Read about The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923)
HR-Net - Hellenic Resources Network Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Thursday, 14 November 2024
 
News
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  Announcements
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Hosted
  Mirrored
  Interesting Nodes
Documents
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  Constitutions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Other
Services
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts
  Tools
  F.A.Q.
 

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #59, 99-05-05

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>


522

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Wednesday, May 5, 1999

Briefer: JAMES B. FOLEY

STATEMENTS POSTED
1	Swearing in of Robert Seiple, Ambassador-at-Large for International
	 Religious Freedom 
1	Notice on US hosted joint political/military discussions with Israel

SERBIA (KOSOVO) 1,2 Dr. Rugova in Rome - confirmed by press reports / Legitimate representative of people of Kosovo 2,3 Milosevic seeking peace settlement, but short of five core objectives / NATO air campaign intensifies 2-8 Update on Refugees / Arrival in US 3,4 G-8 meeting hosted by German Government: Opportunity to achieve a consensus on the requirements of the international community to achieve a stabilization of Kosovo, FRY and Balkan regions 4-8 War crimes Update / Serbian forces continue to kill, rape, and pillage Kosovar Albanians / International media is restricted / Hunger being used as a weapon toward refugees

RUSSIA (KOSOVO) 3 Russian position regarding Kosovo

MACEDONIA 5 Macedonia has closed border to refugees

INDONESIA (East Timor) 9,10 UN vote on autonomy in East Timor

MEPP 10-12 President Clinton's letter to Arafat / US support of a Palestinian statehood

TURKEY 13 Legal representation for Ocalan

LIBYA 8 US conditions for resuming diplomatic relations

CUBA 13-14 Members of baseball delegation return to Cuba voluntarily

DEPARTMENT 15-17 Ambassador Holbrooke / Standards of Conduct / Office of the Inspector General


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #59

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1999 1:40 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department. I don't have announcements. I'm going to post announcements - one on the swearing in today of Robert Seiple as Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom; secondly, a notice on the fact that the United States hosted joint political-military discussions with Israel on Monday. So I'll post those in the Press Office.

QUESTION: Dr. Rugova has surfaced in Rome. I wonder what you know about that and whether the US is talking to him?

MR. FOLEY: I've seen those press reports. I've just seen them in the last hour. I can't confirm that the United States has been in contact. I don't believe we have been in contact with him yet or with the Italian authorities. I think they referred to the fact that they were informing us. But certainly, we have no reason to doubt the press report that he has arrived in Rome. We are very glad that he's been able to leave the FRY, along with whatever members of his family who were allowed to leave with him.

Our understanding is that he had been asking for several weeks to be able to leave. We're, of course, sorry that he was subjected to pressure for that period of time that it took for him to be allowed to depart. But it is a positive development that he's been able to leave Belgrade or leave the FRY and is now apparently in Rome.

QUESTION: Is he trying to put together some sort of a peace deal?

MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, he has appeared on Serb-controlled television several times in the last several weeks, and we expressed, at that time, our desire for him to be able to depart the FRY with his family and be in a position to speak freely. Now, we can't be sure whether all the members of his family have departed with him or not, or the circumstances of his departure or what he's going to say now that he has arrived in Italy.

So I think it would be premature to comment on what he may or may not be saying. But obviously, we will be eager to have an opportunity to talk to him and hear his perspective on what's been happening to his people in Kosovo.

QUESTION: Do you still consider him to be the legitimate representative of the Kosovar people?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we have dealt with him for many years as a representative of the people of Kosovo. As Mr. Rubin has stated on numerous occasions recently in this briefing room the last time the Kosovars had an opportunity to self-select their leadership, they chose Mr. Thaci as the chairman of their negotiating team at Rambouillet and in Paris. But ultimately, this is a question for the Kosovars to decide, in terms of who is their leadership, what will their leadership look like. This is something that will be determined after NATO has reversed the ethnic cleansing, after the refugees have gone back and the international security force is able to put in place a secure environment that permits the Kosovars to exercise self- government and to conduct elections and, therefore, determine their leadership.

QUESTION: This is one of several goodwill gestures by Milosevic in recent days. Is it going to move the United States or NATO from its stated positions or demands?

MR. FOLEY: No, not one bit; not one bit. I think that we have been saying now for several weeks that the air campaign is picking up. The leaders of NATO, at the summit, agreed to intensify the air strikes. We have had an increase of air assets to the region. The weather has improved, although it was a little worse, I think, in the last 24 hours. But as President Clinton said, the weather is getting better as the spring moves on; as the spring turns into the summer it's going to get better and better. And already NATO aircraft are conducting operations around the clock with increasing efficiency and with an increasingly dramatic effect on not only the Serb infrastructure throughout the FRY, but on the forces on the ground.

