Contribute to the HR-Net Forum 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
Sunday, 24 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 #66, 99-05-18

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>


1021

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Tuesday, May 18, 1999

Briefer: James B. Foley

STATEMENTS
1	US-Baltic Partnership Commission Meeting
1	Violation of Cease-Fire by Government of Sudan

SERBIA (Kosovo) 1-3,4 Deputy Secretary Talbott's Meetings with Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin 5-6,9 and Finnish President Ahtisaari in Helsinki Regarding Kosovo 2,4-5 Reported Rift in Alliance Regarding Kosovo 3,4,8 Indications Belgrade Government Moving Towards NATO's Conditions 3 Update on NATO Military Activity 6-7,8,9-10 Prospects for the Use of Ground Forces/Environment 7-8 UN Special Envoys on Kosovo 10-11 Release of Serb POWs/Timing

DEPARTMENT 11,13-14 Brian Atwood Withdraws His Nomination as US Ambassador to Brazil 14 Status of Richard Holbrooke's Nomination as US Ambassador to UN

ISRAEL 11-13 Reaction to Elections in Israel/Impact on Peace Process

IRAN/SYRIA 13 Iranian President Khatemi's Visit to Syria

NORTH KOREA 14-15 State Department Team Visit to Suspect Site at Kumchang-ni 15 Prospects for Visit by Dr. Perry to North Korea

SOUTH KOREA 15-16 Secretary Albright and Foreign Minister Hong's Meetings

CHINA 16-17 Status of US Embassy and Consulates/Damage/Operations


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #66

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1999, 1:55 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department. Sorry to have kept all of you waiting so long. I hope you at least -

QUESTION: This better be good.

MR. FOLEY: Yes, this better be good, and I hope you at least had an opportunity oh have your lunch, unless I'm going to be the main course.

(Laughter.)

That remains to be determined. I'm going to post some messages -- some statements in the Press Office. One, I regret that because Deputy Secretary Talbott had to go to Helsinki, we had to postpone the US-Baltic Partnership Commission meeting. He met with the Baltic ambassadors here to express our continued commitment to that forum on May 17.

Secondly, the US has learned that the government of Sudan bombed the towns of Akak and Nyamlel in Bahr el-Ghazal on May 16 and 17, killing at least one person. We strongly condemn this bombing attack, which clearly violates the humanitarian cease-fire in place there since July of 1998. With that, George, let me go to your questions.

QUESTION: You mentioned Strobe Talbott's travels. Do you have anything on his meetings today?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have a read-out yet of his discussions in Helsinki with former Prime Minister Chernomyrdin and Finnish President Ahtisaari. I know he spoke with Secretary Albright at some point this morning, but those meetings were ongoing. Clearly, the purpose of Secretary Talbott's meetings in Helsinki is to advance the diplomatic track. Even as we intensify the air campaign - and if you're interested, I can get into that in a minute - the growing results of the air campaign on the ground, we are also intensifying diplomatic work in the hopes of achieving a diplomatic settlement.

Now, there's a lot of speculation, a lot of activity about what's happening diplomatically. However, I think the critical point is that the diplomacy is something that can be accelerated and that can reach a successful conclusion if Mr. Milosevic makes a simple decision to accept the NATO conditions, to accept the G-8 principles. Therefore, we could end the bombing campaign, obviously, if he agreed to those conditions and we saw a withdrawal taking place along the lines of what was called for in the NATO summit communique.

So Deputy Secretary Talbott is in Helsinki. I don't have a read-out at this point, but clearly what he is doing is with our Russian partner, he's working to flesh out some of the details further of the principles that were agreed in the G-8. That process will also occur at a lower level beginning tomorrow in Bonn, where the G-8 political directors will be meeting, and they will be discussing coordination of diplomatic activity. They'll be looking at the possibility, as we've stated previously, of moving towards a UN Security Council resolution, in the event that we're able to reach consensus in the G-8 on all the details that have continued to elude us. Even though we have agreement on the general principles, the hard work of fleshing out those details is ongoing.

So I don't have, as I said, a read-out, but Secretary Talbott will be reporting at the conclusion of those talks to Secretary Albright, and perhaps we'll be in a position tomorrow to talk more about it.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - excuse my pronunciation - has said that President Ahtisaari and former Prime Minister Chernomyrdin will be going to Finland this week.

MR. FOLEY: Going where?

QUESTION: To Belgrade this week. Is that your understanding? And there's also some word of a rift on one side - the British and the French - the other side, the Americans, having to do with President Ahtisaari's role in these consultations.

