U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #23, 99-03-01

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

MONDAY, MARCH 1, 1999

Briefer: James B. Foley

NO INDEX AVAILABLE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #23

MONDAY, MARCH 1, 1999, 1:25 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: I apologize for keeping everyone waiting. Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department. Barry Schweid, you have the floor.

QUESTION: Oh, good. Well, there are several subjects that are interesting. Let me check - because it's late and we perhaps won't have to go over already spoken ground. Someplace Secretary Albright appealed for restraint to the Israelis over the Lebanon situation. Obviously, I wasn't there when she did; so I didn't have a chance to ask, does restraint mean Israel shouldn't retaliate or it should retaliate in a limited way? I ask this against the backdrop - even though we don't have a cookie-cutter foreign policy - of dropping 30 tons of bombs on Iraq. I wonder if that's a restrained response to what the Iraqis have been doing. Is there one set of rules for Israel and another set for the United States? Can you address those two situations, please?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'll address them separately, Barry. First of all, I haven't seen the Secretary's comments; but as you describe them, they are indeed what the United States is trying to do in the interest of Israel, in the interest of Lebanon and in the interest of all the parties involved - is to caution restraint. It would be irresponsible for us not to call for restraint.

We're not simply asking the Israeli leadership to exercise restraint. There has been reason for provocation and there is, therefore, compelling reason for all sides to ratchet down the escalatory ladder and move to discuss the problems between them. As you know, there is the forum that was established in 1996 - the Israeli-Lebanon Monitoring Group - that is the forum for discussing issues involving attacks on civilians, attacks from civilian areas. We urge all parties to work within the context of the Israeli-Lebanon Monitoring Group.

We regret the loss of life as a result of the roadside bombing in Southern Lebanon over the weekend, and, as I said, we are deeply concerned about the escalation of hostilities in the area. Secretary of State Albright has sent messages to the presidents of Lebanon and Syria, and she has urged them to take swift action to calm the situation. We have also been in touch with the Israeli authorities at a very high level. As Secretary Albright indicated, we have been urging restraint upon them as well.

What's important to understand is that exercising maximum restraint is in the interest of Israel, it's in the interest of Lebanon, it's in the interest of Syria. It's in nobody's interest to see this situation, which is dangerous, continue to escalate. So it's the responsible thing for the United States to urge all parties to ratchet back the escalatory ladder and to use the forum that exists for addressing the underlying problems.

QUESTION: Well, I'd like to pick you up on the forum, the prescription. But before I do, I kind of still don't have -- (inaudible) -- an answer because the core issue, as far as I can see it, is whether Israel has been attacked or Israelis have been attacked and have a national sovereign right to respond to the attack but not necessarily to burn up the whole area. So when you say restraint, you mean don't fight back, or you mean fight back - what you do is your decision but don't overdo it? Which is it?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I prefer not to be that prescriptive and that proscriptive.

QUESTION: But you're the State Department.

MR. FOLEY: It is the State Department, and we are diplomats. What we're interested in is not necessarily what points we can score publicly, but rather what effect we can have through our diplomatic action. In public terms, we are urging restraint. I think the Israeli Government would like to see this situation calmed down. I believe that they have indicated that it is their hope that there are no further attacks. Israel was subject to Katyusha rocket attacks. We believe that Israel has a right to secure borders, but we also believe that it is imperative, and in the imperative interests of all sides, that the cycle of escalation be reversed and that the parties use the Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group to address these problems.

QUESTION: You haven't spoken of a right of defense, so I'll move on because with that not there, your message is clear.

MR. FOLEY: Are you still on Lebanon?

QUESTION: Yes, you haven't mentioned a right of self-defense. Absent that, I'll draw my own conclusions and ask you, this forum you suggest - I mean, that's a mechanical forum. Israel proposed and the US supported Israel's proposition to get out of Lebanon by having negotiations with the Lebanese Government. You folks, whenever that was, months ago, thought that was a good idea, a good starting point. Now they never got anyplace.

MR. FOLEY: We voted for Resolution 425 in the Security Council, and we want to see it implemented.

QUESTION: Exactly, but it never got anyplace because Lebanon is not a sovereign state yet. Its hand is guided by others.

MR. FOLEY: As is stated in UN Security Council Resolution 425, all foreign troops should withdraw from Southern Lebanon. That is our position.

QUESTION: I mean, they want to negotiate it.

MR. FOLEY: Well, we have long maintained that we want to see progress in Arab-Israeli relations across the board through negotiations wherever possible. As a practical matter, we believe that Lebanon and Israeli negotiations would provide a way for Israel and Lebanon to resolve all the issues that divide them and to advance the security of both countries. At the same time, we have stated that we believe that progress on the Israeli-Syrian track would facilitate progress on the Lebanon-Israeli track and movement toward the comprehensive peace that we seek.