In other words, time is not on Milosevic's side. He is facing an inexorable logic to the air campaign. He has no exit strategy, short of meeting NATO's five core demands. He doesn't have another arrow in his quiver, another military option that can change the logic of where this military campaign is going.

As I said, we are progressively taking apart the infrastructure that supports his war machine. Major regime assets that simply cannot be replaced are being destroyed. His military establishment, as well as the police apparatus that supports his rule, is being destroyed and will be systematically destroyed. He will be bereft of the instruments of dictatorial rule, as well as a national defense establishment, which the FRY requires in a volatile region.

So the only question that we face on our side is a question of will. In other words, do the allies have the will and the determination to continue the campaign until the objectives are met? I think, therefore, you could expect, from time to time, attempts on his part to show movement that is not real movement and to seek to exploit openings in order to achieve an endgame or an end state that does not meet the requirements of NATO and the international community.

So we have to be prepared for such half-baked measures or gestures along the way. But at the end of the day, provided that we maintain our determination, our unity and our will, he's going to have to come to terms with NATO's five core demands. The fact is, he's going to have a lot to answer for to his people when this conflict ends. He will have less to answer for if he ends the conflict now than if he waits until a month from now; and he'll have more to answer his people for if he waits two months instead of one month. That inexorable logic of what's happening to his military capabilities and to the infrastructure that supports his dictatorial rule are being taken away.

So I think you're right that we may see such signs from time to time - gambits on his part to try to achieve a settlement that's less than what the international community is demanding.

QUESTION: Just to follow up, why do you refer to these as half-baked gestures and gambits when this was a demand that NATO and the United States made which he's responded to?

MR. FOLEY: In order to stop the bombing, NATO has to achieve its five core objectives. So that's really the sine quo non of a political settlement. Nothing short of that will satisfy NATO.

QUESTION: Do you think he understands this when the US is returning Yugoslav soldiers? Doesn't that seem to support the notion he gives a little, you give a little? It sounds like his gambits get a response, no?

MR. FOLEY: Sure, he would be pleased if NATO halted its bombing.

QUESTION: No, but he does little things and you do little things. I suppose he and the world connect those two things.

MR. FOLEY: NATO will continue its air campaign, will continue to intensify its air campaign until he completely reverses course; until the refugees can go back - and, I might add, all the refugees go back. We've seen some statements out of Belgrade indicating that yes, refugees can go back; but in the meantime, they have shorn large numbers of the refugees of their identification documents, of all kinds of documentation that proves who they are, where they lived, what they did in order, at some point, to be able to deny them reentry. So that, too, is an empty promise.

We will not stop the air campaign until all the refugees can go back, until all the Serb forces are withdrawn, and until an international security force can go in and ensure security for the returning refugees, for the Serb minority, so that an autonomous self-government can be established in Kosovo, remaining within the FRY.

QUESTION: Did you mean that literally - that the bombing will go on until all the refugees have returned?

MR. FOLEY: President Clinton the other day, referring to the NATO Summit communique, indicated that we would be prepared to halt the bombing if we saw that the withdrawal was beginning, and it was beginning according to a precise time table. I can refer you to the summit communique language. So if we see that it's happening, sure.

QUESTION: Can you give us an update, please, on your objectives for the G- 8 meeting tomorrow? Some of the reports from Europe seem to suggest that there's a strong possibility that there might be some kind of deal in the making with the Russians; whereas yesterday, we had the impression here that this was rather unlikely. Did something happen in the meantime that makes you more optimistic?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I've not seen that particular report. Could you be a little more precise?

QUESTION: I think Chancellor Schroeder said some very kind of upbeat things about it.

MR. FOLEY: As Mr. Rubin indicated yesterday, we expect there will be a meeting tomorrow of the G-8 Foreign Ministers. The German Government has invited foreign ministers to a meeting, and we are working through the details of specific timing and other arrangements before we can confirm that it is taking place. But we're right now in discussions with the other G-8 members to plan for such a meeting. As I said, we expect it to take place.

We regard such a meeting as an excellent opportunity to coordinate closely with the G-8 partners on the political and economic aspects of the crisis in Kosovo, and also our efforts to support the neighboring states.

The Russian Government, as you know, has been active on the diplomatic front. Special Balkan envoy Chernomyrdin was just here for discussions. He met with UN Secretary General Annan in New York. We believe a G-8 meeting could provide an appropriate forum to continue these discussions and consultations.

