U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #136, 98-12-10

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

Thursday, December 10, 1998

Briefer: James B. Foley

ANNOUNCEMENT
1		Secretary of State and Sandy Berger to Hold a Press
		  Conference on President's Trip to Middle East
MEPP
1		Ross' Whereabouts
1		Violence in the Region
1-2		PNC Vote on Charter/Wye Agreement States President to
		  Witness Nullification
2-3		Purpose of President's Visit and the Charter/Issue of
		  Palestinian Vote by Committee Council re Charter/Letter
		  re Charter to President Clinton
3		Article 34 that States Changes Can Only be Made by
		  Vote/Advertisement's From
3		Jewish Groups Regarding the Wye Agreement/Wye Agreement
		  Through a Major Break Through
4		Violence in the Region
4		President's Arrival at Airport/Statehood as a Final Status
		  Issue/US Relations with the Palestinian People and
		  Palestinian Authority
IRAQ
4		Reports of Two Other Incidents in Blocking Inspections
5		Issue of Butler's Regular Weekly Reports Comprehensive and
		  IAEA Report/Iraq's Continued
5		Insistence on Blocking Inspections/US Not to Make a
		  Definitive Judgment on Blockage at This Stage
6		Definition of Full Iraqi Cooperation/USG Will Wait to Make
		  Judgment After Reviewing Butler's Report
6		Force Still an Option/Issue of Iraqi Compliance and
		  Possible US Action
7		Timing and Decision of Use of Force/Severe Consequences/GCC
		  Statement that Say Hussein Responsibility
8		Claims that USG Has Changed Position on
		  Non-Compliance/Position on Judgment of Compliance Based
		  on a First Attempt
9		Comprehensive Review Reports/US Expects Full Cooperation
BURMA
9		Report that Japanese Will Resume Aid to Burma
THAILAND (CAMBODIA)
9-10		Reports that USG Has Asked Thailand to Arrest Three Khmer
		  Rouge Officials
VENEZUELA
10		No Visa Request for Hugo Chavez/Reports that Chavez Wants
		  to Visit the US
11,16		Statements Made by Chavez Since Winning the Elections/USG
		  Sent Congratulatory Letter on Chavez Win/Diplomatic Visas
BRAZIL
11-12		Refusal to Issue Visa to Mr. Gabeira
CYPRUS
12		Reports of Miller's Activities in Cyprus
GREECE/TURKEY
12		Land Borders/Deployment of S-300 Missiles/US Opposes the
		  Deployment of S-300 Missiles
12		NATO Decision to Send 1,700 troops to Skopje via Greek port
		  of Thessolaniki
TURKEY (ITALY)
12		Reports that Italy is Going to Allow Ocalan to Fly to
		  Iran/US Promotion to Bring Ocalan to Justice
HUMAN RIGHTS
13		Secretary of State Cancels Attendance to Human Rights Event
		  to Accompany President Clinton to the Middle East
JORDAN
13		Possibility Secretary Will Travel to Jordan to Visit Crown
		  Prince
LIBYA
13		Foreign Minister's Remarks on Lifting of Sanctions and
		  Handing Over of Suspects in Pan Am 103
13		Bombing/US Has Waited Too Long for Justice/Scottish Court
		  Proposal was Libya Government's
13		Idea/Non-Negotiable Proposal/Reports that Libyan Team Will
		  Consult with UN Secretary General
13		Reports that Libyan Peoples' Congress has Referred Issue to
		  "Popular Committees"
14		Where Suspects Should Serve Their Sentences/Scottish
		  Jurisdiction/Options Left for US in Place of
14		Sanctions/Libya Has Suffered Under Sanctions/Proposal has
		  Not Been Definitively Rejected/No
14		Deadline/Patience Not Unlimited/Issue That Suspects were
		  Acting on Their Own
CHINA
14		DoD Assessment that Hugh's May Have Helped China with
		  Missile Technology
N. KOREA
15		World Program Survey/Starvation of N. Korean People/Reports
		  of Food Shortages/US to Denote 300 Metric Tons in Food
		  Aid to the World Food Program 1998 Appeal 
15		Issue of Whether Food Aid is Being Diverted/Congressional
		  Staff Report that Stated Food Aid is Clearly Saving
		  Lives/Vast Majority is Put to Proper Use/1999
		  Agreement/Monitoring of Food Aid
15		USG has not Detected Diversion of Food/Pictures of Starving
		  Children and N. Koreas Decisions on How it Uses its
		  Resources
15-16		USG Not to Impose Political Criteria When it Comes to
		  Helping Innocent People
CHILE
16		Reports of Call for a World Wide Freeze of Pinochet's
		  Assets by Spanish Judge

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OFF-CAMERA DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #136

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1998, 1:15 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

Just one announcement concerning - it's really a White House announcement, but the Secretary's participating. Secretary Albright, National Security Advisor Berger, Special Middle East Coordinator Dennis Ross, and I believe, Mr. Riedel from the National Security Council will be briefing the press at the early hour of 8:30 a.m. tomorrow morning at the White House on the President's trip to the Middle East.

