U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #103, 98-08-28

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

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Friday, August 28, 1998

Briefer: James B. Foley

RUSSIA
1,3		Statement issued by Yelstin on rumors of his
		  resignation/Talbott's meeting Reorganization and
		  restructuring
IRAQ
1,2,3,8-9	Update on Iraq and Hussien's position/Resignation of Scott
		  Ritter/Refusal to allow inspections by UNSCOM/Development
		  of WMD/Sanctions/Use of Force/ Annan's role/involvement 
CYPRUS
3-4		Deployment of S-300 Russian missiles/Turkish aggression
CUBA
4		Indictment in the Castro murder plot/Eizenstat's meeting
MEPP
4,7		Construction in E. Jerusalem/Ross Travel to Oslo/Meeting
		  w/Arafat and Israeli officials including Netanyahu
TERRORISM
4		Reports of 2nd suspect in Kenyan/Tanzania bombings arrived
		  in the U.S. to face charges
EGYPT
5		Abu Nidal's whereabouts
VIETNAM
5		Amnesty for Prisoners for National Day celebration
S. KOREA
5-6		Increased Security/Public Announcement
N. KOREA
6		Release of Reverend Kwang Duk Lee/Kartman's Return from New
		  York/Kartman position and KEDO
CAMBODIA
6-7		Elections Results and US Reaction/Voter Fraud
LIBYA
9-10		Security Council 1192/Conditions for return of
		  suspects/Qadhafi's statements on CNN/Issue of delays

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #103

FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 1998, 3:00 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department. Would you like the first question, Jim, if you're not happy? George, do you defer to Jim Anderson? Ask an unhappy question.

QUESTION: What do you think about the statement by President Yeltsin?

MR. FOLEY: I only caught snippets of his television appearance, but what I can tell you is that what he said publicly is what he indicated to Deputy Secretary Talbott privately this morning in Moscow, which is that he has no plans to relinquish the Presidency; that he plans to finish his term in office.

QUESTION: And apart from his own personal future, what he said about the reorganizing, restructuring the Russian Government - what do you think about that?

MR. FOLEY: Again, I have not seen any detailed account of what he said, but clearly he struck Deputy Secretary Talbott this morning as fully engaged on the issues. I believe he referred to the need to restructure the government; clearly, he's nominated a new Prime Minister who has to be approved and there are going to be personnel changes. He eluded to that, as well as the need to face up to the very severe economic and financial challenges facing Russia today. I've not seen the text of what he said, nor do I believe we've had a chance to analyze it at this point.

But on the Russian subject, I've scheduled this briefing not to deconflict - in order to deconflict with the National Security Advisor's briefing at 4:00 p.m., which I think will be televised, and I think they'll be addressing Russian issues; that's the main focus of the briefing. So I'd refer you to that briefing.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on Iraq? There are those who are saying in the newspapers these days that after seven years or eight years, Saddam Hussein has won and that American policy has failed. Is there anything you can say in response to that and in response to the comments of Scott Ritter over the past couple of days?

MR. FOLEY: In terms of your first question, I think probably the best person to ask - who's prevailing in this situation between Iraq and the international community - would be Saddam Hussein himself. I can't for one minute believe that he is at all happy with the status quo that he's facing. Certainly over the last seven years, since the end of the Iraq war, we've seen on a regular basis periodic attempts on his part to break out of the box that he's in; in particular, to undermine the sanctions regime. He's provoked confrontations with the international community through a cat and mouse game, and each and every time that he has made this attempt he has been met with singular failure.

And insofar as the current situation is concerned, we do indeed appear to be in the early stages of another one of these kinds of periodic confrontations in which on August 3, Iraq announced the end of permitting inspections by UNSCOM, although there is some ongoing monitoring occurring, and thanks, I would say, in large part to a skillful diplomacy on the part of the United States; thanks especially to Saddam Hussein's own unilateral blunders in this regard, the Security Council has once again risen to the challenge and agreed unanimously that Iraq's defiance is number one, completely unacceptable; and then last week we had a review of sanctions in the Security Council in which Iraq's bid to have sanctions relieved or removed were categorically rejected. So, I can't accept in any way the thesis that we're not doing well on Iraq.

On the contrary, the United States in particular has been successful, I would argue, on a historically unparalleled basis in maintaining support for the most thorough going and comprehensive sanctions regime in history that has denied Saddam Hussein the resources - some $120 billion during this period - with which he wants to rebuild his power projection capabilities.