QUESTION: All right, that is Syria's position, basically, that it's a larger issue than just the border; that there's a larger issue here. There's a need for a whole comprehensive settlement. Israel tried to separate the Lebanon problem and tried to close that problem, as they've closed the Jordan front, as they've closed the Egyptian front. So you sort of take the position this is all of a larger issue; there has to be an overall negotiation or an overall settlement to get things done in Lebanon. Is that correct?

MR. FOLEY: Well, if you're talking about a comprehensive peace that resolves the underlying political problems once and for all, then --

QUESTION: No, I'm talking about Israel going into Lebanon.

MR. FOLEY: -- you're going to need negotiations on all the tracks. As far as Israeli pulling out of Lebanon is concerned, we've stated that we recognize that Israel has legitimate security concerns having to do with the safety and security of its population in the northern parts of Israel. We voted for UN Security Council Resolution 425; we support the withdrawal of foreign forces from Southern Lebanon. But we believe that negotiations would be necessary to help advance that goal.

But in the meantime, we must - it is our obligation to call on all parties to resist the temptation to continue to escalate the situation and instead we believe that saner, cooler heads should prevail and that the parties should use the mechanism that exists to address their differences peacefully.

QUESTION: The Secretary spoke with President Asad?

MR. FOLEY: No, I said that she sent a message to President Asad and President of Lebanon.

QUESTION: Oh, she sent them messages.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: And those messages were basically restraint?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, to exercise restraint and to exercise their authority over the areas that they control to ensure that there are no further acts which would continue to fuel these attacks and exchanges.

QUESTION: And if you can say, in her message to President Asad was she also talking about resuming the negotiations with Israel?

MR. FOLEY: I believe that the Syrians would not need reminding that the United States supports resumption of the Israeli-Syrian track of negotiations. It has been difficult to get that track back up and functioning. But that was not the central focus of her message. The message was, we have a crisis on our hands; something needs to be done immediately to bring it to a halt or else there will be further negative consequences for all the parties involved.

QUESTION: Did she say it was a crisis?

MR. FOLEY: Well, those are my words; I don't believe that was the word she used in her message. The message was clear that it's important for all sides to exercise restraint, to cease going up the escalatory ladder and to bring this under control before it does become a greater crisis.

QUESTION: If you can go into the detail, what exactly would Asad do to restrain the forces in Southern Lebanon? How does that work?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm sure messages can be passed, information can be conveyed. We wouldn't be sending a message if we didn't believe there was the likelihood of it having an effect.

QUESTION: How about cutting off their arms shipments from Iran that are flying to Damascus on an almost-daily basis?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have the text of the Secretary's full message before me. I simply note the main element, which is please exercise restraint and exercise authority over those who need restraining.

QUESTION: Who did she contact in Israel?

MR. FOLEY: I believe our charge met with a senior Israeli official.

QUESTION: Are you saying that the initial attack involving the killing of the Israeli general and several others was a violation of the Monitoring Group accord?

MR. FOLEY: I didn't say that. I said that we regretted the loss of life.

QUESTION: Was it a violation?

MR. FOLEY: I believe that the Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group has to do with attacks on civilians and attacks from civilian areas.

QUESTION: What do you think of some calls by some politicians in Israel to hold Syria responsible?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think that all parties in this area - be they Israel, Lebanon Syria or parties that operate in areas that they control - need to do their utmost to prevent the escalation from continuing.

QUESTION: How do you get the message to Iran, or do you try?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we don't have diplomatic relations.

QUESTION: I know, but you do make an effort -- I mean, or do they read the briefing?

MR. FOLEY: Well, certainly that's one of the additional benefits, Barry, aside from edifying you and your colleagues, is that we're able to communicate with governments with whom we don't have diplomatic ties.

QUESTION: Do you have a date for when the Albanians, the Kosovars are supposed to be coming to Washington?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have a date. Ambassador Hill was in Pristina today and met with a range of Kosovar Albanians. This was an idea, which I believe was initiated at Rambouillet, and so Ambassador Hill was, among other topics, was discussing that with them. There has not been, as I understand it, a formal decision yet on the part of the Kosovar Albanians or on a decision in terms of who will come; but it's our expectation that a group or a delegation of them will come to Washington. Obviously, that would occur at some point between now and the resumption of the peace talks in France on March 15, but I don't have a date for you.

QUESTION: Are you saying that you don't have a date because they are -

MR. FOLEY: They're still deciding.

QUESTION: They may not want to come, perhaps -

MR. FOLEY: I believe they're planning to come, but they haven't decided yet when they're coming.

QUESTION: All right. Has the United States or has Secretary Albright asked Senator Dole to actually go to Kosovo to talk to the Albanians?

MR. FOLEY: She had a discussion with him. She spoke with him on the telephone, and he has agreed to travel to the region to urge agreement on the interim settlement plan. I believe the details on his schedule and itinerary are still being worked out, so there's been no formal announcement yet.