So for all of you early risers, that's a splendid opportunity. I don't have any other announcements, so let me go to Sid, is it you, the third in line? Are you in command?

QUESTION: I guess. Just a clarification, Dennis has come back, then?

MR. FOLEY: He's en route.

QUESTION: So he's en route back, okay.

MR. FOLEY: That's it? Thank you. I think you're all going to have to go to bed very early tonight to be at the White House at 8:30 tomorrow morning.

QUESTION: Jim, while you're on the subject of the trip, are there any second thoughts about the either wisdom or the itinerary of the trip, considering the violence that has broken out in parts of the West Bank?

MR. FOLEY: Well, security is obviously an important consideration, a paramount consideration, involving any kind of presidential travel. It's an important consideration for the Secretary of State's security detail. So I would have to assume that the relevant authorities are taking all necessary information on board and taking all necessary precautions. I have no information to indicate that that is an impediment to the trip. I'd have to refer you to the White House for their specific response, though.

QUESTION: On the same subject, do you expect the PNC to have conducted the vote on the charter by the time the President arrives?

MR. FOLEY: My understanding of Wye was that the President was going to be present to witness the act of nullification or the affirmation of President Arafat's letter of January to President Clinton.

QUESTION: There's some confusion about that. It may be a committee meeting to vote on it beforehand.

MR. FOLEY: Maybe I can help you with that a little bit. It's, as you know, a complicated issue. But let me go back to quote something that Spokesman Rubin said shortly after the Wye Conference involving the issue of the Palestinian Charter.

The Wye River agreement specifies that the members of the PNC, as well as the members of the PLO Central Council, the Palestinian Council and the heads of Arafat's ministries, will be invited to a meeting which President Clinton will attend. The purpose of the meeting with the PNC and the other Palestinian organizations is to reaffirm Chairman Arafat's January 22 letter to President Clinton, nullifying each of the Charter's provisions that are inconsistent with the PLO's commitments to renounce terror and to recognize and live in peace with Israel. The process of reaffirmation will make clear once and for all that the provisions of the PLO Charter that call for the destruction of Israel are null and void.

Now, I believe under Wye that prior to that meeting, which the President will attend, where that reaffirmation will take place, that some of the constituent bodies will act in this regard. I believe that during the first phase, that began and that, I believe, it may even be today or tomorrow that the PLO Central Council is acting in similar vein. Those are all separate, discreet acts as predicates to all of these groups getting together in the presence of the President to reaffirm the Chairman's letter.

QUESTION: Will there be a vote is the question? Wye doesn't say there has to be one. The question is - Jamie's statement, of course, you guys were satisfied the January letter did it; you didn't even need this. But the Israelis insisted on it and you went along with it. You're all ducking - and I don't blame you - but you're not saying if, in the US view, there has to be a vote, as Jim has asked, either by the committee or by the council itself.

MR. FOLEY: The point is that the action that takes place in the presence of the President will leave it absolutely clear that the Charter has been nullified.

QUESTION: He thought the letter left it absolutely clear - the State Department's -

So, that's the spin; I don't need the spin. The question is, are the Palestinians obliged to vote? Now, if you don't want to express an opinion, that's fine; because Wye doesn't express an opinion, so I don't know why you have to.

MR. FOLEY: I'm merely saying that the procedures need to be clear enough such that there is no doubt that the nullification has taken place, that those provisions of the PLO Charter that call for the destruction of Israel are null and void so that there can be no doubt, no quibble, no second thoughts, no coming back. That's the point.

QUESTION: You say the action that takes place -- are you prepared to give any details on what that action is if it's not a vote?

MR. FOLEY: I've just stated it, and I've simply quoted from what Mr. Rubin said previously -- that there's going to be a meeting of all of these groups, that the President will be present at, at which this reaffirmation will occur.

QUESTION: Specifically, will it be a show of hands or clapping or what have you? If you had any details on it -

MR. FOLEY: You'd have to ask the Palestinian authorities.

QUESTION: Do you recognize that the last provision of the Charter of the Covenant - the 1964 Covenant - says changes can only be made by a vote? That's Article 34.

MR. FOLEY: As you rightly stated, Barry, we expressed satisfaction with Chairman Arafat's letter to the President in January. Now, Wye calls for this meeting to take place and for this unequivocal and final action to take place to make clear the utter nullification of this provision.