In terms of Mr. Ritter, I think you've seen numerous Administration spokesman, including the Secretary of State yesterday and others, who have indicated that we have the utmost respect for the work that he accomplished. He was indeed an ace inspector and did his job remarkably well, and we are sorry to see him go because UNSCOM still has a job to do and he would have been a continued able contributor, but we look to UNSCOM with its array of inspectors to continue to do the job.

QUESTION: How long can it go between inspections before it becomes a danger that Iraq might develop chemical weapons again, or any other kind of weapons of mass destruction again.

MR. FOLEY: Well, it's indisputable that Iraq has a fundamental desire under Saddam Hussein to acquire and develop weapons of mass destruction capabilities; otherwise, Iraq would have been in a much better position, lo these many years, to make a case for the lifting of sanctions. It's, again, indisputable that what Saddam Hussein wants is to have the sanctions lifted but to keep his weapons of mass destruction capabilities. And I would argue we have been enormously successful in both maintaining support for sanctions but also maintaining UNSCOM's work. As I said a few minutes ago, we've seen this movie many times before where Saddam tries both to undermine UNSCOM and, especially because I think that's his number one goal, to undermine the sanctions regime, and he's not succeeded.

I think your question is an important one and it's something that we're keeping our eye on very carefully through independent national means, and we have always stated that we believe that the work of UNSCOM is the best guarantee of verification of Iraq's activities in the field of weapons of mass destruction and what we would truly like to see is UNSCOM back in business out and about doing its inspecting in Iraq. I can tell you that our efforts are very much focused on that now that we have achieved one of our two cardinal goals, which was to have a unanimous rejection in the Security Council of Iraq's bid to have sanctions relieved or lifted, we're focusing very much on racheting up the pressure now in the Security Council. The Security Council has passed a whole series of resolutions that state unequivocally and explicitly what Iraq must do, and we look to the security council now to enforce its mandate. I think we made clear earlier a few days ago in New York that the next step we're going to be proposing is an indefinite suspension of sanctions review. This gentleman in Baghdad has to get the message that his latest gambit to split the Council has failed and that he has no choice but once again, as we've seen many times, resume cooperation with the work of the UN inspectors.

QUESTION: Vis-a-vis US-Russia relations, does it matter if the President of Russia is Boris Yeltsin or Victor Chernomyrdin?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think you're trying to lead me down the road to hypotheticals. The President of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, has stated emphatically today, both in private and in public, that he intends to finish his term, so I really wouldn't want to entertain hypotheticals. I will say though, before reminding you that Mr. Berger, a higher authority than I, will speak to these issues in 45 minutes, but that our policy though is not predicated on personalities - I apologize for the alliteration there - but, indeed, on the nature of the relationship, the quality of our relations which, obviously, are significantly enhanced when we're dealing with a Russian government that is democratic and committed to integrating Russia into the world economy.

QUESTION: Any comment on yesterday's decision by Athens and Nicosia to proceed with the deployment of the S-300 Russian missiles in Cyprus?

MR. FOLEY: Well, our position has not changed on the issue, and we've stated it many times that we believe that the missile deal complicates our effort to find a solution to the Cyprus dispute. It increases tension in the region and, therefore, we continue to urge the government of Cyprus to cancel the deal.

QUESTION: On the same line with Ankara you are saying to Nicosia, cancellation. How will Cyprus will be protected from any new Turkish aggressive advances in the area?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we, I think, have always made clear that we don't question Cyprus' right to self-defense, but if you listen to what I said just a minute ago, we believe that the missile deal actually increases tension and complicates our efforts to help achieve a solution to the Cyprus problem.

QUESTION: One more - (inaudible) - replace by American - (inaudible) -- . Would you accept this?

MR. FOLEY: We would recognize, as I said, Cyprus' right to achieve its - to insure its own self-defense. As to a particular weapons system concern, I wouldn't want to comment hypothetically or anything else; I'm simply focusing on the reported S-300 deal which we believe is unwise and should be canceled.

QUESTION: This has to do with Tuesday's indictment in the Castro murder plot. What message, if any, does this indictment send to Cuban exiles who allegedly use or attempt to use violence to overthrow President Castro?

MR. FOLEY: First of all, as I said on Wednesday, this is a law enforcement matter. Our law enforcement authorities, confronted with evidence of illegal activity, have taken the appropriate action. It's not something for me to comment on. I think, also on Wednesday, I made crystal clear that we don't see any politics in this issue whatsoever. This is a law enforcement matter; terrorism is something that we condemn, not in one place; not at one time; not against one regime or one country, but in - at all times and in all places without exception.