So in other words, we see such a meeting as an opportunity to continue to try to achieve a consensus at the G-8 level on the requirements of the international community to settle this conflict on terms which will guarantee not only an end to the current fighting, not only a return to the refugees, but a stabilization of Kosovo, of the FRY and of the Balkans region. That's what we're working very hard, particularly with the Russians, on.

I don't want to make any predictions about what may come out of the meeting. We have not closed all gaps with the Russians, as you know. Given our talks of the last few days, we felt that we've made real progress with the Russians in terms of understanding each other's perspectives and in particular with the Russians understanding the logic, the rationale behind NATO's core demands. We hope to be able to work together, and that's what we're endeavoring to do, on a plan of action for ending this conflict on acceptable terms.

We're not there yet. I wouldn't, therefore, want to highlight or forecast what the results of tomorrow's meeting might be.

QUESTION: Okay, can I have a quick follow-up, then? Some of these reports say that in return for Russian support, the NATO members of the G-7 would be happy to drop the word "NATO" from some kind of final statement. Is that something that the United States would be happy to go along with?

MR. FOLEY: Well, this falls into the category, Jonathan, of that case where Secretary Albright is on the road, Mr. Rubin is with her; and the story, therefore, is on the road. I'd really have to refer you to the party in terms of what's happening now, what's going to happen tomorrow in Bonn. Certainly, one of our five cored demands - that NATO form the core of the international security force that will go into Kosovo at the end of this conflict - remains unalterable.

QUESTION: Can you give us some details regarding Madame Secretary's visit in Romania? The trip was postponed. Do you have any details?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have any update on her schedule. I'm not aware of her travel plans beyond what is occurring now in Germany.

QUESTION: Jim, a couple questions. There was a late report that Macedonia has closed their border. Do you have anything on that?

MR. FOLEY: I don't. Someone mentioned that to me as I was walking down the hallway. I don't have a comment. Obviously, it's very important that Macedonia continue to allow these refugees or deportees who are in great danger for their lives to be able to, in accordance with international norms, find refuge in neighboring countries.

We understand the pressures that Macedonia is laboring under, and we're doing everything we can -- we, the United States, the NATO alliance, the UNHCR, the international community - to help alleviate those pressures. As you know, this afternoon we are going to be receiving the first flight of 450-some refugees from Macedonia who will arrive in Fort Dix in a matter of hours. I believe the First Lady will be present at their arrival. There will be subsequent flights to Fort Dix, to New York over the weekend.

So we're doing everything we can to help alleviate the bottlenecks, to help alleviate the pressure on Macedonia. Efforts are being made to transport refugees out of Macedonia into Albania. There is, I believe, construction or plans for construction of further camps in Albania. We continue to encourage other nations also to take in refugees on a temporary basis to help alleviate the bottleneck.

So I can't confirm that report. I hope that it will be reversed if it is true, because it's very important that everyone work together to help deal with the plight of the refugees.

In that regard, I must say, some of the images that I saw - some of you may have seen on television last evening - of refugees just coming out of Kosovo were among the most heart-wrenching I've seen. There were largely women and children who indicated that they had been on the run basically for six weeks, moving from village to village. Their place of refuge would be burned down; they would flee to another village, it would be burned down. They finally, in the last two days, made their way to the border. I don't know if it was Macedonia or Albania. Short of the border, the men were separated to face a fate that we can only imagine. We've seen evidence or reports in the last days and weeks that men in these circumstances have been massacred.

So I think these images only drive home the need, obviously, for NATO to stay the course and to reverse ethnic cleansing, but for the neighboring states to do as much as they can with the help of the international community to help these refugees in their time of greatest danger.

On the war crimes situation, I have a brief update I can go through, in terms of some of our latest information or at least reports from refugees. Obviously, far from searching for a solution, Milosevic is continuing to have his forces kill, rape, mutilate, pillage and de-populate Kosovo of its ethnic Albanian inhabitants. The international media is barred from where Serb forces are committing these atrocities, and they're controlling what journalists are allowed to see. But we continue to hear from refugees, as I indicated, a number of accounts of different kinds of crimes and atrocities, including recently that Serb forces are burning or destroying the bodies of their victims.

In one case, in the Slatina area, 26 ethnic Albanian men were reportedly abducted and murdered and their corpses thrown down a well. The well was dynamited to destroy both the bodies and the well. In another case, refugees report that more than 60 ethnic Albanians were killed in Kacanik, between May 1 and 2. Witnesses report that a large number of bodies were taken to Urosevac, where their disposition is unknown. The judgment of our war crimes experts is that the Serbs appear, in a number of cases like these, to be trying to destroy evidence of crimes that they've been committing since before the NATO air strikes began.

