resume relations with the US in any way?
MR. FOLEY: I think I'll handle that. We're not speculating in any way
about the origin of the attack. It would be irresponsible to do so. We're
not going to point fingers in any direction at this point, until we're able
to establish the facts. As you know, that's something that can take a lot
of time, given the nature of these crimes.
QUESTION: Let me just follow up on this - would you say that Iran is
being ruled out in all points of --
MR. FOLEY: Well, that would be to speak to the focus of the investigation,
and I can't do that. I can assure you that the investigators will follow
leads wherever they go.
QUESTION: On another - the Secretary mentioned she wants to travel to
Tanzania and Kenya soon. Would we be talking September or in the coming
months?
MR. FOLEY: To answer that question, I'd have to be able to tell you if I
knew when such a visit would not pose a burden on our hard-pressed and
traumatized embassy staffs in both places. The Secretary is clearly eager
to go to Dar es Salaam and to Nairobi to express the solidarity of the
American people with the victims, both American, Tanzanian and Kenyan, of
these terrible bombings. It's something that she feels very strongly about
that we need to symbolize the fact that we're not going to be intimidated;
that we will rebuild our embassies and we will maintain our presence in
those two countries, as indeed around the world.
But by the same token, Secretary Albright is extremely mindful of what our
people in both embassies and what both host governments are going through
right now. People are still dealing with the rescue efforts - trying to
find if there are any remaining victims still alive - and to begin the
investigation. Our personnel have, as I said, been traumatized; they have
lost loved ones, they have lost colleagues and many colleagues are injured
and many of our Foreign Service National colleagues have died and are
grievously injured. So under those circumstances, a visit of that nature,
as Secretary Albright indicated yesterday in the State Department, she
doesn't travel alone and those can be very burdensome visits, as those of
you who have traveled with the Secretary understand - that our embassies
are mobilized to support Secretary of State visits. So it's something we
can't project.
She used the word "soon," and that, I think, reflects her heartfelt desire
to go there and give testimony not only on her own behalf, but on behalf of
the entire American people for how we feel about those who were victimized
and how we feel about standing up and showing that we're not going to be
intimidated by this.
But I can't tell you exactly when. It's something we'll have to decide -
the Secretary will decide in consultation with our Ambassador in Nairobi
and our Charge and embassy in Dar es Salaam.
QUESTION: Not to be insensitive, but why is this bombing different from
the Khobar bombing, which Secretary of State Warren Christopher went to in
about six hours?
QUESTION: With a full press corps.
QUESTION: And with a full press corps.
MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure why you're mentioning the press in this respect.
Are you comparing that to her visit to Ramstein?
QUESTION: No.
MR. FOLEY: Tomorrow, when she's not traveling with press?
QUESTION: No, what you just said - the rationale you gave for her not
going as being too burdensome for Americans on the ground. I'm just asking
why the bombing of Khobar Barracks, where Secretary Christopher went,
within about six hours, from Jerusalem - why the calculations now are
different than they were then?
MR. FOLEY: I can't speak precisely to the difference in circumstances
because I wasn't here in Washington at the time. But my gut feeling is the
following - that, as I mentioned a minute ago, we require American Embassy
support for the visit of a Secretary of State. In the case in the Saudi
bombing, of course, it wasn't the embassy nor our consulates themselves who
were affected much as the embassy was mobilized there to deal with the
crisis.
In this case, the bombs blew up our embassies and killed our diplomatic
personnel. The very people whom we would depend on to enable us to visit
are those who were killed, who were injured or who are dealing with the
aftermath of those terrible events. So the precise answer is that the
Secretary has spoken to Ambassador Bushnell and our Charge in Dar es Salaam,
and they will keep her posted as to when they believe that her visit will
provide the morale boost that we want it to provide and not in any way
overburden the efforts that they're focusing on at the moment.
QUESTION: Jim, can you go into a little bit about the closing temporarily
- the shuttering of various embassies? As I understand it, ambassadors have
the option of deciding to close down for a day or two or three in certain
circumstances using their own judgment. This evidently is having a ripple
effect. Of course, I'm not even going to ask you about the logic of making
brave statements or standing tall, when, on the ground, a phone call
and an embassy closes down, which sort of gives terrorists or even
pranksters some sort of leverage over the proud US Government.