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of any rift of that nature. I believe that all the allies are supportive of President Ahtisaari's role. In fact, the EU yesterday formally designated President Ahtisaari as their Kosovo envoy, so I believe they have confidence in him.

Your first question was - oh, about their travel, yes. Well, I wouldn't rule that out. I'm not aware that that has been decided. I suppose Deputy Secretary Talbott will learn more about that on the basis of his discussions with them tomorrow. I wouldn't rule out that one or both would go to Belgrade at some point.

I think what's important, though, as I've indicated, is that the international community reach consensus; that we speak with one voice; that we are able to present President Milosevic with a sense of what he has to do. I mean, it's clear that if he wants NATO to stop its bombing, he has to meet the NATO five conditions. In that sense, it's very easy for President Milosevic to know what to do and, in fact, to do it.

But in terms of bringing together the full weight of the international community and of the G-8, of which Russia is a leading member, we need to continue fleshing out those details, as I indicated.

QUESTION: There have been more reports of indications that the Belgrade Government is adjusting its position towards meeting the NATO conditions, especially through the Italians this time. Have you heard of any signs along those lines?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we've been reading signs coming out of Belgrade for several weeks now. If you go back to the period when former Deputy Prime Minister Draskovic spoke out, and then was fired for having spoken out, the interesting thing is the views that he was expressing have been echoed increasingly in different circles in Belgrade and throughout Serbia. We've seen cronies of Milosevic describe the G-8 principles as those that Milosevic ought to accept. We've seen mayors around the country express similar sentiments. We know that retired generals are deeply concerned about the fact that the Yugoslav Army is being progressively destroyed. There were even reports of demonstrations that came out of the Montenegrin press yesterday, in several, or at least in two cities in southern Serbia in response, I think, to call-ups of reservists to be sent into Kosovo. I think there were two cities - let me see if I have those names here - but in any case, we see growing signs of an awareness in Belgrade that the result of continued air strikes is inevitable.

Secretary Albright and Foreign Secretary Cook wrote in their joint opinion piece that appeared in the newspaper on Sunday, it's clear where this will lead to if Milosevic does not reverse course, does not accept NATO's conditions and allow this conflict to end. He will have no military when this is over. His security forces, which are the underpinning of his regime, are being weakened. He's going to have a lot to answer for to his people, more and more, as this continues. So we see that these signs -- and I think there were statements coming out of Belgrade today, semi-official, indicating an openness to embrace the G-8 principles -- we see these as signs that, indeed, the NATO air campaign is working.

In that regard, let me just give you a brief snapshot of NATO's military activity in the last 24 hours. A very heavy series of attacks in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. NATO is locating an increasing number of military targets and of fielded forces in Kosovo. Yesterday, tanks, armored personnel carriers, mortar positions and fielded forces were hit in the areas of Junik, Prizren, Podujevo; two tanks were hit, a refueling truck, three helicopters were hit. Throughout Serbia, NATO struck three highway bridges on main re-supply routes into Kosovo. The military air field at Batanica was targeted. A MiG 29 and MiG 21 located there were destroyed. In addition to the one in Batanica, the military air fields at Sombor, Sjenica, Nij and Obrua have been damaged, and are not now being used. NATO also struck a surface-to-air missile site and its radar.

In other words, this campaign is punishing and there are only so many assets in the Serb military inventory. Certainly we know where they're concentrated in Kosovo, and they are being taken apart one by one. It is a steadily intensifying campaign, the results of which I think are being brought home in Belgrade. So if they are signaling an openness to the G-8 principles, that is a positive step. It's a sign that our dual strategy of intensifying the air campaign, of intensifying diplomatic efforts is beginning to show results.

QUESTION: On the diplomatic front, if Deputy Secretary Talbott and Mr. Chernomyrdin are not able to bridge any of the outstanding gaps, does the US think that it's still worthwhile for Chernomyrdin to go to Belgrade this week?

MR. FOLEY: As I said earlier, the diplomatic solution can come quickly. It's really in Milosevic's hands. As General Clark has said on many occasions, when he's had enough, when his forces and his security forces have taken so much punishment, he can decide at any point that he's got to bring it to an end. So it's not so much, as Jamie Rubin has often said, a question of who is the interlocutor, what the vehicle may be; it's ultimately an easy decision for Milosevic to make. It would be better if we're able to narrow the gaps with Russia. We've reached agreement on the principles but, as you know, there are differences on the details.