In the last 48 hours, some 20,000 Kosovar Albanians arrived in Macedonia, many aboard packed trains. From a variety of sources we know of more than 500 towns, villages or settlements that have been wholly or partially destroyed by Serb forces. And according to the refugees, the Serb forces are now using hunger as a weapon against the Kosovar Albanian civilian population.

In many ways, the flight of refugees from Kosovo is increasingly a flight from hunger. Hundreds of thousands have sought refuge from Serb forces by hiding in camps in the mountains of Kosovo. Rather than feeding these refugees, we are getting increasing reports from inside Kosovo that the Serbs have been firing artillery shells at them up in the mountains. We've also, as you know, begun to see first-person accounts of rape and sexual violence.

So that's my latest information on that account.

QUESTION: Is there an alternative, is there a plan to somehow alleviate the military pressure on these refugees that they might flee, that they might make their exits? And do we know from the exiting refugees if, in fact, those people in the mountains want to be out of Kosovo?

MR. FOLEY: Well, that's very hard to say when you're talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of people who are displaced in remote areas of Kosovo. Certainly, they want to be free from the Serb forces, which, as I said, we've gotten reports that they are even firing at some of these poor people up in the mountains who are simply trying to escape from the Serb forces.

So presumably, they want to be safe; and if that means leaving Kosovo, then they ought to be allowed to leave Kosovo. We've seen the Serbs over the last month, six weeks have turned on and off the spigot, in terms of letting refugees or deportees, as they may be, leave Kosovo.

But in terms of our ability to help alleviate the pressure that they're under, that's difficult to say with specificity. But in a general sense, I think if you watch the NATO briefings lately, you've seen the sense that the air strikes are increasingly pinning down the Serb forces. They're increasingly hunkering down and they've lost mobility; not only because they are conserving fuel, since NATO has been successful in destroying the petroleum refineries and putting them under great pressure in that regard, but also because the air strikes themselves are becoming more and more intense and focused on the Serb forces on the ground. So we see evidence that they're hunkering down and that the KLA, for its part, we understand, is in a better position to harass the Serb forces.

So in that sense, I don't want to say that the situation has changed markedly for the internally displaced persons, but we see evidence - and the KLA confirms it - that the Serb forces are less mobile and less in a position to harass people.

QUESTION: On refugees also, in light of the continued flow out of Kosovo and the beginning of the arrival here at the US and we got the briefing last week from Julia Taft, saying that it will continue in the next few weeks. Is there any thought in the US or NATO to raise the 20,000 number that the US is willing to accept, or other NATO countries raising the number of refugees they're willing to accept?

MR. FOLEY: I believe Prime Minister Blair, who was in Macedonia the other day, indicated that the UK would increase the numbers of refugees it was willing to take in. We applaud that. Germany has done, really, a remarkable job not just during this crisis, but over the years, in taking in Kosovo refugees. Turkey, of course, is very willing to take them in. We're trying to look at ways to help transport refugees to that country and elsewhere. We continue to encourage countries around the world to do their part.

I think those of you who read widely in the newspapers have been able to tell in some sense it might be surprising, given what these people have gone through and what they know will await them when they go home, they want to go home. I think there was one newspaper article about those, I think who were getting on the airplane today to fly to Fort Dix, who said they were happy for American hospitality, grateful for it, but they want to go home. So that's very encouraging.

In terms of our numbers, we've said that we're willing to take in 20,000. We're going to get the first 453 today. I think the numbers over the next weeks may be to the tune of several thousand a week. That's a very rough guess. But it's going to take some time before we reach the 20,000 level, and I think that's a hypothetical question and I couldn't answer it at this point.

QUESTION: Speaking of their going home, is there a chance, in your opinion, that any refugees could get back into Kosovo this year?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we'll have to see how long it takes for the NATO air campaign to hammer Milosevic and his forces enough that he reverses course. I think, as I was saying a few minutes ago, this is going to be his decision to make. Whether it's his alone to make is an interesting question. The fact is that the Yugoslav people, the people of Serbia, may have their own calculus. We've seen Mr. Draskovic and others talk about the fact that they are going to lose; that NATO is only stronger; the bombing is intensifying; and that the writing is on the wall. As this goes on, Serbia, its infrastructure, its military infrastructure, its military capabilities are being taken away and simply won't exist when this is over.

We've also seen indications in the military of the consciousness of that. These are officers who have a certain pride, certain sense of honor, certain loyalty to the institution of the military who recognize that needs to play a role - the military - in Serbia in the region, presumably - as I said, a still volatile region - and that won't be possible as this continues. So they may have their own calculus. To the extent that either civil society or disgruntled military officers have an impact on Milosevic is anyone's guess. I think there's every reason to continue to assume that Milosevic will make the decision on when he's had enough on the basis of what supports his personal interests.