MR. FOLEY: I'm going to ask Pat Kennedy to answer the question.
QUESTION: Take the first part first -- Uganda evidently --
MR. FOLEY: But your more philosophical point about the kind of message it
sends.
QUESTION: Yes - can you address that?
MR. FOLEY: Security is number one; and if we have threats or concerns, we
have to take them into consideration, make tactical decisions on that
basis. The larger, political point that, from the President and Secretary
Albright on down, all the officials have made is that our foreign policy is
not going to be changed. Our robust presence, both diplomatic and military
in the world, is not going to diminish as a result of any terrorist
acts.
But in terms of how we're positioning our embassies on a day-to-day basis,
I'd ask Pat Kennedy to answer the question.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENNEDY: American embassies get a large number of
threat calls each year, and I'm afraid I don't have that exact number I've
used before - I said there's 31,000 security incidents a year and that is
the full gamut of calls to brown paper bags seen outside embassies which
have to be investigated and make sure they don't contain bombs. We have
always said to our chiefs of mission that they are responsible to protect
the lives and safety of personnel overseas. If, in a period of heightened
threat, a chief of mission feels that in this shifting where the threat
levels that we have used in the past, which are fully interagency
coordinated, may not be totally valid at this point -- having to reassess
those - if a chief of mission feels that there is information available to
him or her that says I must take a particular step, including potentially
briefly suspending operations, until adjustments to the security posture
can be made, then we feel that is absolutely the right thing to do.
We are not shutting the embassies down in a permanent sense; we are not
leaving. We are taking, in effect, a brief time-out in order to make the
security adjustments that are necessary to be responsive to a threat.
As I said, when a call comes in or whatever it is, each call is analyzed
and measured and then the post, the ambassador, the regional security
officer, the emergency action committee at the post does what is appropriate.
QUESTION: Remember yesterday, you spoke of a huge increase in phone
threats -- that's only one kind of a threat - maybe a dozen to two dozen.
Could you return to that subject and could you tell us how those threats
come in various forms? We're learning that these closings are temporary
closings, one by one. Could you give us some overview or give us some count
or identify the embassies that have taken time-outs? And again, do you want
to upgrade your dozen to two dozen of yesterday?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENNEDY: I'll leave it about the same number. And,
Barry, I prefer not to go into identifying specific embassies. I think that
just probably leads to more copy-cat calls.
QUESTION: Can you tell us how many -
ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENNEDY: I think we've got - we get calls in all
regions in the world.
QUESTION: No, not calls. How many embassies have been briefly closed down
and in what regions of the world?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENNEDY: I would say that we've probably suspended
briefly in - for a brief period of time maybe a half-dozen.
QUESTION: And can you say what regions?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENNEDY: Several regions.
QUESTION: My question is for Mr. Kennedy, also. Could you please explain
the categories of low, medium and high risk; and what factors go into
determining if embassy X should go in medium or embassy Y should go in
high?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENNEDY: No. I am not going to describe those
criteria because those criteria, if publicly discussed, could serve as aid
to terrorists who might be deciding what to do. Basically, though, there is
a process in which the interagency facilities in Washington, led by the
Diplomatic Security Service, consults the post, consults the regional
security officer, the ambassador, the emergency action committee of the
post and the full panoply of US Government organizations that deal with
security and intelligence and develops a list that says, that, given
the circumstances, potential threats and whatever, this country is
relatively more endangered than some other country. And I should say it's a
relative scale; it does not say if you're the bottom there is no threat. It
just says that threat is relative.
QUESTION: When did this categorization begin?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENNEDY: I'll have to get that for you. To my
knowledge, it's been in existence for a large number of years. I think
about a decade ago.
QUESTION: Why not just say if terrorism is, by definition, something that
is unpredictable, why not just put every embassy in a high-risk category?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENNEDY: Basically, because when you are deploying
resources around the world, you want to make sure that you put the most
resources against the greatest level of threat. You deploy your resources,
obviously, relatively. There is not an infinite number of resources. It is
good risk management to make sure that those locations which are more
endangered get a higher degree of protection, and those locations which
have been identified through the interagency process as less threatened
get the proportionate share of resources.