QUESTION: I was wondering if you saw the full page advertisements today in a couple of newspapers -

MR. FOLEY: I haven't, no. On what?

QUESTION: Taken out by some American-Jewish groups taking exception to the Wye agreement and your approach to pushing it.

MR. FOLEY: I have not seen that, but I think that the Administration is proud of its efforts to promote peace in the Middle East over the last six years, including our latest effort at the Wye Plantation, which the President and the Secretary invested so much of their selves with the great cooperation of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat. We managed, really, to reverse the downward course of the Middle East peace process that had been in effect for 18 months.

Wye was a significant achievement that enabled -- to put the Middle East peace process back on track and to get us into the mode of accelerated permanent status negotiations. I think we're very proud of what was achieved. That's why we're so attached to the idea of the faithful implementation of the Wye accords - so we can continue to move forward on the Middle East peace process.

QUESTION: I'm a little unclear on how you can say the peace process is going so well, given the widespread violence in the West Bank these last four or five days, as the President prepares to go there.

MR. FOLEY: Well, you can take a snapshot of where things are on any given day, and certainly violence is a big problem. That is not a new problem; it's a recurring problem. Every time it crops up, we make it crystal-clear our total opposition to violence in the Middle East and our belief, our conviction that violence is not only wrong, it's counter-productive. It has the potential to reverse progress towards peace and towards the satisfaction of the aspirations of the people of the region.

That said, though, if you look at it from a strategic perspective, for about 18 months, the Middle East peace process was moribund. Wye was a significant breakthrough that restarted that process. Yes, there are bumps in the road; yes, there are difficulties, but Wye thus far has been moving forward successfully. If you look at the first phase - and we're still in the middle of the second phase - one of the reasons the President and the Secretary are going there is to encourage both sides to continue on the path of implementation.

QUESTION: There's been a controversy over the President arriving in Air Force One or a helicopter. Does the mode of travel that he chooses to arrive in the Palestinian territory say anything about your relationship with the Palestinians?

MR. FOLEY: Not in my view. I'd refer you to the White House, in terms of what mode of transport the President will use and where he's arriving - all those issues that you're eagerly asking questions about. That's really for the White House to answer.

But yesterday, I believe, in Europe, the Secretary was asked, really, the threshold question. Let's raise it to a higher level of whether the President's visit, whatever manner it takes place, in any way confers American acquiescence in or agreement to the notion of Palestinian statehood. She made it very clear that our view is that is a permanent status issue; and that the President's visit does not any way touch on an issue which will be decided by the parties at the negotiating table. Now as to the particulars, the kinds of questions you asked, I'd ask you to perhaps save them for the briefing tomorrow morning.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - would argue that events in recent months have shown there's a concerted effort by this Administration to elevate their relations with the Palestinians.

MR. FOLEY: Well, there's a world of difference between pursuing excellent relations with the Palestinian people, with the Palestinian Authority in furtherance of the Middle East peace process and prejudging final status issues, which of course it's our practice, our habit to urge the parties not to do. We're certainly not going to do so ourselves. We've never done so, to my mind.

QUESTION: Jim, according to a report prepared by Chairman Butler, in addition to the UNSCOM being turned away from an inspection site yesterday, there were two other instances. I was wondering if you have any comment on the two other times.

MR. FOLEY: I've not seen that report.

QUESTION: It's a brief, three-page report that -

MR. FOLEY: That he delivered to the Security Council?

QUESTION: Yes, detailing UNSCOM's activity from December 3rd to the 9th.

MR. FOLEY: We had quite a discussion yesterday about the question of what kinds of reports Chairman Butler makes to the Security Council and what effect they will have and what debates they will occasion. As I said yesterday, Chairman Butler issues regular reports. I'm told they're weekly interim status reports that are rather dry. I think they're not elaborated upon. He simply reports on facts without, I believe, commenting or characterizing them. I think that the latest interim report was delivered, I think, last night in New York; and perhaps that's what you're referring to.

The really important report that we are awaiting has to do with Security Council Resolution 1194. Chairman Butler and the head of the IAEA will report on the overall level of Iraqi compliance, and that has many components across the board. That's really the big one, and we're going to eagerly await that report. Then we, along with other members of the Security Council, will have an opportunity to assess whether it's right to move forward with a comprehensive review or not, based on those reports.

QUESTION: Okay, but what about your reaction to Iraqi officials saying that if UNSCOM returns to the site that they tried to get into yesterday, that they will be turned down again and again and again; do you have any reaction to that?