QUESTION: When did she speak to him, this weekend?

MR. FOLEY: I believe she spoke to him from Rambouillet. You were there.

QUESTION: That we know. Right.

MR. FOLEY: She spoke to him upon her return, but I don't know the exact date - last week.

QUESTION: Okay, before going on her trip.

MR. FOLEY: Yes, that's my understanding.

QUESTION: What does Dole bring to this?

QUESTION: What has she asked Senator Dole to do exactly?

MR. FOLEY: She's asked him to use - he is an eminent figure who has a lot of credibility with the Kosovar Albanians because he's spoken out on their behalf over the years. He's also someone -- I don't, as I said, have his itinerary, so I can't tell you for sure where he's going. But if he were to go to Belgrade, he is someone who has dealt with Mr. Milosevic previously and would speak on behalf of the United States in that regard.

QUESTION: So he's not just going to see --

MR. FOLEY: I didn't say that. I was very careful to say that I'm not announcing his schedule; that has not been determined.

If he were to go, though, I'm saying he is someone who has dealt with President Milosevic previously.

QUESTION: So there's a possibility that he may go see Milosevic?

MR. FOLEY: I wouldn't rule it out.

QUESTION: Did she ask him to go there as well?

MR. FOLEY: I don't know that.

QUESTION: Then why did you introduce the element if you didn't --

MR. FOLEY: You asked why he would be going, and I explained that he is someone who has stood up for the cause of the Kosovar Albanians for many years. He's well-known to them and he would be able to speak to them on behalf of the United States as someone who is concerned about their situation and their future. I simply said hypothetically, were he to go to Belgrade, he's also someone who has dealt with President Milosevic.

QUESTION: But he has been asked to go to talk to the Albanians; correct?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: And what about George Soros? What as the Secretary asked him to do?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have that information, Carole.

QUESTION: Could you check?

MR. FOLEY: I'll try to look into it.

QUESTION: Do you have a situation update on Kosovo?

MR. FOLEY: I do; it's not very detailed. The situation in the Orahovac area is very tense in the wake of the kidnapping of three Serbs. Earlier today, the KLA handed over two of these Serbs to the KVM. One of the Serbs was dead. The body is now at the Pristina hospital. We very much condemn their kidnapping and the death of this one Serb. I don't have information on the whereabouts of the third Serb who was kidnapped. But we certainly call on those who may have taken him not to mistreat him and to return him safe and sound.

The situation in Kosovo was also exacerbated by the discovery over the weekend of the bodies of two Albanians in Tupec. We condemn all violent acts of this kind on either side, regardless of who has committed them.

Over the weekend, one Serbian policeman was killed and four injured as Serb and KLA forces clashed in Southern Kosovo. Several hundred Kosovar Albanians had moved to the Macedonian border over the weekend in an attempt to flee the violence in the far south of Kosovo. Those with passports and proper papers were apparently being permitted to cross the border. Most of those fleeing, however, are being prevented by Serbian authorities from leaving Kosovo.

Reports from Kosovo indicate that V-J and Serbian police units continue to move and re-deploy in ways which may indicate an impending offensive against the KLA. Approximately 4,500 troops have been moved near the borders of Kosovo, along with about 50 armored personnel carriers and 60 artillery pieces. Now, we reported that information to you last week. That's not new. Those forces, to my knowledge as of now, have not moved across the border into Kosovo, but their continued deployment in the border area is very worrisome. We're keeping a very watchful eye on it for obvious reasons.

In terms of the humanitarian situation, it remains volatile, with increasing numbers of people being forced from their homes by the intimidation of Serb security forces backed by the Yugoslav army. In the past ten days, according to UNHCR, 10,000 people have fled their homes, bringing the number of displaced persons since December 24 to 50,000. So this is clearly a growing problem.

However, humanitarian aid organizations - most of whom evacuated Kosovo a week ago - are nearly back to full operations. All the displaced people in Kosovo at least have rudimentary shelter and food. So that is my latest information.

QUESTION: The incident at the Macedonian border where the Serbs prevented people form fleeing violence, is that legal for them to prevent somebody from fleeing for their lives to safety?

MR. FOLEY: I don't know the legal question, but certainly on a humanitarian basis if these are people who are indeed in fear of their lives, then they ought not be prevented from finding refuge. The fact is they're not fleeing some abstract authority; they're fleeing Serb forces - the very forces who have been preventing them, apparently, from crossing over into Macedonia.

QUESTION: Jim, if I could follow up, have there been any indications, number one, that the forces on the border - the 4,500 troops that the Serbs have on the border - have been augmented at all? Secondly, you mentioned there were signs that forces that are already in Kosovo are taking some kind of movement that might mean an offensive. Can you explain that a little further?