But the point I tried to make a few minutes ago is that there will be a reckoning in Serbia when this is over, and he will have a lot of explaining to do to his people. He will have less explaining to do if he ends it now, sooner rather than later.

QUESTION: What about the refugees who prefer to stay here rather than go home, even if conditions permit?

MR. FOLEY: Right. What's your question?

QUESTION: Well, will they be allowed to stay here?

MR. FOLEY: Yes. Once they land in the United States, they have the rights of refugees. I believe within a year - I think it's one year - they're able to apply for permanent residence.

QUESTION: Will they be all going to homes of people who have volunteered to take them in? Have they all been placed so far?

MR. FOLEY: Well, our first priority is to try to take refugees who have family members in the US who want to take them in. I believe that the flight that arrives in New York on Saturday is constituted largely of that category of persons, who have family members in the US. So we're going to continue to try to identify family members in the US and match them up with refugees in Macedonia.

Secondly, there may be Kosovar Albanian or Albanian Americans who are willing to take in refugees, even if they're not family members. So that's sort of a second category of priority. But we will take in 20,000 regardless of whether they're all going to be family members. Non- government organizations - I believe there are upwards of ten around the country - will be in charge of resettlement, finding the communities and the local infrastructure that will support refugees in conformity with our normal practice.

QUESTION: Just another refugee one, I'm sorry. The timing was a bit unclear in terms of when the refugees actually can start going back. How long do the planners say that it will take for this permissive environment to exist before the refugees can start going back in?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think that in the first instance, it's going to be a military question. When the Serb forces withdraw and the international security force and NATO are moving in, our military commanders are going to have to assess the situation in terms of the security environment. Clearly, that will be the paramount concern: are they able to go back safely number one; number two, we will have to mobilize the international community, the refugee and humanitarian agencies to also help create the conditions inside Kosovo where these people are able to survive during the reconstruction period that will have to take place.

I wish I could give you a precise answer, but this is going to depend on a military assessment and also on the humanitarian situation at the time when the Serb forces leave and the international force goes in.

QUESTION: Can you tell us anything specific about attempts to get in touch with Mr. Rugova; and who do you expect to do this on behalf of the US Government?

MR. FOLEY: Well, Jonathan, this is a hot-off-the-press story. We've just seen that he's arrived in Rome. Undoubtedly, US people will have an opportunity to speak to him. The Italians, I'm sure, are already speaking to him. I think we'll be able to answer that at some point, but not immediately.

QUESTION: New subject, if that's all right. East Timor - I just wanted to ask what the State Department reaction is to the agreement being signed today in the UN that provides for a vote on autonomy in East Timor and the concerns that it could spark more violence between the integrationists and pro-independence groups. Also, a Washington Post editorial recently said that Australia must take a lead in keeping the peace in East Timor. I'm wondering what the State Department's view of that is.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I wouldn't want to comment on The New York Times editorial, but in terms of our view of what's happening now, Ministerial delegations from Portugal and Indonesia are meeting today in New York with the Secretary General's Special Envoy Jamsheed Marker to consider an agreement to have the UN facilitate a vote by East Timorese on an Indonesian autonomy proposal. It is hoped that they will be able to formally sign the agreement at the conclusion of these talks.

The United States strongly supports the New York process, and we call on all sides to cooperate in establishing a UN presence with appropriate security guarantees as soon as possible to begin preparations for the vote. Whether Australia itself plays a role in that UN presence, I wouldn't want to prejudge. But our view is that it needs to be a presence that's able to guarantee the security of the vote.

We also call on Indonesia to facilitate unimpeded access for organizations providing humanitarian assistance throughout East Timor.

Now, the larger question of whether East Timor becomes independent or an autonomous unit within Indonesia is, in our view, for the people concerned to decide. Now, if the parties to the New York talks authorize a direct ballot of East Timorese on Indonesia's autonomy proposal, the focus of attention should immediately turn to ensuring that this vote is fair, peaceful and free of intimidation. We look forward to working with the UN and others to support preparations of the ballot. We call on all parties to fully live up to their commitments under the agreement.

QUESTION: Another area - there's a report in (inaudible) newspaper that the United States representatives and Libyan representatives met in Rome last week on easing relations. Can you confirm that that happened?

MR. FOLEY: No, I cannot.

QUESTION: They didn't meet?

MR. FOLEY: I heard that report this morning and asked around, and nobody in the State Department knows about it. I don't believe it's true.