MR. FOLEY: Well, UNSCOM continues to exercise its full normal range of inspection activities in accordance with its mandate. We expect Iraq to provide full cooperation to UNSCOM in the course of its inspections. Without full cooperation, there is no basis for a comprehensive review of Iraq's compliance with UN Security Council resolutions. If, as is often the case with Iraq, they are intent on building a record which harms their own case, as they've done so many times in the past, that would not be terribly surprising.

Certainly, these kinds of actions and the failure to produce documents demanded by UNSCOM are not such as to bode well for the achievement of Iraq's stated desires -- namely in the first instance, a comprehensive review; in the second instance, a relief from sanctions. I'm afraid that is not a new story.

But we've been very careful over the last week -- and you won't be surprised if I continue in this vein -- to not make a definitive judgment at this stage because, according to the Security Council resolution, Chairman Butler and the IAEA must make a report on their assessment. We're not going to, at this stage, substitute an American assessment for their assessment. That is very important. That's their job to conduct the inspections, to elicit Iraqi cooperation; and they will report on the success, or lack thereof, of their efforts based on Iraqi cooperation, or non-cooperation as the case may be.

When we get that report, we will judge that report.

QUESTION: But this is not a good sign?

MR. FOLEY: I already said that. It doesn't bode well.

QUESTION: You called just a minute ago for full Iraqi cooperation. What do you mean by full? Is that 100 percent or overall? What is full in this instance?

MR. FOLEY: Full is full. Full is not partial; full is full.

QUESTION: But, if there is not cooperation on three days out of five or even three days out of hundred, is that, in the Administration's view, full or is that overall cooperation? I mean, are you calling for overall cooperation or are you calling for full cooperation?

MR. FOLEY: We're calling for full cooperation. Again, I'm going to resist your efforts to have me make a judgment before we get Chairman Butler's judgment. We'll arrive at our own conclusions, but those conclusions will be significantly informed by Chairman Butler's feelings and assessment as to whether he's gotten the cooperation that he needs, the cooperation that he must receive, according to Security Council resolutions.

QUESTION: Jim, the worst you seem to be threatening at the moment is that this comprehensive review won't go through. Can you go further than that? Are all options open, including the military option?

MR. FOLEY: I think you need to understand that these are not necessarily the same things we're talking about. On the one hand, the questions I've been receiving about Chairman Butler's report and the question -- comprehensive review; on the other hand, the question that you're alluding to, involving other measures. And let's be honest, you're talking, I think, about the potential use of force. Both Secretary Albright in Paris, and I believe Secretary Cohen here, both today have stated emphatically that the use of force remains an option.

Insofar as your questions tend to attempt to draw me out on what might occasion such an option on our part, that's the last thing in the world that I or any other spokesman can talk about in a public forum - for obvious reasons. We're not going to signal our plans in that regard.

QUESTION: How does this case differ from previous cases? In previous cases, you haven't been deferring to Butler and his lengthy report; you've been judging on a prima face basis as events unfold. Why does it differ this time?

MR. FOLEY: It doesn't differ. I very carefully and deliberately, in response to your previous question, made crystal-clear that we're talking about two separate matters. One is Iraqi compliance and how that is determined to affect the willingness of the Security Council to proceed with the comprehensive review. The other is Iraqi compliance and how that might affect US action in the event that Saddam Hussein is not meeting the commitments he solemnly agreed to in November. On that question, I refuse to be drawn out on the US response, except to repeat what Secretaries Albright and Cohen have said today, which is that force remains an option. We're not going to signal our punches. It would be certainly very imprudent of Iraq to test our resolve in that regard.

QUESTION: Why aren't you signaling your punches? I mean, you've done so in the past.

MR. FOLEY: Because you're asking questions - no, we have not; we've never signaled that the timing or even the decision concerning the use of force. That's not something you want an adversary to have advance knowledge of.

QUESTION: You have said that if Saddam Hussein doesn't comply, there will be military strikes, there will be air strikes.

MR. FOLEY: I stand - I was asked this question yesterday, and I addressed it yesterday - that it's even in extant Security Council resolutions that Iraq will face severest consequences if it does not comply with UN Security Council resolutions.

I would point you also to a statement yesterday that was put out by the GCC states that indicated that Saddam Hussein alone was responsible for the plight that his people are going through. He's responsible by failing to comply fully with Security Council resolutions and demands. And he alone will bear the consequences - or bears the responsibility for any consequences that may ensue from his failure to comply.

QUESTION: Can you explain, because it seems fairly cut and dry that either Saddam Hussein lets inspectors into the sites that they want to get into or he doesn't. Yesterday he didn't.

MR. FOLEY: What's your question?