MR. FOLEY: I didn't say that. I said the forces that were amassing near the borders of Kosovo are still there. They haven't crossed into Kosovo; they haven't begun what could become an offensive. We certainly are warning the authorities in Belgrade to hold back and not to deploy those forces and not to conduct an offensive operation in Kosovo. That would be a serious mistake because, as you know, the NATO Act-ORD remains in effect. Secretary General Solana has the authority to conduct air strikes if such development were to occur.

However, in terms of what's going on inside of Kosovo, I don't think I used the exact term you mentioned. But clearly, there has been an increase in incidents on all sides, and the Kosovar Albanian people are increasingly fearful of their lives because there are activities by the Serb security and police forces which are intimidating them. That's why we have an increase in the number of internal refugees in Kosovo.

QUESTION: So an increase in activities inside the country and no increase in - no reinforcement of those troops that are on the border in Serbia at the present; is that correct?

MR. FOLEY: That's what I said.

QUESTION: Do you think that the Serbs might have been emboldened by the United States and NATO's failure to follow through on the Secretary's threat to hit them and hit them hard?

MR. FOLEY: Well, the failure term you use, I don't accept. We were very clear that if we got a formal yes, a definitive yes from the Kosovar Albanians at Rambouillet, then they would put the Serbs in a very difficult position if they were unwilling themselves to sign onto the agreement. We are still hopeful, as Ambassador Hill said in Pristina today, that the yes in principle that we got from the Kosovar Albanians will be translated into a definitive, formal yes when they go to France on March 15.

But we were very clear that that warning of possible use of NATO air power against the Serbs was contingent, a, on the Kosovar Albanians saying yes to the interim accord and b, the Serbs saying no to the accord.

QUESTION: Are you giving any second thoughts, though, to this sort of mechanism of tying a serious threat of strikes to somebody else's position that, in effect, gives that other party a veto over what you do vis-a-vis Milosevic?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we determined a few months ago in our diplomatic efforts leading up to Rambouillet that we were going to, first of all, aim for a wholesale interim political settlement to bring the conflict to an end, to allow the people of Kosovo to live free of Serb repression and to govern themselves; and that in order to do that, we were going to bring together the threat of the use of military power, the threat of force and also the prospect of a NATO-led peace implementation force to undergird and support our diplomatic efforts.

But in our view, if this is going to be successful, we need to continue to make sure that our diplomacy and our military capabilities and willingness to use them are in sync. So our whole efforts are geared towards providing the Kosovar Albanians something they haven't had. They haven't had a life free of Serb repression; they haven't had a real opportunity to govern themselves. So that is what we are offering, but it is contingent on them accepting the interim peace accord and the brighter and better future that would be theirs if they signed the accord and NATO were to implement the peace agreement. But we are ensuring that our diplomacy and our military capabilities are in sync.

QUESTION: That doesn't really answer the question. Do you think, is there any second thought being given to the fact that this very public threat against Milosevic was made and yet when push came to shove, you were not able to exercise it because it was contingent on somebody else's decision-making?

MR. FOLEY: Well, again, your question relates to Sid's question. The fact is, we were deliberate in deciding that it would be contingent on a Kosovar Albanian yes and on a Serb no; which of course we don't want -- we would like a yes from both sides. But it would be very irresponsible of us to have our diplomacy and a threat of military force to be disassociated from each other. I think it continues to make sense. We do not seek to use force merely for the sake of using force. The whole purpose of our engagement in Kosovo over the last few months, especially at the last weeks leading up to and during and subsequent to Rambouillet, have intended to achieve a political settlement. We still believe that a political settlement is in our grasp.

We have a yes in principle from the Kosovar Albanians. Ambassador Hill was in Pristina today. He expressed some optimism that the trend is in favor of the Kosovar Albanians coming to France and formally accepting the interim agreement. That has not happened, but he is hopeful. If we get that, then we will be halfway there to a peace agreement. So I think your effort to write an obituary to the effort is very premature.

QUESTION: Apart from Dole going over there and the Kosovars coming over here, are there any other tactics or initiatives that you have in the works to try to - obviously with Chris Hill's ongoing efforts, are there any other things that you're going to do to try to make sure that they say yes?

MR. FOLEY: Well, that's the key, that we remain in diplomatic contact with the parties. I think with the Kosovar Albanians, things are going well because they understand that, after all, the support that we are providing and the possible deployment of a NATO implementation force will very much and dramatically transform their lives for the better.

With the Serbs, I believe that Ambassador Hill this morning - or some point today in Pristina - indicated that while they haven't agreed to the whole political settlement, that they've agreed to a lot of it. The differences are not great. With the Serbs really, the main stumbling block, as you know -- I hate to go over ground that you're familiar with - but the main stumbling block is their, thus far, unwillingness to accept a NATO-led peace implementation force.