QUESTION: Do you think they should be re-evaluated after what happened on
Friday?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENNEDY: That is a process that's ongoing at this
moment.
QUESTION: Jim, kind of one, I guess, for you, and one, perhaps, for Pat.
Yesterday I asked Pat if he knew whether the rewards offered in this case
was the soonest after an incident of any previous case and you said you'd
check. Maybe it's been posted; but I haven't seen it. Secondly, in terms of
the blood drive today, is it the Red Cross collecting blood here or is
it the Armed Forces? And if so, perhaps either by the end of the
briefing or sometime later this afternoon, could we get a count on how much
blood has been donated here by State Department employees?
MR. FOLEY: I understand it's the Red Cross. We'll try to get you an
answer on that.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR. FOLEY: In terms of the speed with which the reward was offered, we
may still be checking on that; yes, we'll get you that.
QUESTION: There's an Army colonel downstairs who's working on this blood
donation thing, and he told me that 188 units of blood had been sent to
Africa. You said 288; do you know which is correct?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we got our figures from our task force working directly
on this. So I would stick by that, unless otherwise advised.
QUESTION: The Tanzanian authorities have been talking about 14 foreigners
that they've rounded up in connection with the bombing in Dar es Salaam.
Have US investigators had a chance to talk to these people?
MR. FOLEY: What I can assure you is that our investigators on the ground
are enjoying the excellent cooperation I described yesterday, and that they
have had the access to the information that they require. I don't want to
speak about modalities in that respect. But we're very satisfied that we're
obtaining the information that we need.
QUESTION: This is a question for Mr. Kennedy. The US Embassy being built
now in Ottawa, Canada, is being built on a site that was previously
rejected. It's reported that several requirements or the recommendations of
the Inman Act were waived to have this embassy built on its present
location. The street was too narrow; it's too close to the - or the
frontage was too narrow, et cetera. Do you know anything about this?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENNEDY: There are no specific requirements worked
into the Inman Act. The Inman Act called upon the Department of State to
set standards. An interagency group called the Overseas Security Policy
Board, OSPB, set a full range of standards. The standards that we are
employing in Ottawa are the same standards that we would employ for
constructing facilities in the continental United States.
QUESTION: But why did you, then, reject the site in 1988 and are now
building on the site?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENNEDY: I wasn't here in 1988. The standards that we
are using to construct the embassy in Ottawa are the standards that we
would use in the United States.
MR. FOLEY: Do we have many more questions, because both gentlemen, as I
said yesterday, are leading the response to the crisis. I don't want to
keep them long, but I don't want to lose them before we exhaust their
expertise.
QUESTION: Can you tell me if any decisions have been made as to how we
are going to help the Kenyan employees who have been injured or who may
have died? Are we going to pay for funerals? Is the US going to help their
families in any way that you can tell us? Have any decisions been
made?
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY CARSON: We are looking into a number of
proposals that will be able to assist the Kenyans, including establishment
of a fund that would benefit the survivors of the victims at our embassies.
Over the next several weeks, we will be coming up with a number of
proposals aimed at showing our gratitude for the local employees of our
embassies in both Tanzania and in Kenya.
MR. FOLEY: I apologize once again for Ambassador Carson's voice. You can
count on it that he has not had the opportunity for rest that his voice
requires at the moment. Just a couple more questions and then we'll have to
close.
QUESTION: Do you know how many of the victims will be buried in
Arlington?
MR. FOLEY: I can tell you that we've had, I believe, two requests.
They're going to be expedited through the normal decision-making chain. I
would ask Mr. Kennedy if he knows the details on that chain. I believe the
Secretary of the Army must make that decision. I believe the Secretary of
State may make a request to the Secretary of Defense that goes to the
Secretary of the Army.
QUESTION: Is that the father and son?
MR. FOLEY: I believe they are among the two requests. When I say two
requests, I think -
ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENNEDY: Two families have made a request.