QUESTION: My question is, either he is allowing them in or he isn't allowing them in. And isn't that part of what the UN Security Council resolution and, actually, more recently in November, what the United States was saying that either Saddam Hussein allows inspectors to do their job or else? So they're not able to do their job.

MR. FOLEY: I agree with your premise 100 percent and I would add to it that either Iraq is providing documents requested and demanded by UNSCOM or it is not. We've not seen that, yes. But if you're asking me what are we going to do and when are we going to do it, I am, for obvious reasons, not going to answer that question.

QUESTION: All right, you were yesterday after the Iraqis prevented access to the Bath Party headquarters --

MR. FOLEY: However, let me add, it would be a severe mistake, as I said a few minutes ago, for Saddam Hussein to underestimate our intentions in this regard and our capabilities and our resolve to follow through on the President's statement in mid-November. Secretary Cohen, Secretary Albright were very clear on this earlier today.

QUESTION: Well, I still - a lot of us, obviously, think that the State Department's posture has changed.

MR. FOLEY: How is that; explain yourself.

QUESTION: Sure, it's very simple - 24 hours ago when the Iraqis refused to allow the inspectors into Bath Party headquarters, instead of being denounced by Secretary of State Albright, Albright said, hey, sometimes on the first attempt, they don't let them in; we've got to see what happens; you never know, it's a little early --

MR. FOLEY: Barry, I have to - I'm sorry, I can't --

QUESTION: That's what she said.

MR. FOLEY: No, I can't let you go forward.

QUESTION: That's what she said -- we cannot make a judgment based on a first attempt because sometimes you have to wait and see what will happen.

MR. FOLEY: Barry, I'm going to interrupt you here.

QUESTION: Want me to go get the words?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, go get the words; I've seen them. She said that she was not aware, as often happens when we're standing - Jamie and I are standing here at the podium. We get a report. She said spontaneously - "I hadn't heard that; of course, sometimes they let them in the second time." She wasn't in a position to give a definitive answer not having heard - not having knowledge of the report.

QUESTION: Yes, what I'm emphasizing is not whether she had a full report; you're right. What we're discussing is --

MR. FOLEY: She wasn't in a position to -

QUESTION: What we're discussing is her position -- which I found unusually different -- that one doesn't make a judgment about that compliance based on a first attempt; that frequently or often you find out later on that they are cooperating. Similarly, the President called off a missile attack based on a promise there would be full cooperation from Iraq. Do you need to get a report from Butler to figure out whether Iraq is fully cooperating? When they say you can't come in, does that sound like full cooperation to you?

MR. FOLEY: No, it does not.

QUESTION: Then what do you need to know? What do you need to know to know that Iraq is not fully cooperating? What else do you have to know? We're asking why the US position has changed, and you're saying it hasn't; we have to hear from Mr. Butler. When Iraq says you can't come in here, is that full cooperation?

MR. FOLEY: Concerning the comprehensive review and whether the Security Council will agree to do that, we are going to await Chairman Butler's report. That's what's in the Security Council resolution. A second separate - I repeat for the third time - issue is what the US is going to do potentially unilaterally --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- Iraq is doing?

MR. FOLEY: And I've already said that -

QUESTION: I don't expect you to say that we're going to hit him.

MR. FOLEY: -- we expect full cooperation. In answer to Andrea's question, I said that refusal to allow access to sites is not full cooperation. Refusal to provide all documents is not full cooperation. We've been very clear on that.

QUESTION: Jim, I have two questions -- one on Burma and one on China. There was an AFP report yesterday that the Japanese Foreign Ministry has said that it would be willing to resume aid to Burma. This seems to contradict a statement that the Japanese Foreign Minister Masahiko made to Secretary Albright last December, I guess. I was wondering whether you had anything on that.

MR. FOLEY: I don't; I've not heard that. I'll take the question.

QUESTION: Okay, and then on China, I was wondering whether you have any comment at all about the report in today's papers that Hughes has been found, I guess by DOD, to have helped, in some sense, China's missile program with its report on the launch failure.

MR. FOLEY: Yes, we have something on that from yesterday; if you'll give us a few minutes, I'll come back to it.

QUESTION: There's a report circulating in East Asia that the United States has asked the government of Thailand to arrest three Khmer Rouge officials. Is that true?

MR. FOLEY: I had something on that yesterday that I did mention - I don't know if you were here; it might have been just after the briefing. We queried the Thai authorities on this question, and we were informed by them that those senior Khmer Rouge leaders remain at large. They're not, apparently, within anyone's reach. So, that's the only information I have on that. I don't know if it's moved in the last 24-hours.

QUESTION: But you didn't ask that they be detained or -

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of what precisely we asked, but we learned that they weren't apprehendible, if there is such a word.