But we're not in the business of wasting our time. We wouldn't be at this if we didn't think it was possible to reach an agreement. Diplomacy with the parties is critical. Obviously, we're still in consultation with our partners in the Contact Group and at NATO. But I believe Ambassador Hill will be going to Belgrade tomorrow and will be engaging with the authorities there as well.

QUESTION: You said, differences aren't great -

MR. FOLEY: Well, they're great as long as they're not agreed, but they're not many.

QUESTION: Well, we were given kind of a verbal list of things that the Serbs wouldn't agree to. Without going through the list - I'll be happy to, though - I mean, have any of the differences that existed at the wind up in Rambouillet last Tuesday been resolved now?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware if any of those have been closed to be very honest with you, Barry.

QUESTION: Carole was focusing on one set of threats - there are so many threats around - but Albright reiterated a threat that doesn't depend at all on what the Albanian - well, not directly, anyhow - a threat that if the Serbs violated that cease fire, they would subject to NATO attack.

MR. FOLEY: I did so myself a few minutes ago.

QUESTION: All right, have they done anything since then? Your description of teetering on the border with I don't know how many thousand - 4,500 troops - and the killing of people that seems to be mutual, have the Serbs violated the cease fire lately?

MR. FOLEY: Well, it's murky. As I indicated, there have been killings on both sides, and there is military activity on both sides. What we're watching very carefully indeed are those deployments of the Serb forces near the Kosovo borders. So we are making very clear, as I am right now, to President Milosevic that it would be a very serious mistake to conduct an offensive operation of the kind that I described.

QUESTION: But Jim, they say they're not conducting offensive operations, and they're just doing spring training. But according to reports -

MR. FOLEY: This is not baseball.

QUESTION: Yeah, well training - all right, training exercise; call it what you want. The training exercises, according to some of the reports from the area, consist of firing live rounds into villages that are Albanian villages. Now if that's not a violation of the cease-fire, what is?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think we'll know it if indeed they launch an offensive operation if we have another massacre like we had at Racak, if we have widespread displacement of people. As I indicated, the numbers have gone up. We have now some 50,000 -- according to the UNHCR -- refugees. If we see this really snowballing, then it will be obvious that they are way out of compliance and they have made some kind of a strategic decision to test NATO's resolve. They should not so because as I indicated the Act-Ord is in effect and Secretary General Solana is in power to respond if that is the case.

QUESTION: If they do it by salami slices, sort of incrementally, and they go from a training exercise into really what is sort of an offensive under some other name, it sounds like -

MR. FOLEY: Right. I think we'd be able to recognize that.

QUESTION: I have a question. Any idea who will participate in the Washington talks? Will President Clinton get involved?

MR. FOLEY: I don't know who will participate on our side because, after all, we don't have yet any final plans by the Kosovar Albanians. If, in the next few days, we have a delegation, we know when they're coming, then we'll be able to decide who's going to meet with them. But I don't have that today.

QUESTION: Speaking of offenses and trying to change the subject, how about the Turkish offense? It's very close to the Syrian border -- offensive against Kurds, offensive against, obviously, PKK - well, they say PKK people. Is it a dangerous situation, as far as the -

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of the events you're talking about. There was an incursion into Northern Iraq about a week ago that came to an end. I'm not familiar with other military activity.

We're not quite through with Kosovo. I'll come back to you next.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- when is he in Belgrade?

MR. FOLEY: He's going to meet with Serb or FRY authorities. I don't have the name yet. I think he's likely to meet with President Milutinovic, but I couldn't say whether he's having other meetings.

QUESTION: Just about the Washington talks -- I didn't catch if you said what exactly the US hopes to achieve with this Kosovar Albanian delegation coming over.

MR. FOLEY: We hope to continue our discussions with them, to raise their comfort level with the interim agreement. As Christopher Hill said today, he's increasingly optimistic that they will be able to agree fully and unreservedly to the interim accord by March 15. We hope to advance that goal.

QUESTION: Last year, the State Department terrorism report mentioned that Greek support of the PKK came from only the individuals, not the Greek Government. But lately, US and the world witnesses how the terrorist Ocalan finds a safe haven in the Greek embassy in Kenya and other Greek official facilities. Do you plan to put Greece as a terrorism supporting country, or at least urge them to close all terrorist training camp in the Greek territory?

MR. FOLEY: Well, you or one of your colleagues tried to draw me down that path last week, and I refuse to be drawn in that direction. Greece is a friendly country, is an ally of the United States. We work closely with Greece on a whole range of issues - regional, economic, strategic, political. We disagree with Greece over what happened in the Ocalan affair, as well as with the asylum granted to his two colleagues. We make no bones about that. But let's put this in perspective. The terrorism list is something which covers repeated, systematic, high-level pattern of state sponsored support for terrorism, and I wouldn't talk about a close NATO ally and such a prospect in the same breath.