QUESTION: Another subject - the Administration has dropped its challenge to a lawsuit by a Saudi businessman who owned that the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan. Does this mean - in effect, freeing his $24 million in assets. Does this mean that the Administration is now beginning to doubt the --

MR. FOLEY: No, not at all; not at all. It's not about the decision to strike the El Shifa plant. In fact, our actions against the plant were not predicated on the gentleman's ownership of the plant. I think we indicated at the time we didn't know he was the owner until after the strike.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about the Middle East? The President has written a letter to Mr. Arafat. I'm sure you've seen it.

MR. FOLEY: I've heard about it; I haven't seen it.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, heard about it or saw quotations from it and/or excerpts from it. In it, he says --

MR. FOLEY: Reported.

QUESTION: You think there's doubt that he wrote the letter, is that what you're saying?

MR. FOLEY: No, reported excerpts. I don't doubt that he wrote the letter; we've confirmed that.

QUESTION: Well, you've confirmed the excerpts?

MR. FOLEY: No, confirmed the letter.

QUESTION: Well, if you're going to begin by saying you don't know he's ever said these things, there's no point in my asking any questions.

MR. FOLEY: You can ask the question, Barry, go ahead.

QUESTION: The President assured Mr. Arafat that he believes that they have a right to be free in their own land. He never uses the word "statehood." Does the US support statehood at this point for the Palestinians?

MR. FOLEY: We believe that's a matter to be determined in permanent status negotiations. Now, as to the letter, we've seen numerous press reports regarding the text of the letter that President Clinton sent to Chairman Arafat. I am not going to comment on what, for us, remains a private communication.

I can tell you there's been no change in our policy, that the only way to resolve all final status issues is through direct negotiations between the parties. We're not going to say or do anything to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations.

Consistent with what the President said when he was in Gaza, we have made it clear that the United States supports the aspirations of the Palestinian people to determine their own future on their own land. But we've also said that negotiations are the only realistic and acceptable way to fulfill those aspirations.

QUESTION: I don't understand how the Palestinians can be free, in the President's words, to determine their own future, if at the same time, their future has to be determined jointly with Israel. Doesn't one contradict the other?

MR. FOLEY: No, because both Israel and the Palestinians are partners in the peace process. We don't believe that either side should decide or preempt through unilateral declarations or moves what needs to be negotiated at the negotiating table.

QUESTION: Well, if that were the case, the President would say, "I believe the Palestinians have a right to be free - comma -- subject to Israeli's approval."

MR. FOLEY: Our policy is that we support the aspirations of the Palestinians --

QUESTION: What are the aspirations?

MR. FOLEY: -- to determine their own future in their own land.

QUESTION: Freely - and free.

MR. FOLEY: We've not defined what their aspirations are.

QUESTION: No, but it says to freely determine their own future. Anyhow, I see where this is leading, so let's ask you if it is still - last question - the Bush Administration informed Israel that it opposes Palestinian statehood. Is that position operative in this Administration?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we are not going to oppose what the parties themselves agree to; but we're not going to prejudge what the parties may agree to. Therefore, we're not going to take a position ourselves on permanent status issues.

QUESTION: So when the Bush Administration says it opposes statehood, that was the Bush Administration's position? There were negotiations in the Bush Administration, too. Negotiations didn't begin on your watch; it began a long time ago.

MR. FOLEY: I'm not going to stand here and either offer unilateral US positions on something we need the two parties need to decide themselves.

QUESTION: I'm not asking you to. I'm asking if one Administration makes a statement if it's binding on the next Administration.

MR. FOLEY: I'm simply saying that we're not going to take a position on an issue that we believe the two parties need to decide themselves.

QUESTION: Can you confirm that Mr. Pickering has pledged more support for the Nigerian-led Africa force?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have a read-out of his current trip. I'd prefer to take the question and get back to you later or tomorrow. Certainly we are very supportive of the transition to democracy. We have welcomed the elections and we've indicated we want to work very closely and supportively with the new government. But as to the details of his trip, I prefer to be careful and get you the right answer.

QUESTION: On Turkey, do you have anything to say about the legal representation the Turkish Government is allowing for Mr. Ocalan? His attorneys are threatening to quit today because --

MR. FOLEY: I've not seen that report. To be perfectly honest, I had some information on that, I think last week, and I can get it for you in the Press Office. But I have not seen that latest report.

QUESTION: Can I just go back to Libya a moment? Can you spell out for us exactly what US conditions are for resuming diplomatic relations with Libya now that the Lockerbie affair is pretty well out of the way?

MR. FOLEY: We have still important ongoing concerns in the area of terrorism or support or terrorism or harboring terrorists that remain on the list --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - Syria --

MR. FOLEY: We are concerned about issues of weapons of mass destruction. I don't have a list of all the particulars, but we have still, as I indicated, several major areas of remaining concern with the Libyans that we want to see addressed before -- as you know, we have bilateral sanctions that aren't covered by the UN - before we consider adjusting our sanctions policy against Libya.