QUESTION: I have one follow up. Two top officials of the Cuban-American National Foundation, including Jorge Mas, Jr., brought up the case in a meeting with Under Secretary of State Eizenstat last week - a Foundation spokesman told CNN it was brought up because "it's a political issue that effects the Cuban exiled community". What was Mr. Eizenstat's response?

MR. FOLEY: What Mr. Eizenstat's response was to say emphatically that had he known that this was a topic that they were going to raise in that meeting, that he would have never agreed to the meeting in the first place and he invited them to change the topic, which they did.

QUESTION: Have you seen the report that the Israeli Government has approved the construction of 137 housing units in East Jerusalem at a place called - (inaudible) -- ?

MR. FOLEY: I've not seen that report; I've seen a report that the municipality of Jerusalem had taken a decision approving such a plan, but not the government of Israel. Indeed, we received explicit assurances from the government of Israel and the Prime Minister in particular last September that there will be no construction in that neighborhood and that the overall nature of the neighborhood will not change over time.

QUESTION: In light of that report have you queried them - did you say - to ask them if they stand by their commitment?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that we've been immediate touch with them. I can check for you. Certainly we stand by the commitment that we received from the government of Israel last September.

QUESTION: Has Mohammad Sadeko Dey* arrived in the US and if not can you confirm that he, too, is on his way to face justice here like Mr. Alawali*?

MR. FOLEY: I can't confirm anything of that nature; you'd have to ask the FBI and the Justice Department.

QUESTION: Have you heard back from Egypt on inquiries concerning the whereabouts of Abu Nidal?

MR. FOLEY: Not to my knowledge. As we indicated the other day, we had been in contact with Egyptian authorities. We weren't able to confirm the story and I'm not aware that that has changed.

QUESTION: I have several questions about Asia and I wondered whether we could take them in turn?

MR. FOLEY: Sure. We can return to other subjects if you wish.

QUESTION: In Vietnam, apparently as part of a general amnesty, two dissidents were recently released, apparently with the intention that they would come to this country. One was - Doan Viet Hoat and Ngyen Dan Que . Do you know are they coming here and when they will arrive and where they may be now at this moment?

MR. FOLEY: Well, the United States welcomes the news that Vietnam plans to grant amnesty to a large number of prisoners in relation to this year's National Day celebration. In response to your question, we do understand that the government of Vietnam has included both of those gentleman, Mr. Duan Viet Hoat and Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, as well as a number of American citizens they have said among those to be released. What I can tell you is that the United States is prepared to accept Drs. Hoat and Que for resettlement in the United States if they desire to do so.

QUESTION: On to Korea, two questions. There was an AP report of increased security at our embassy there, and I was wondering are we under some particular threat of terrorist action there or is this part of the general kind of tightening of the -

MR. FOLEY: I have something for you on that because we issued a public announcement. If you can bear with me one second, I can perhaps find it with the aid of my - I found it, thank you - my colleagues.

This was yesterday. The State Department issued a public announcement and it reads as follows: "The US Embassy in Seoul, South Korea, released the following information on August 27 to US citizens residing in that country." I won't read the whole thing because we posted it, but just briefly. "The US Embassy has received unconfirmed information that terrorist action may possibly be taken against official US government installations and/or personnel in the Republic of Korea. US citizens in the Republic of Korea should review their own personal security practices, be alert for any unusual activity around their homes or businesses, and report any significant incidents to local police authorities."

So we've done that publicly, and I would refer you to the press office for the entire text.

QUESTION: -- (Inaudible)? I mean, is it --

MR. FOLEY: Yes, it's information that terrorist action may possibly be taken against et cetera, et cetera. I can't be more specific than that.

QUESTION: Then there was a Reuters story about a US citizen expelled from the North. Do you have anything on that?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I do. This was welcome news, the fact that US citizen Reverend Kwang Duk Lee was released today from North Korea and is now in China. He had been detained by the DPRK since late May. Our embassy in Beijing worked closely with the Embassy of Sweden in Pyong Yang, which is the US protecting power in North Korea, to monitor Reverend Lee's welfare and make clear to the DPRK that the American should be released.

I would like to take this opportunity, in fact, to express our deep gratitude to the Embassy of Sweden in Beijing for all its work - excuse me, the Embassy of Sweden in Pyong Yang for all of its work to assist our citizen. Among other things, a Swedish diplomat traveled twice - it's a very long trip he made to visit Reverend Lee at his place of detention. We understand that Reverend Lee intends to return to the US shortly. As we don't have a Privacy Act waiver from him, I can't comment on the particulars, though.

QUESTION: And what about - (inaudible) - Cambodia?

MR. FOLEY: I think you're going to set a record here.