QUESTION: Now that Pol Pot is gone, are you still interested in bringing his henchmen to justice?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Are there any developments in the talks between --

MR. FOLEY: I have nothing to report. I'm sorry, I don't know.

QUESTION: On Venezuela, regarding the President-elect Chavez, the State Department said that the US is prepared to take necessary steps to address any visa request. I wonder if you have received a request for the visa. And second, he said in Venezuela, I think yesterday, that he will be coming to the United States. I wonder if you can elaborate on that. Third, there is a note in the newspaper that says the United States wants incoming minister as president. I wonder if you have comments on that, too.

MR. FOLEY: I have a very poor memory, and I've already probably forgotten. Let me try the questions one by one. Number one, I don't believe that there's been a visa request.

QUESTION: But, does he need to request a visa in order for him -

MR. FOLEY: If he's not an American citizen or legal permanent resident, he needs to apply for a visa.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. FOLEY: Second, you'd have to ask Mr. Chavez whether he's planning to visit the United States.

QUESTION: No, he's planning, but I wonder if, through the diplomatic channels, you have more information.

MR. FOLEY: I don't have more information on that.

QUESTION: Could you have it eventually or -

MR. FOLEY: Well, if there is an intention to come and there's discussion with us about his coming, then I'll learn about it and share that with you if that happens. But I don't have anything for you on that at least today.

QUESTION: And The Washington Post story?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, we are encouraged by the conciliatory statements that Mr. Chavez has made since he was elected President on Sunday. We want to have a cooperative relationship with Mr. Chavez and his administration, continuing the traditionally strong ties we have with Venezuela. We expect that he will govern and institute change consistent with Venezuela's democratic traditions and as required by the Venezuelan constitution.

Now, in response to your specific question, the answer is no. President Clinton sent a congratulatory message to Mr. Chavez that was delivered by our ambassador. In that letter, the President congratulated him on his election victory and expressed his confidence that Mr. Chavez will address the challenges facing his administration in a democratic matter. President- elect Chavez responded positively to the letter and said he looks forward to a solid and productive relationship. Our ambassador described his meeting with President-elect Chavez as a very positive and upbeat meeting.

QUESTION: Does this election - insofar as the visa question goes - does the fact that -- if it doesn't change the legal situation, does it, in a practical sense, have any impact on his eligibility to come here?

MR. FOLEY: Well, Barry, there were a few days when you weren't present for some of the briefings I think earlier in the week when we addressed this. The answer that I gave is that our practice is to issue diplomatic visas to heads of state.

QUESTION: You don't know if the President invited him to the United States?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that, no. That does not mean that there won't be some kind of a visit. I just have nothing for you on that today.

QUESTION: So does the Administration think Venezuela will be kept on a democratic track because I believe -

MR. FOLEY: The President expressed his confidence that that will be the case.

QUESTION: So even today you would say only the non-democratic government south of US water is Cuba, right?

MR. FOLEY: Mr. Chavez was elected in a democratic election. His election was very much reflective of the will of the Venezuelan people.

QUESTION: Another Latin American visa -- what do you have to say about the refusal to give a visa to Mr. Gabeira, of Brazil?

MR. FOLEY: I'll have to take the question.

QUESTION: Do you know about this?

MR. FOLEY: No, I don't.

QUESTION: He's a member of Congress.

QUESTION: According to Mr. Tom Miller, who is in Cyprus today, is working on the plan for the confederation of the Republic of Cyprus. Any comment?

MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry, I'm not aware of that. I did provide information yesterday on his travel plans and itinerary, but I have no information on his specific meetings.

QUESTION: Any response to my pending question, do you recognize the Greek- Turkish land borders?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not aware that there is any kind of dispute in that regard, so I have nothing to say on the subject.

QUESTION: Costas Simitis, Theodore Pangalos -- (inaudible) -- are in agreement now that the S-300 missiles should not be deployed in the Republic of Cyprus. Mr. Pangalos actually proposed it could be deployed to the island of Crete. The Cypriot President, Mr. Clerides, however, disagrees to the point that the island is totally defenseless. Could you please comment on that?

MR. FOLEY: I can comment by restating our position that it would be a mistake for Cyprus to deploy those missiles, and that we hope that that decision is reversed. We are also opposed to any kind of threats involving this issue. We trust that the government of Cyprus will make the right decision in this regard.

QUESTION: Any comment on the NATO decision to send 1,700 troops in Skopje via the Greek port of Thessolaniki?

MR. FOLEY: Well, the United States is a member of NATO. We certainly support very much the deployment of the extraction force to Macedonia.