QUESTION: On the same token and the close NATO ally, last Saturday The Washington Post published a report and story -- (inaudible) - Greece to NATO some secret code to Russia to have a Russia NATO plane jamming instrument. According to the newspaper, Ambassador Burns eight times contacted the Greek Defense Minister. Are you satisfied with whatever you got from Greece as an answer?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I can only give you a preliminary answer, and the preliminary answer is that the findings are pointing in the direction of a satisfactory resolution of the matter. They look promising. I can't give you a formal read-out because we had a Pentagon delegation that went over to Greece because, indeed, there were allegations concerning Greek unauthorized transfer of US origin military technology to Russia. But the key word here is "allegation." We conducted an investigation with the fullest cooperation of Greece. US Government agencies are currently awaiting the investigator's report for analysis.

They have completed the work. My understanding, preliminarily, is that the results look very promising. But we are going to be briefing - or the Pentagon will be briefing key congressional committees. We've already been keeping them abreast of the matter. Until that consultation and briefing is complete and we have the final report, I'm not going to comment on specifics.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - to Greece? Apparently some subject is being circulated that he may have sent a letter to Prime Minister Simitis. Is there such thing?

MR. FOLEY: I've not heard that.

QUESTION: You say allegations and yet you make it sound like it was a real thing and not just an allegation. Did the technology get to - I mean, they didn't go all the way over there just to find out --

MR. FOLEY: They're two separate ideas. One is an allegation; not a truth, but an allegation. The other is the fact that the allegation happened to cover a serious matter. Therefore, you have to investigate if it's serious, if it's not minor. But it's looking good, as I understand it, but I'm not --

QUESTION: You mean it's turning out to be a false allegation or it's --

MR. FOLEY: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: Oh, not because maybe the technology didn't get where it was going, right?

MR. FOLEY: The former.

QUESTION: Ocalan - the United States has said that it's going to watch this case pretty carefully. I'm just wondering if the way you see Ocalan being handled by the Turks suggests to you that this is a fair and just proceeding. Apparently, his lawyer only had 20 minutes with him. He certainly has been paraded on television a number of times. Can this guy get a fair trial in that country?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we understand that one of his lawyers suspended his representation, saying that he had concerns about his security. Certainly, the government of Turkey is responsible for the security of all of its citizens.

We welcome Prime Minister Ecevit's announcement on February 26 that the government has taken the measures necessary to prevent demonstrators from threatening Ocalan's lawyers. We believe that Turkey understands that it's in Turkey's interest to create the conditions necessary for Ocalan's trial to be conducted in a transparent way and in accordance with its obligations under international human rights instruments.

I think Turkey does not necessarily need to hear from other countries that its treatment of Ocalan is in many ways going to be very closely watched, inevitably, by the international community, by virtue of the very fact that Turkey achieved such a notable counter-terrorism success. The fact is there is a greater spotlight; and it is, indeed, an opportunity for Turkey to show how well its system of justice can work in transparency and in accordance with international norms. That's certainly what Turkey has committed itself to do, and that's certainly what we expect it to do.

QUESTION: Is there anything about the government's handling of the case, though, so far that troubles you?

MR. FOLEY: I think it's a little too early to say that. We note the problems that his lawyer said he was encountering, and we hope that Prime Minister Ecevit's statement has a positive effect in that regard.

QUESTION: I have a couple questions on Latin America. One on Colombia - do you have any

QUESTION: The Turkish Ambassador had a session this morning with the press in which he repeated the allegation that Ocalan was carrying a Greek-Cypriot passport when he was captured. Have you checked this out; and if so, what have you done about it? Have you talked to the Cypriots?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that.

QUESTION: Of the whole allegation?

MR. FOLEY: I read it in the newspaper, but I don't know if it's true.

QUESTION: Could you check to see whether anybody is contacting the Cypriots to ask them? The ambassador said that --

MR. FOLEY: Well, Roy, you're a capable journalist; you could probably talk to the different parties yourself.

QUESTION: No, I'm saying in the US Government. It would be ordinarily the case that you would then go to the Cypriots and urge them not to hand out passports to people on your terrorism list.

MR. FOLEY: Well, we hope that was not the case. Certainly, anything that involves terrorism and support for terrorists - be it through such facilities - would not be something that we approve.

QUESTION: Also he said that there were training camps in Greece and in Cyprus and that Turkey's allies are fully aware of the allegations. Do you have anything on that?

MR. FOLEY: We're not able to independently verify the reports coming out about what he may or may not have said in custody.

QUESTION: No, this is not him; this is prior to his arrest.

MR. FOLEY: I thought you said Ocalan.

QUESTION: No, the Turks have this information; they have given it to their allies. Do you have anything on that?

MR. FOLEY: I don't.

QUESTION: Do you have any comments about the three Americans who were kidnapped in Colombia?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I do. We have been contacted by the Amazon Coalition, which is an environmental group, regarding the kidnapping on February 25 of three US citizens. Our embassy in Bogota is working vigorously with Colombian authorities to secure their immediate and safe release. Our travel warning and consular information sheet for Colombia, which we issued last November, warns US citizens against unnecessary travel to Colombia.