QUESTION: This is the last one.

MR. FOLEY: No one is complaining, so go on.

QUESTION: And, obviously, there will be more to say about this probably on Monday, but we're right on the eve now of the final determination of the election results there. Do you have any --

MR. FOLEY: Where is that? I didn't hear.

QUESTION: In Cambodia.

MR. FOLEY: Yes. As you know, there has been a call on the part of the government for dialog with the opposition, and the United States believes that Cambodia's current political crisis should be resolved in a nonviolent manner through dialog. We believe that talks or discussions between the CPP, the Hun Sen party, and the opposition on the full range of issues could be a positive step in clearing the way to a seating of a national assembly and formation of a representative government.

We urge the government to respect the rights of opposition protesters to freedom of expression; as you know, there have been demonstrations in recent days and the prospect of further demonstrations. We also call on all parties to conduct their activities in accordance with democratic principles and without resort to violence.

Cambodia's opposition continues to press their demands that alleged vote fraud be properly investigated and that the formula for allocating seats in the national assembly be changed. Under the current formula, you're probably aware that Hun Sen's CPP won 41 percent of the popular vote, but would control over half the seats of the assembly. Now the opposition's complaints are currently being examined, as you know, by the Constitutional Council which will perhaps shortly be determining the final election results in accordance with the Cambodian constitution. What we're looking for is for the Constitutional Council to impartially and thoroughly address these complaints, because their failure to do so would call into question the legitimacy of the entire electoral process.

Now, we're not taking a particular position on a particular outcome. I think when Secretary Albright was in Asia at the time of the Cambodian elections, she spoke out on several occasions about the fact that it was very important for peace and stability in the consolidation of democracy and economic approvement in Cambodia that the next Cambodian Government truly reflect the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.

QUESTION: Ambassador Ross, I believe, is back and I wonder if you've had any chance to talk to him and whether he has any news on any conversations he had other than that were tied to the 5th anniversary in Oslo about negotiations and any travel plans he may or may not have?

MR. FOLEY: He was there for ceremonial purposes, but he certainly took advantage of the fact that others were there, as well. He met with Chairman Arafat; they had a lengthy meeting. He met with Israeli representatives there; I believe there was a head of a Likud faction with whom he also met. He called Prime Minister Netanyahu from Oslo; and so, all this to say that the United States remains very actively engaged in helping to persuade the parties to travel the final distance, because, as we've stated in recent weeks, differences are narrowing and we are encouraged by the fact that differences have narrowed, but clearly if they had completely erased those differences, we'd be standing here today announcing that. So they haven't gone that final distance and we continue to urge them to keep at it.

As I said, both parties have been in touch with us, but they've also been in touch with each other and we want to encourage them to continue doing so and to make the tough decisions that are within their grasp to complete this phase of negotiations and allow us, on the basis of the American ideas, to proceed to accelerated permanent status negotiations.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. FOLEY: Not at the moment. I think what he's focused on is trying to help the parties in the best way he thinks advisable to help them clinch agreement, and travel plans are not on his agenda at the moment; at least per our talk this morning.

QUESTION: Back to Iraq. You said that we appear to be in the early stage of another confrontation -

MR. FOLEY: I think we clearly are; that's indisputable.

QUESTION: In previous confrontations - previous confrontations have been resolved by either the use of American force or the threat of use of American force. Are you suggesting that the United States is moving in that direction again?

MR. FOLEY: I'm being very careful not to signal, especially to Saddam Hussein, what we might or might not do down the road. It's a fact, if you look at, for example the last crisis we faced prior to the visit to the Secretary General to Baghdad and the conclusion of the MOU, that American diplomacy was critical and indeed successful within the Security Council to maintain support for UNSCOM and also for sanctions, but that our diplomacy was backed and we stated that openly by the threat of the use of force and that was helpful to our diplomacy. But, nevertheless, throughout that whole previous crisis we made clear that we preferred a diplomatic solution. You heard us say that many, many times from this podium and that remains the case. It is simply wrong to say that force is not a component of our current diplomacy. I think administration spokesmen over the last weeks have pointed out the fact that in the wake of the last crisis we reconstituted our forces in the Gulf such that they now have much greater firepower than they had last November at the start of the last crisis, plus an ability to surge or to upgrade strike power within a matter of days, as necessary.