MR. FOLEY: Last two questions, and then we'll close this file.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on something you said, Pat - without tipping
off the bad guys. You said the embassies were briefly closed down so that
security could be looked at and beefed up if necessary. Generally speaking,
I mean, there's more security going to these two East African countries now,
more soldiers. Can you talk generally at all about the kind of things that
might be in these embassies once they re-open? Are you talking about
procedures, are you talking about people or -
ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENNEDY: We're talking about procedures; we're
talking about people; we're talking about physical changes, technical
upgrades. There's a full panoply. We look at security personnel staffing,
physical barriers, technical measures, surveillance cameras, et cetera.
It's a large range of activities.
MR. FOLEY: Last question on this.
QUESTION: Also for Mr. Kennedy, please. How much money - and I apologize
for asking a question that came up yesterday, but that was without cameras.
How much money is allotted for embassy security and how does that
work?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENNEDY: The State Department receives funds for
security purposes basically through several appropriations. There is an
appropriation called salaries and expenses which covers certain headquarters
expenses. There is an appropriation called diplomatic and consular programs
which funds security personnel and operating expenses overseas. There is an
appropriation called security and maintenance of buildings abroad which
does the physical construction, repair, upgrade of buildings, as well as
cover other costs - routine maintenance and repair.
The appropriation for security and maintenance of buildings abroad is
around plus or minus $400 million a year, but that covers the full range.
When you go through that category, it is difficult to break out what is
security and what is not. The installation of electrical wiring for a new
television camera - you can describe that as security, but you can also
describe that as an electrical upgrade. So you have these large categories,
and within them we make sure that security is always a very, very high
priority. And if a post identifies, either to the Bureau of Diplomatic
Security or to the Office of Foreign Buildings in the Bureau of Administration,
that they need additional assets and additional resources, we take those
requests very seriously, compare them against the security of the Overseas
Security Policy Board standards and deploy the necessary resources.
MR. FOLEY: Thank you, Johnny and Pat. Thank you. So we'll move on to
other issues. We do have other issues around the world, and this is an
opportunity to address some of them.
QUESTION: What is going on with the Americans who have been detained in
Burma? Are you taking any action?
MR. FOLEY: Yesterday I noted the lack of consular access and so there's
one bit of relatively good news: the fact that our embassy officials were
able to meet with all six American detainees at 3:00 p.m. local time today
in Burma. All six Americans were in good health; they had no complaint
about their treatment and appear to have been treated humanely. Their
families have been notified about the consular visit. I can tell you the
US Embassy in Rangoon - has made this case its top priority, and
embassy officials have been in contact with relatives of the detainees in
order to keep them informed. Our consular officer will request another
visit tomorrow, August 12, and intends to visit them regularly as long as
they are in custody. But I can repeat what I said yesterday, which is that
we seek their immediate release from detention.
QUESTION: Have they been charged with anything?
MR. FOLEY: To my knowledge they have not been charged. We have no
information on possible charges. Again, we continue to urge the Burmese
Government to release the detainees promptly.
QUESTION: Just to go over that - you said six Americans, I believe?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Are they part of a larger group of other foreign students, as
well?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure, to be honest, the status of any Privacy Act
waiver we have, so I'm limited in terms of how much detail I can give. I
believe that a total of 18 were detained, of whom six were American; and
according to press reports, the Americans are members of a group called
ALTSEAN -- you've probably seen that in press reports - which refers to
something called Alternative ASEAN Network. But we don't really have
complete information about their activities or purpose in traveling there;
and again, given the uncertain state of the Privacy Act waiver, I can't
really venture too much.
We're really concerned about getting them out, and we've made that very
clear to the Burmese authorities. We're thankful that we had consular
access. We're going to seek consular access regularly and we hope that
they'll be released promptly.
QUESTION: The Greek daily journal, VMA, in Athens published recently a
story from a so-called DOS top secret document regarding Cyprus, claiming
prepared by then Under Secretary Arthur Hartman in 1975 under Henry
Kissinger. According to its context, inter alia, the US warned the invading
Turkish forces to remain in Cyprus because their removal does not serve the
US interest. And the US favors the creation of two separate autonomous
entities in the area of Cyprus. Any comment about the existence of such
a document and its context?