QUESTION: And one last one - anything on reports that Italy is going to allow the leader of the Kurdish National Liberation Front, -- (inaudible) - Abdullah Ocalan to fly to Iran? It was a report today.

MR. FOLEY: I've not seen that report, but we've been working very closely with Italian authorities, as well with Turkish and German authorities, to promote the bringing to justice of Ocalan, and that is our bottom line. There are different ideas currently being discussed. But whatever option is eventually chosen, it is our view that it must be an option that brings him to justice. The prospect that you raised does not fall into that category.

QUESTION: Jim, the Secretary's coming home a little early, canceling her intention to go to that human rights event. Is there any particular reason for this?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, she has a very limited window of time here in order to help prepare for the President's and her trip to the Middle East. It is a rather time-compressed moment for her. She's coming back a little early, but nevertheless arriving this evening and then turning around Saturday morning to go to Israel and the PA. So she starts the day tomorrow, as you know, very early with a press briefing at the White House. This just was something she had to do in order to be able to do a little advance work on the trip.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- announcing the expanded travel by her in the Middle East?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of expanded travel, except that I believe on maybe the last day of the President's visit, she'll be making a brief visit to Jordan herself for a matter of hours to visit with the Crown Prince. I believe that's the sum total of her extra trip while with the President.

QUESTION: Jim, on Libya, the Foreign Minister has made some remarks concerning the fact that new arrangements would have to be discussed concerning the lifting of sanctions, in terms of handing over the Lockerbie suspects. Do you have anything to say on where things stand and whether you're considering at this point withdrawing the offer to Libya?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we haven't reached that conclusion. We're obviously not going to wait forever; we're not going to wait very long, either. After all, the victims' families have been waiting far too long. It's been almost 10 years since their loved ones were murdered. Their demands for justice cry out. We're stymied for so many years in trying to bring the suspects to justice. The Libyan Government itself proposed the idea that the suspects be tried in a Scottish court in an international venue. We took up that proposal that was their proposal, and probably surprised them in doing so. They've been struggling with the fact that we called their bluff - we and the United Kingdom - and are confronted with the results of their own previous proposals. Obviously, they're having a hard time coming to grips with it.

We and the UK stated very clearly that this was a non-negotiable proposal. We've seen reports that the Libyan legal team will return to New York to consult with the UN Secretary General's representative on legal and procedural matters relating to Security Council Resolution 1192. Again, this would not be a negotiation; it would be for purposes of clarification only.

We've also seen reports that the Libyan Peoples' Congress has referred the issue of the Pan Am 103 suspects to so-called "popular committees." It's not clear what actually this means and what actually they have decided. But what is crystal clear is that they have not decided to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1192. That's what we're looking for, and our patience is not unlimited.

QUESTION: Can I ask you just a follow up? Why are you adamant that if the suspects are tried, that they would serve their sentence in a Scottish jail? I mean, what's the difference between that and a prison in the Netherlands?

MR. FOLEY: Because this goes to the integrity of the US-UK proposal. The Security Council resolutions call for trial of the suspects in either the United Kingdom or the United States courts' judicial systems. The proposal that the US and the UK came forward with is a novelty in that we proposed that a Scottish proceeding - an entirely Scottish proceeding -- take place in The Hague. But, nevertheless -- and we made this clear -- this is a Scottish judicial proceeding, and that has to be respected. That would involve, in the event of convictions, their being subject to Scottish incarceration.

QUESTION: Just to follow up, so what options are left for the United States, other than keeping sanctions in place against Libya. How would the US then get what it wants, which is these two Libyans to be tried in a court?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I suppose if this were an easy decision for Colonel Qadhafi, he would have simply rejected the US-UK proposal out of hand. The fact of the matter is that his country has suffered under sanctions. He desperately wants the sanctions to be lifted. Therefore, he is caught on the horns of a dilemma. Certainly any hope that sanctions will be eased or suspended or lifted are illusory if he doesn't hand over the suspects.

So, I think that's got to weigh very strongly in his calculation. As to what further steps and stronger steps we might be proceeding, I'm not here to announce anything today because, as Carole indicated, we haven't said that our proposal has been definitively rejected; but time is running out on the proposal. I wouldn't attach a specific date that we would say would have to be a date for a final resolution. We carefully did not specify a deadline when we and the UK announced this initiative; but our patience is not unlimited.

QUESTION: Is it credible to you all that these two Libyan intelligence agents were acting on their own in this attack, that there was no - are you satisfied that the indictment goes far enough in casting a net for those involved in this?

MR. FOLEY: I'd have to refer you to law enforcement authorities, judicial authorities who developed the indictment and the evidence to support it. Speaking as a layman and certainly not as a lawyer or a prosecutor, I would have to think that that would be one of the purposes of a trial would be to determine the truth.