I quote from it: "US citizens have been victims of recent threats, kidnappings and murders. US citizens of all age groups and occupations have been kidnapped, and kidnappings have occurred in all major regions of Colombia." So we are urging American citizens against unnecessary travel to Colombia.

In terms of the fact of this case, we are not in a position to identify which Americans were involved. We're notifying their next of kin, and I'm not able to confirm who may have taken them. I think people there have some idea as to who it may be, but it would certainly be premature for me to comment at this time; except that we urge their immediate and safe release.

QUESTION: In another sector of Latin America, do you have any comment on the trials in Cuba for the dissidents?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, this trial had been announced some time ago. It's apparently underway today in a suburb of Havana. The four all have been charged with sedition. The Cuban Government has not allowed foreign observers or the foreign media access to the courthouse. But we understand that over the weekend, Cuban security forces detained dozens of dissidents. We strongly denounce these actions by the Cuban Government, which reveal its utter disregard of the concerns of the international community, which has insisted that the four be released.

These actions underscore the deplorable human rights conditions in Cuba, as noted in our human rights report, which we issued on Friday. Many other organizations have similarly condemned Cuba's human rights record, such as America's Watch and Amnesty International.

QUESTION: In the previous question, you mentioned the Amazon Coalition. Did they take responsibility for the kidnapping?

MR. FOLEY: No, this is the group to which these Americans belonged, apparently. That's my understanding.

QUESTION: FARC leader also made an invitation to the United States Government to go down to the DMS and see that they're not linked to the narcotics business. At the same time, they are the ones that are blamed for the kidnapping of these three new Americans. Do you have any comments on that?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not in a position to confirm because I think we're not thoroughly able to confirm yet who may have been responsible for the kidnapping.

I think in terms of that offer, I can't give you an answer at this point as to whether we're going to entertain it seriously or not. But if we were to do so, what is most important to understand is that we would only take up such an offer if it were made with the approval or under the auspices of the Colombian Government.

We've been working very closely, as we indicated last week, with the Colombian Government and are eradicating record amounts of coca and opium poppy. This program is safe and effective and is an important component of our counter-narcotics program in Colombia. The US and Colombia are expanding our counter-narcotics efforts to include alternative development as well as eradication.

The FARC apparently has proposed a program of manual eradication. We believe that in the first instance, this is something that the FARC needs to work out with the Colombian Government.

QUESTION: The North Korea talks in New York, has anything come out of that?

MR. FOLEY: I hope not because, as you know, we have a habit or a practice of not commenting on those talks while they're in progress. They began on Saturday. There were no formal talks yesterday, and the sides are meeting again today at the US Mission in New York.

QUESTION: Are they going to continue Tuesday or are they going to wrap up today?

MR. FOLEY: I believe they will continue during the week. I can't tell you how long the talks will go, though. We have not fixed a specific end day to the talks.

QUESTION: Do you have a read-out of Dr. Perry's meeting with the President on Friday?

MR. FOLEY: No, I think we're never in the habit of giving read-outs of meetings that involve strictly American officials.

QUESTION: Is there any more word on when that report will be released, or his plans to travel to the region?

MR. FOLEY: Well, he is at work on his comprehensive review. It's not been completed by any means; it's a work in progress. When Dr. Perry has finished his comprehensive review and he has recommendations to make, then they will be discussed with senior policy-makers. We're not there yet, so I certainly don't have a timetable in that regard.

QUESTION: Jim, can you bring us up to date on the situation in Iraq -

MR. FOLEY: Are we finished in Asia?

QUESTION: Can you discuss his preliminary findings or his results?

MR. FOLEY: I told you, I'm not going to talk about what an envoy or an official of the US Government is saying with the President of the United States or other officials.

QUESTION: I want to come back to bilateral meeting in New York. As you know, there are a lot of optimistic reports -- (inaudible) -- Tokyo, which says the negotiation might reach the agreement on this session. Are you optimistic or pessimistic; and when do you forecast the conclusion for this meeting?

MR. FOLEY: I'm neither. We hope, obviously, to resolve our suspicions and to have them allayed by the means we have described previously. If that can be achieved, the sooner the better.

QUESTION: Have you had a chance to look at the election procedures in Nigeria? Do you think they were free and fair?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think we're basing our assessment to date on the international observers who have been there, as well as the work of our embassy. First of all, we would want to congratulate the citizens of Nigeria on the peaceful completion of polling for their new civilian government. We also note and appreciate the sincere and successful efforts of the current head of state, General Abubakar and his government, especially the Independent National Electoral Commission, to organize a complex electoral process in just a few months.

Based on what we have seen thus far, we believe the conduct of this election broadly reflected the will of the Nigerian people. Respected American and international observers have stated that the alleged and apparent election irregularities would not have affected the final outcome of the elections.