MR. FOLEY: Just before coming in here, Mr. Lambros, I got word that there
was such a press report in Athens; and I'm not familiar with the issue. But
what I can tell you, though, is that we're in the business of trying to
resolve problems and achieve peaceful settlements of disputes, in
particular in Cyprus, and we're focused on 1998. We're certainly not
focused on 1975. I couldn't comment on a document that may or may not be
official and one that I certainly have not seen.
QUESTION: In 1998 do you want Turkish troops off the island or not?
MR. FOLEY: We want to achieve a peaceful settlement as rapidly as
possible.
QUESTION: That wasn't the question. The question is, Turkish troops
invaded Cyprus -- whether or not the US created a condition that made it
opportune for them to do it. But they are there and the question is, does
the settlement the US envisions include the removal of Turkish troops from
the island and the creation of two - call them zones, call them autonomous,
call them whatever. The solution in Bosnia was to split the countries into
three parts. Do you have such a formula in mind for now?
MR. FOLEY: I can tell you that in so many flash points or difficult
situations around the world -- but perhaps no more so than on Cyprus - when
words can make a difference for better or ill, it's better for us to
refrain from uttering words which can cause difficulties in our negotiating
efforts. So I'm not going to comment specifically, honestly, Barry, on your
question. But we want to see a solution as rapidly as possible that
permits a lessening of tensions - a permanent settlement in which
questions of that nature are not problematic.
QUESTION: You want to see a - (inaudible) - in Lebanon, too, and you're
not shy - the State Department isn't - about saying Israeli troops ought to
pull out of Lebanon.
MR. FOLEY: I will take each question on its own merits. I indicated I
wasn't going to address it specifically.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - the story was overplayed in Greece and in Turkey -
-
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. FOLEY: You can listen, and you complimented me for reading --
QUESTION: I'd like to follow up. Since the story was overplayed in Greece
and Turkey, I'm wondering what was the assessment of your embassy in Athens
on the so-called document. Did you have any communication? If you can take
this question --
MR. FOLEY: I have no information on it.
QUESTION: And the last one - any progress on your efforts for moratorium
over Cyprus since the DOS is involved extensively?
MR. FOLEY: Mr. Lambros, I'm always amused at your calling us the DOS,
which may have some resonance to your readers but --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. FOLEY: -- but in America I think it would raise eyebrows of
incomprehension. I can tell you that there has been, as you know, a lot of
speculation in the press about our diplomatic efforts. As I indicated to
Mr. Schweid, we are very interested in reducing tensions in the region. We
think that an overflight moratorium might be one of several ways to achieve
this. But I'm not going to comment on any discussions we're having now
because I hope that in not commenting, I can help them prosper and
succeed.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- State Department offered comments with respect
to the secessionist movement in Nevis now that it seems like the secessionists
failed? And I think in the earlier comment you said you went along with
respect to CARICOM position on the -- (inaudible). What's the position
today?
MR. FOLEY: To be very honest, we were careful to walk the fine line. In
other words, the democratic will expressed by the people on Nevis is
something that we would have respected.
We didn't hide the fact that we shared the concerns that CARICOM has
expressed about the possible break-up. And we believe that maintaining the
federation would be more compatible with the trend towards greater regional
integration. But I would simply note that apparently the tally fell short
of the two-thirds majority of voters required in order to pass; so Nevis
will remain part of its federation with St. Kitts.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up? You would agree they needed 66 percent. I
think the votes in the end would account for 62 percent; it was very close.
Since you went out on a limb to comment on it earlier, I'm wondering how is
this -- your comments with respect to the secessionist movement --
different from your comments with respect to secessionists movements
throughout the world?
MR. FOLEY: Well, my comment is that it's an internal matter. I think the
people have spoken. One assumes they will follow their constitutional
principles. But in terms of the aftermath, we think that's a matter for the
people to decide.
QUESTION: The island next door, St. Kitts - has there been any progress
in the extradition of Mr. Miller? Has there been any progress in the
government there seeking outside assistance, security assistance?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have any updated information on that today. As I
understand it, in terms of the extradition request, that's still within the
court system of St. Kitts. We understand that the government has appealed
an earlier court decision, and we support that because we'd like to see the
extradition take place.
We have some diplomatic security people on the island who are conferring
with American citizens and the government. I think Mr. Rubin did allude to
the fact that we encourage them to avail themselves of regional security
possibilities. I'll take the question, though, to see if we have anything
new for you on that.