QUESTION: Can you be more specific about what they need to do, other than merely address you concerns, which is a bit vague?

MR. FOLEY: Well, that's not unimportant - address our concerns. Address our concerns means sever all ties with international terrorism; stop harboring of terrorists; stop providing financial support to terrorists or to those destabilizing other governments. It means halt production or development of weapons of mass destruction. Address, yes, it's a diplomatic term, but it has some very important meaning when it comes to what our expectations are.

QUESTION: Well, why do you require these of the Libyans when you don't require these of the Syrians?

MR. FOLEY: Syria remains on the terrorism list. We continue --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - my question --

MR. FOLEY: Look, I'm not going to get into an apples-and-oranges discussion with you.

QUESTION: On Cuba, did the State Department get to meet with the six Cubans that got left behind yesterday; and are you satisfied that they left voluntarily?

MR. FOLEY: Not the State Department, but let me give you the information that I do have. All of you have seen the press reports that one individual has sought asylum. As you know I am constrained; it is a general policy of the US Government to neither confirm nor deny requests for asylum.

But on the issue of the other six, you've also seen in the press reports that six missed their return flight to Havana yesterday. We learned yesterday that they had overslept and missed their flight. There was no indication from them that they wished to remain in the United States.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service spoke with the individuals. There were no Cuban diplomats present. They spoke separately and privately with them, and all the individuals assured the INS that their return to Cuba was voluntary.

QUESTION: Do you know where the interviews took place?

MR. FOLEY: I believe at the airport, but I'd refer you to the INS for any specific details.

QUESTION: A North Korea question. There is a report that Dr. Perry's visiting North Korea - is planning to visit North Korea sometime this month. Can you say anything of this?

MR. FOLEY: I have no information in that regard; nothing to announce, certainly.

QUESTION: Also, the timing of the Perry report - anything on sometime this month or whenever?

MR. FOLEY: I don't believe it's imminent, but he's working on it. He's obviously been consulting in the region with our allies, in the Administration, with the Congress actively; and his review continues.

QUESTION: There are reports that Ambassador Holbrooke took time off in some sensitive negotiations to go off and give some private speeches. Is that a matter of concern to the Department?

MR. FOLEY: The article would be a matter of concern if we took it seriously, but it is inaccurate and, frankly, with all respect, a ridiculous article.

President Clinton and Secretary Albright have periodically asked Ambassador Holbrooke to undertake missions on behalf of the US Government, and he's always done so thoroughly and conscientiously. Ambassador Holbrooke has, throughout, been a valuable part of the Administration's team working on Kosovo issues. There should be no suggestion that the US policy that he was advancing was affected adversely in the manner implied in the story printed today.

With regard to the specific negotiations referred to in the article, Ambassador Holbrooke accomplished what he was asked to do. His role concluded at each stage based on decisions made by those involved, that this was in the best interest of the mission.

On the particulars, this is just really shoddy reporting. Ambassador Holbrooke canceled his trip to New York and never gave the so-called "Siemans Speech" that was mentioned in the article. In other words, the whole predicate of the article is simply untrue. He canceled the speech; he never left Belgrade to go give a speech in New York. He canceled the speech. Certainly, a call to his office could have confirmed this.

That was the allegation concerning events in October of last year, 1998. With regard to the June allegations, Ambassador Holbrooke left the region only after consultation with all the relevant decision-makers, and when it was deemed appropriate that his participation end. He did not give a speech; I think he gave a commencement address in Athens that was not compensated. I think the journalist mistook a speech that he actually gave in Switzerland several days later.

Furthermore, as we've noted and as most other press organizations have reported today, the Inspector General's investigation is now closed and found no evidence of a clear violation of the standards of conduct. The blame for the failure to reach a negotiated settlement in Kosovo rests on the shoulders of Slobodan Milosevic, and not on anyone else.

If you'd like, I can go into some of the more particulars of the article, because he reports - the journalist - about Ambassador Holbrooke's negotiations in Belgrade of June 1998, and then he writes that Mr. Holbrooke's departure from Pristina - in other words, in June 1998 - was followed by a peace proposal that was seen as little more than an ultimatum to Mr. Milosevic, congressional critics say. The peace proposal they're referring to was the proposal that the Contact Group put on the table at Rambouillet some many, many, many months later - at least half a year - following Ambassador Holbrooke's departure at that time, in June 1998, from Belgrade.