QUESTION: Jim, were you able to find that statement on the Chinese missiles and the Hughes report?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, first of all, this is a Department of Defense report on a satellite launch failure investigation authorized by the Commerce Department and, therefore, I recommend that you contact those agencies for comment.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: While you're still on Asia, another question about North Korea but not having to do with missiles -- there was a horrifying report in today's New York Times based on a World Food Program survey about malnutrition, starvation are endemic of North Korea, hitting particularly young children. In view of that apparently authoritative survey, do you have any doubts about the US food supply of being diverted, or do you have any plans to change the mode by which it is being distributed?

MR. FOLEY: Well, the full report is not out yet for our review, but drafts of the findings we've read certainly match other international agencies' assessments that food shortages persist in North Korea. It's based on these independent findings that the US determine to donate an additional 300,000 metric tons to the World Food Program's 1998 appeal. In light of the continuing humanitarian need, we urge other nations to contribute as well.

Now, in terms of our assessment about whether the food aid we provide is going to intended recipients and has not been diverted, I am happy to restate our position on that, which is not going to be news to you because we've said it before, but I'm happy to do so. In August of 1998, three congressional staffers released a report that they wrote after their visit that month to North Korea. They concluded that international food aid clearly saved lives. They stated that food assistance is feeding nearly every child under the age of seven. Most US Government assistance is directed to children 12 years and under.

One World Food Program high-level official recently stated, "I can guarantee that the vast majority of resources channeled through the WFP is put to proper use in North Korea." While monitor access and the tempo of operations are improving, we would, of course, like to see greater openness regarding the food situation. We would like to see the number of monitors increased and their freedom of access further expanded. We have made clear to the North Koreans the importance of this matter; in fact, the DPRK recently issued visas to additional World Food Program monitors and agreed to a 1999 PVO consortium program.

QUESTION: Well, my question is, in light of this survey, which appears to be much more authoritative than three congressional staffers running around, is the United States going to do anything differently?

MR. FOLEY: Well, under our arrangement with the World Food Program, monitoring the food assistance is required. No US aid is distributed if it cannot be monitored. The World Food Program and the US private volunteer organization consortium - this PVO I mentioned - monitor the distribution of US food aid in the DPK. No significant diversion of US Government assistance has been detected. So that really is our assessment, Jim.

With the recent announcement of an additional 300,000 metric tons of food contributed by the US, the number of monitors will increase. We continue to believe that the present monitoring situation, while considerably less than ideal, has allowed our assistance to reach those for whom it is intended.

QUESTION: What would you say about the leadership of a country that allowed its children to starve to death, as we saw in the pages of the newspapers today - skin and bones in classrooms, malnourished, mal- developed, brain abnormalities as a result of it. What would you say about a government that would allow that to go on while still maintaining a million-man army - a well-fed million-man army? And what about the $5 billion going to, perhaps, feeding its people instead of building nuclear reactors? What about them building suspect underground sites rather than feeding their people?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I really couldn't quarrel with anything that you just said, Sid. Your points reflect our views about the nature of that regime, about its dysfunctional economic system, about its choices on how to allocate its resources. We have profound and fundamental differences with this regime. At the same time, we have made it very clear as a policy decision and as a reflection of what we stand for as a people, that we're not going to impose political criteria when it comes to helping to feed innocent people who are victims of some of the facts and policies that you describe.

QUESTION: New subject -- the decision to freeze Pinochet's assets, does that affect you at all?

MR. FOLEY: We're aware of press reports that the Spanish judge has called for a worldwide freeze of Pinochet's assets, but we're not aware that any formal request of that nature has been submitted to the US Government. The issue of asset freezing, I'm told, is not treated uniformly throughout the world. I'm not a lawyer, but that's my understanding, given the differences in legal systems. We note that in the US, legal authority for asset freezing would exist only in a limited category of situations, typically in connection with a US civil or criminal case or in emergency situations.

QUESTION: You mean not do it if -

MR. FOLEY: I'm not in a position to answer that now, because we have not received any kind of formal request I'm aware of at this point.

QUESTION: Clarification, please, in your statement that you give diplomatic visa to the head of the state. Is this valid for president- elects as well?

MR. FOLEY: Well, if Mr. Chavez, as president-elect, were to apply for a visa, then we would give it due consideration. We haven't, as I said, received request.

QUESTION: Okay, you are given consideration. You don't say that you want to give the visa.

MR. FOLEY: I've given you my answer.

QUESTION: But president-elect puts him in a special category.

MR. FOLEY: We would give it due consideration.

Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 2:05 P.M.)

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