QUESTION: I saw the comments with respect to the State Department making
comments with respect about why is there a request for regional security
movement? Is there a concern that the person that the US is seeking
extradition for has been involved in a lot of illicit activity and,
therefore, is a danger to the citizenry of the country? I'm not quite sure
why there's been a call for regional security -
MR. FOLEY: In terms of the security question itself, that's not something
that I can talk about in explicit detail. In terms of the situation on the
island, there are concerns; they provoked our public announcement and our
concerns have been publicly expressed and we've been talking to the
government there. But in terms of what specifically they face and what they
might need, that is their decision. We've been talking to them; we have, as
I mentioned, diplomatic security officers there; and we've urged that
they do what's necessary to provide security as we see it -- especially
where we have an understandable concern for our own nationals there.
QUESTION: Security for whom, though, the people in Nevis or for the US
citizens there?
MR. FOLEY: I'd rather not go into that detail. As I indicated, this is a
security question and I don't want to be explicit about it.
QUESTION: Do you know how many Americans have left?
QUESTION: Are you still standing by your assessment that Mr. Miller
threatened the lives of American students?
MR. FOLEY: Oh, yes, yes. We're not in any way walking back from that. He
remains a significant concern to the United States, given what we
understand he said.
QUESTION: And you say you're urging the government of St. Kitts to
exercise this regional security arrangement; and they haven't done that
yet?
MR. FOLEY: I told you just a minute ago that I don't have an update on
that, but I'd be happy to look into it for you.
QUESTION: Do you have any numbers on how many Americans have left since
this started a couple of weeks ago?
MR. FOLEY: We had that number that we gave out at the time. Do you
remember what it was?
QUESTION: It was the number at the time --
MR. FOLEY: As I said to Sid when he initially asked the question, I don't
have an update on that situation. I'll endeavor to look into it and we'll
add that into the mix.
QUESTION: Just to clarify about the units of blood - 288 from the US or
from the blood drive that was going on downstairs near the cafeteria?
MR. FOLEY: Well, Eric, that blood drive has been conducted today; I think
it's highly unlikely that --
QUESTION: So that 288 didn't refer to the blood drive?
MR. FOLEY: -- that figure would have already been mobilized and sent to
the region. I think that speaks for itself. In terms of - I was referring
to what's been sent to the region.
QUESTION: What's already been sent?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Last May, the US Government revoked the visa of a Colombian
General, Mr. Ramirez, on terrorism allegations that he had ties with drug
traffickers, human rights violations and paramilitary activities. Now there
are news accounts that say that he was a CIA informant. Is that correct?
And is that an embarrassing situation?
MR. FOLEY: I certainly have no information in that regard, but as you
well know, we don't comment on intelligence matters in any event and I'm
not going to do so.
QUESTION: Related question on Colombia -- will the US at this point press
the new Colombian Government for it to get rid of the ties between the
Colombian military and the paramilitary groups?
MR. FOLEY: We are obviously concerned about the links between the
Colombian military and paramilitary groups who themselves are involved, as
we've stated publicly, in narcotics activities. We've raised this issue
several times at the appropriate levels of the Colombian Government. We've
also noted our concerns in our human rights report.
QUESTION: Do you have any clarification about what the US Government's
concerns are with Boeing and sales to China?
MR. FOLEY: I had something on that the other day that I haven't brought
with me. If we can get it, I'll talk to you after the briefing.
QUESTION: Has the US Government changed its view on whether the elections
in Cambodia were reasonably fair?
MR. FOLEY: I spoke to that yesterday, Jim. I don't have anything updated
for you on that. What we've stated is that there were serious allegations
of irregularities and potential fraud in certain districts, in certain
areas that are currently being investigated. We have NGOs, including
Americans, present as the National Election Commission investigates those
claims. We've been really consistent ever since the day of the vote a
couple of weeks ago - two and a half weeks ago - in Cambodia not to
state our view as to the nature of the conduct of the elections and,
indeed, the authenticity of the results. We think that the allegations are
serious, and they need to be investigated.