But certainly we've been taking it on the chin from critics, especially here in Washington over the last weeks in regard to this crisis, but I think we're very comfortable with the efforts of our diplomacy because we have our eye on the ball, which is the same ball that Saddam has his eye on. He wants to get out of sanctions, he wants to get out of UNSCOM's orbit, and he's not going to get either. Now, we're in the middle of this latest confrontation, and it ain't over till it's over. But the fact of the matter is that American diplomacy has been successful in the Security Council. Clearly, Saddam Hussein, I think chafing under the fact that UNSCOM was doing very significant work in this latest period, completely contrary, by the way, to the accounts that you're seeing in the press these days, the fact is UNSCOM over the last - since March, has conducted successful, intrusive inspections to places they had never been before and found out evidence of Iraqi cheating and concealment in the areas of weaponization of VX, of numbers of chemical warheads that they've been lying about. They've done very good work and that is probably largely the reason why Saddam once again has provoked this confrontation.

In this confrontation, thus far we were able to get the Security Council against Saddam's attempt to split the Council, to resolutely back UNSCOM, number one; and, number two, to utterly reject any premature lifting of sanctions. So I think he's gotten that message. We're going to send another one next week by seeking an indefinite suspension of sanctions review, and faced with Council unanimity and what we hope to see firm, decisive action on the part of the Security Council, we hope he gets the message and lets UNSCOM return to do its work.

But we're just, as I said, in the early phases of this latest confrontation. And I've said this, I think on numerous occasions over the last weeks, we've studied Saddam over the years. Clearly in this latest gambit his aim was to provoke a confrontation between the United States and Iraq to turn this into a US-Iraq issue, and we have not played that game. We have, for now, kept this firmly within the Security Council, which it has responsibilities to stand up to. An MOU was signed between Iraq and the Secretary General which must be respected, and we look to the Security Council to do its job.

Don't ask me about where we go down the road because I don't want to signal that. We are very determined to see the Security Council resolutions respected.

QUESTION: Well, does the US support another trip to Baghdad by Kofi Annan?

MR. FOLEY: We're not focused on the modalities at this point. We think the Security Council has a job to do and that, indeed, the focus should be on Saddam Hussein and not on anybody else.

QUESTION: But you wouldn't object?

MR. FOLEY: We're not proposing one.

QUESTION: Have you heard anything further from Libya that might clarify where they stand on this offer to try the two Pan Am Flight 103 suspects in The Hague?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we were very pleased with the action of the Security Council last night passing Security Council Resolution 1192 unanimously. Clearly, the ball is now in Libya's court to live up to its pledge that it will comply. We commend this important unanimous action by the Security Council.

The next step is very, very simple. Libya must ensure that the two suspects appear for trial without equivocation and without delay. And I can quote our deputy ambassador Peter Burleigh in New York last night who said, "The failure by Libya to act promptly to ensure the appearance of the defendants for trial would be a monumental breach of faith which would compel the Security Council to consider further measures."

We don't expect anything but compliance at this point. The offer by the United States and the United Kingdom for a Scottish trial in the Netherlands is something that the Libyan foreign minister on January 2nd of this year himself stated that Libya would accept, and so we are looking, as Secretary Albright said yesterday, to witness the scene of the airport arrival of the two Libyan defendants in the Netherlands.

QUESTION: In the meantime, would you not characterize any statements they have made as acceptance?

MR. FOLEY: Absolutely not. Certainly his statements yesterday did not address the single key issue, which is when are they showing up in the Netherlands, and that is what we're looking for.

I should emphasize, as we have said, there are no details to negotiate with Libya. The Security Council has now endorsed the US-UK initiative and we, along with the British and the Dutch, stand ready to proceed. The sooner the better. Libya has no grounds for delay. I think Colonel Khadafi used words such as guarantees, things of that nature, which are a little disturbing because if they press some attempt to, as I said the other day, open the bazaar or to negotiate in any way, then that's tantamount to rejection of the offer.

In terms of modalities, which may have been what he was referring to, the Security Council resolution requests the Secretary General to consult with the government of the Netherlands and to assist the Libyan government with physical arrangements for the safe transfer of the suspects from Libya direct to the Netherlands. We expect any communication on this matter to be conveyed through the UN Secretary General rather than through the media.

QUESTION: Once Kartman has returned from New York, are there any new developments in his consultations here in Washington?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think the only development that you might particularly be interested in is the fact that, as I told you the other day, Ambassador Kartman had returned to Washington for consultations about the talks, and I can tell you that the talks will resume early next week in New York.

QUESTION: His new position - he's US envoy chief and he's also now the Chairman of the Executive Board for KEDO - does that in any way enhance his role? Does this change this role?

MR. FOLEY: They're separate functions. He's one of our most able diplomats in the US Government and we have utmost confidence in him in both capacities.

Thank you.

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