Furthermore, referring to the October 1998 departure of Ambassador Holbrooke, the journalist writes that Mr. Milosevic reneged on the agreement reached by Ambassador Holbrooke in Belgrade in October 1998: "Milosevic reneged on the agreement, after Mr. Holbrooke departed to speak to executives at Siemans." Number one, he did not depart to speak to executives at Siemans; he canceled that speech. Number two, Mr. Milosevic did not renege on that agreement in October 1998. At the time, that was a successful agreement in which a cease-fire was reached; Milosevic agreed to withdraw some of his forces in Kosovo, which he did at the time; and he agreed to the introduction of the Kosovo Verification Mission.

Milosevic reneged on his promises made in October 1998 several months later; several months following the speech that Ambassador Holbrooke never gave in New York.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - would you care to speculate that any of this has a particular political flavor to it, given the publication and the source of the allegations?

MR. FOLEY: I couldn't speculate on it; I wouldn't.

QUESTION: Secondarily, is it now the policy of the State Department Inspector General to release the results of its investigations, or was that just a special for The New York Times?

MR. FOLEY: I haven't even seen the article; I couldn't comment on it.

MR. JOHNSON: There was no statement.

MR. FOLEY: No statement, no.

QUESTION: There was a statement issued last night to The New York Times, similar to the one you just gave; at least that's what the newspaper said.

MR. FOLEY: I'm told there was not a statement.

QUESTION: So the paper like - would you care to take that paper on the same way you just took on The Washington Times about the inaccuracy of the article, misrepresentation of -- the mischaracterization of the statement or whatever from the State Department Inspector General?

MR. FOLEY: Sure, if they misreported a statement, I'd be glad to do so; I'd be glad to check the record in the meantime.

QUESTION: Well, in the interest of fairness, it seems like you should since you just had pages and pages of guidance debunking a story in one newspaper, which the Administration doesn't particularly like, and then you had nothing at all on what this other --

MR. FOLEY: Pages and pages of guidance is not quite precise.

QUESTION: That's what it sounded like.

MR. FOLEY: I was largely leafing through the article and doing some text explication as we went along.

QUESTION: Well, in the interest of fairness --

MR. FOLEY: But the Inspector General's office is independent; they are not subject to coordination with the Press Office. So I'd be glad to look into the question. I'm told that they did not issue a statement.

QUESTION: My curiosity with this doesn't go to either newspaper account, but goes to the fact that you've told us that the Inspector General's investigation is now closed. I thought there was never any comment about their investigations.

MR. FOLEY: They don't while something is happening.

QUESTION: Well, so, my follow-up is, can you tell us anything about the report of an investigation now that is closed?

MR. FOLEY: Simply the conclusion. I'm certainly, myself, haven't been privy to the report itself. But I read to you the conclusion just at the start of my answer.

QUESTION: So is that a new policy now? You all will, once the IG has finished an investigation, you will then tell us the conclusion of it?

MR. FOLEY: Well, if you recall, when the IG completed its last investigation of Ambassador Holbrooke and there was an agreement between Ambassador Holbrooke and the Justice Department, this was confirmed.

QUESTION: Yes, but there's been - they do thousands of investigations a year. If we were to ask you about one or the other, we could expect - and it was completed, we could then expect an answer?

MR. FOLEY: Well, they don't comment on - as I said, they are independent, first of all. So I would, in the first instance, refer you to them in terms of their policy. Secondly, my understanding is they don't comment on ongoing investigations. Whether they have a general rule or not about informing the public or the journalists about the closure of an investigation subsequent to an investigation, I truly don't know.

QUESTION: This is just suspicious - this is such a high profile individual under investigation --

MR. FOLEY: What's suspicious, Sid?

QUESTION: That in this one case among many, and you're asked a lot about, they're asked a lot about, that you should care to comment on it. That's my --

MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry, that I should care to comment on the article that I was asked about?

QUESTION: That the State Department Inspector General should pick out one case among the thousands it investigates every year and decide to release or tell or comment on the results.

MR. FOLEY: So you're implying that you've asked thousands of times of the Inspector General whether they've completed an investigation or not. As I said, in terms of their general policy as to whether they comment publicly when they've completed an investigation, I'd refer you to the Inspector General.

QUESTION: Now that this one is complete, can you tell us whether there are any pending investigations into Mr. Holbrooke's various affairs? And if there are none, then how soon can we expect this nomination process to go forward?

MR. FOLEY: I'd have to refer you to the Inspector General.

Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 2:25 P.M.)

[end of document]


U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
Back to Top
Copyright © 1995-2023 HR-Net (Hellenic Resources Network). An HRI Project.
All Rights Reserved.

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.01b run on Thursday, 6 May 1999 - 18:14:52 UTC