There have been irregularities reported: the stuffing of ballot boxes, for example, and discrepancies between what observers saw and inflated final tallies in some areas. It's important that these irregularities be addressed in a fair and transparent manner and, if confirmed, reviewed and investigated carefully. We therefore encourage the government and the people of Nigeria to work together to ensure a peaceful, fully inclusive and orderly transition between now and May 29. We call on all parties to continue to participate in the building of Nigeria's democratic institutions.

QUESTION: Can you bring us up to date on the - apparently the US struck some targets in Northern Iraq. There are allegations of that.

MR. FOLEY: I'd refer you to the Pentagon for any particular details about military activity. There were allegations concerning the pipeline I think you're referring to - going to Turkey. My information from the Pentagon - and again, I'd urge you to talk to them directly - is that US forces, in response to no-fly zone violations or threats to our aircraft, attacked a command and control center within Iraq's integrated air defense system and did not strike any oil pipeline.

QUESTION: Going on the subject of elections, do you have anything to say about the elections in Iran?

MR. FOLEY: Well, apparently vote counting continues there. These were the first local elections since the 1979 revolution. Our information is that the turnout was high. As I said, the results are still coming in; so it's impossible to comment on the results, but rather on the process to date.

The US Government views the holdings of these elections as a positive development. They represent a further step towards increased popular participation in the government.

QUESTION: I'm going back to Iraq. I know you can't comment on operational details, but any comment from this building on the fact that the US dropped more than 30 bombs on Iraq? Apparently that's the largest strike since Operation Desert Fox.

MR. FOLEY: You're echoing - the first question from Barry Schweid, I believe.

Well, I'm sure the response of the US military was proportionate to the nature of the threat that was directed at them. I think that it's important that Saddam Hussein get the message that we are going to enforce the no-fly zone, and that any attempt to violate that zone or to threaten our aircraft will be met with a swift and sure response.

QUESTION: You don't think Israel should have a proportionate response to Hezbollah?

(Laughter.)

They should get the message? It's amazing how in the same day, you could defend dropping 30 tons of bombs as a way of delivering a message. Well, anyhow, what is the end of all this? I mean, the Pentagon takes care, of course - this is a policy undergirded by force; so they took care of the force part and spoke to that. But this is getting to be a daily occurrence. Is there an end to this? I mean, what is the goal? What would you like to see happen? I guess not have the no-fly zone challenged but -

MR. FOLEY: Well, one thing that's happening is the continued attrition of Saddam's integrated air defense systems. If that is what he is aiming for, I think we will continue to cooperate in that endeavor.

QUESTION: The certification process -- there's a bipartisan leadership in Congress opposing the decision of this government to certify the narcotics fight in Mexico. Are you concerned that this position on Capitol Hill could affect the bilateral relationship with Mexico?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we have a multifaceted relationship with Mexico. The Mexican Government understands that we have an Executive Branch and a Legislative Branch, just as we increasingly deal with both the Mexican Government and the Mexican legislature. It's important, I think, that we bring both branches of government into the equation.

We certainly have been consulting with Congress, and will do so on our certification decisions. We stand by them. We believe that Mexico merited certification based on the efforts and the cooperation that we've received.

QUESTION: Are you concerned or not that this could affect the bilateral relationship?

Mexico is saying that, in Capitol - something, legislation or something received the approval from some of these chambers, that could affect or change policy.

MR. FOLEY: Well, Congress plays an important role in our country's foreign policy. That is a fact of life across the board. We conduct the diplomacy of the United States and make the decisions that we feel are right and correct for the United States. But Congress has a right to express itself and to its opinion. It's our job to explain our policies.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on Secretary Albright's meetings in China earlier today?

MR. FOLEY: Sorry, I don't comment on her trips when she's in a region.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on a group of tourists who were kidnapped in Uganda? I think half of them are believed to be Americans.

MR. FOLEY: Yes, we understand that an armed band attacked three groups of tourists in Bwindi guerrilla camp in Southwest Uganda, today, March 1. Three Americans, ten other foreigners and an unknown number of Ugandan nationals were taken captive by the band who identified themselves as Rwandan Hutus. Our embassy in Kampala has no information about the whereabouts of the kidnapped group. We are working with the Ugandan Government to determine their location. We are in the process of confirming the identity of those missing US citizens so that we can notify immediately their families. The embassy has activated its warden network to inform US citizens in Uganda of this incident, and to urge them to exercise caution. The State Department will, I expect, be issuing a public announcement on Uganda today.

QUESTION: Secretary Albright will be visiting Jakarta. Do you have any information where Secretary Albright will meet President Habibe and opposition leaders as well?

MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry. She's in the region, and her spokesman, Mr. Rubin, would be answering any questions concerning her travel.

Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 2:15 P.M.)

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