We've spoken also, since before the elections, about the climate of
intimidation that existed prior to the elections - the inherent propaganda
or television advantages that the government had in the conduct of the
election. But Secretary Albright, when she was in Asia at the time of the
election, made clear our profound admiration for the people of Cambodia --
the fact that they voted in such large numbers and with such enthusiasm, in
spite of these problems and these obstacles. We respect that, and we are
looking, at the end of the day, for results that are credible and the
constitution of a government that reflects the will of the people and a
desire to move forward on behalf of the needs of the people of Cambodia.
But those investigations are continuing. The constitutional body in
Cambodia that has to provide the definitive results has not yet met and
acted; so we're going to hold our judgment certainly until that has
completed.
QUESTION: I'm sure she wouldn't want to make a public point of it, but I
still feel I'd like to know. If there hadn't been the embassy bombings,
would the Secretary have been on vacation this week? What has this done to
her personal life?
MR. FOLEY: It's my understanding that she was intending to take several
days of personal leave early this week. I don't believe it was to have
extended through the entire week. But, as you know, she had personal
reasons for planning to go to Europe - to Rome; and, of course, she had to
turn around immediately given the crisis. But my understanding was that she
was going to be staying on there for a few days, but she wasn't planning
to take any kind of a significant vacation as I understood it.
QUESTION: Is she still going to New Mexico?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, yes, yes.
QUESTION: The Iraqi Health Minister claimed yesterday - I think it was
1.4 million Iraqis had died as a result of sanctions. Any reaction to
that?
MR. FOLEY: Yes. It's an astonishing claim that is simply untrue and not
borne out in any way by the facts. The Iraqi Government has been making
similar grossly exaggerated and inconsistent claims for some time. In fact,
the facts are that in recent months, the United Nations is reporting real
improvements in the humanitarian situation in Iraq, particularly in the
areas of nutrition and the availability of clean water. For example, the
Red Cross recently found far fewer malnourished children to participate in
a supplemental feeding program than expected, even after increasing the
maximum weight criteria.
Since the sanctions were first implemented, the UN has always permitted the
import of food and medicine to Iraq, and you're very familiar with that.
For years, however, instead of buying the food and medicine as people need,
Saddam has spent his money on palaces and on other attributes of the
privileged leadership in Iraq. In fact, what Saddam has been doing is
trying to exploit the suffering of his people to achieve his political
ends. It's as if he were saying to the international community - I'll
feed my people, or I'll let you feed my people if you let me keep
my weapons of mass destruction.
So in order to insure that the Iraqi people do not suffer because of this
tactic by their leader, the United States pressed for the establishment of
an oil-for-food program since 1991. And we've said this many times, so I'm
not going to go over all of it, but, of course, it took five years - until
1996 - that Iraq agreed and allowed the UN to implement what is now the
most extensive relief program in its history. It's already delivered some
6.3 million tons of food in the last 18 months. In the fourth phase
of the program, now being implemented, it potentially provides an
additional $5.2 billion in relief to the Iraqi people. Of course, the UN
has also authorized expenditures to rehabilitate Iraq's oil production
capabilities so it can meet this output target and generate funds that the
UN will monitor that will go to feed and provide medical and other needed
relief to the Iraqi people.
Again, the UN is taking these actions because Saddam has consistently
impeded the implementation of oil-for-food and chosen to spend what money
is available to him to support his entourage and build empty monuments to
himself. So the international community is taking the responsibility of
caring for the Iraqi people and taking -- I might add parenthetically - the
argument away from Saddam Hussein that he needs sanctions relief in order
to feed his people.
QUESTION: Jim, you ticked off several countries - maybe 10 - about who
have made contributions in assistance. Is that an inclusive list - because
there are some areas of the world, some wealthy countries, that are
noticeably absent.
MR. FOLEY: I took care, Barry, I can tell you that - and you've been here
in the Department longer than I have, so you've dealt with many of these
crises. You know that, especially since they're taking place many thousands
of miles away, that information can change; information is always being
updated. On that basis, I noted very carefully that I may have neglected to
mention other nations. We'll keep an eye on that, though, because we've
had so many messages of condolence and solidarity and I don't want
to offend any nation that's already supplying support or has some on the
way.
Thank you very much.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 4:15 P.M.)
|