Were we to narrow the gaps, were we to reach a sort of detailed, fleshed- out consensus with Russia in the G-8, clearly that will put more diplomatic pressure on Milosevic; and that's all to the good. But we believe that the air campaign is also that which is going to produce movement on Milosevic's part, to say the very least. So we are continuing the air campaign. So in the absence of further progress among the G-8, I wouldn't want to rule out that another trip by Mr. Chernomyrdin or someone else wouldn't be fruitful because Milosevic simply knows that the air campaign, which is becoming harder and harder for him and his regime to take, will continue until he meets our conditions.

QUESTION: So does the US still believe that it's possible that Milosevic would accept the conditions that the G-8 has laid out without Russia and the United States having narrowed those gaps?

MR. FOLEY: Well as I said, it's preferable if we narrow the gaps and if we achieve consensus. That's what Deputy Secretary Talbott is working hard on; that's what the political directors at their level are working on. That is a goal and we think it will increase the diplomatic isolation and the diplomatic pressure. But as I mentioned, we have a dual strategy: one is diplomatic, the other is an intensification of the air campaign.

QUESTION: Just to follow that line of thinking, can you foresee a situation where, as the air campaign continues to punish Yugoslavia, that envoys would go to Belgrade with not a complete consensus between the US and Russia on the details of these G-8 principles, but sort of close enough to a consensus?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not ruling that out. Certainly our preference is to close the gaps with Russia, to achieve consensus on the details -- and we already have consensus on the general principles. But it's always possible - - we don't dictate the schedules of other emissaries and other diplomats -- it's always possible that they may go at a time and place of their own choosing. The message that NATO's air campaign is continuing, I think, is the one that has the profoundest impact on Milosevic.

QUESTION: Before you said it's important for the allies to speak with one voice. But is that starting not to happen because Italy and Germany are coming forward saying that there should be a halt to the bombing to see if that would prompt Milosevic to go ahead and concede to NATO's demands? I mean, are we starting to see some of those cracks?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure I used those words exactly, but the fact is that NATO is united on the goals. There is absolutely no question of any NATO member not continuing to support the goal of returning the refugees under the protection of an international security force with NATO at its core and the withdrawal of the Serb security, military and paramilitary forces. So there's unity on the goals; there's unity on the air campaign. That came out at the NATO summit. The 19 leaders agreed not only on the air campaign, but on intensifying the air campaign.

It's perfectly natural in an alliance of 19 democracies that leaders speak out publicly on the different tactics that we are currently examining and the different diplomatic options and activities that are out there. But all of the diplomacy is aiming towards the same goal, and it's the goal that all the NATO allies support, which is Milosevic meeting the NATO five conditions.

On the specific question about Prime Minister D'Alema statement or proposal, I would simply say at this stage it's a hypothetical question because I believe the Prime Minister's idea was that he would propose a pause that would take place after the UN Security Council has passed a resolution. This, obviously, would presuppose reaching detailed consensus in the G-8 -- in other words, with Russia - and in the Security Council, it would require, obviously, Chinese acquiescence and a Security Council vote.

Our view in the United States remains that a halt in the bombing will be possible once Milosevic has agreed to NATO's five conditions and has demonstrably begun to withdraw his forces according to a precise and rapid timetable. That's not, as you know, my normal elegant language; that's the elegant language of the NATO communique that the leaders agreed to a number of weeks ago.

QUESTION: You said earlier that you might be able to give us a read-out on the meetings in Helsinki tomorrow. Does that mean that these talks are going to continue tomorrow morning? Have they stopped for the night?

MR. FOLEY: No, I - first of all, it's not a commitment for me to give you a detailed read-out. As you know, we've not given detailed read-outs concerning Deputy Secretary Talbott's meetings, but we have indicated at points when progress has been registered - we've communicated that. And I would hope that Mr. Rubin would be in a position to give you a general sense tomorrow. I am not aware that the meetings are continuing into tomorrow; I just don't know that.

QUESTION: Are they still going on?

MR. FOLEY: They're still going on.

QUESTION: And is it your understanding that Chernomyrdin will go to Belgrade tomorrow, with or without Ahtisaari?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't know if I adequately answered that a minute ago. I'm not aware of what his specific plans are. I think Deputy Secretary Talbott is ascertaining those now.

QUESTION: I believe it was last week, British Foreign Secretary Cook said that NATO has to think about and come to some agreement on a position on what happens if the situation - if the air campaign continues, if Milosevic does not agree to the five points and the situation within Kosovo deteriorates even further, but the air campaign is able to take out more and more of the military - that NATO should be prepared to send a force into Kosovo without Milosevic saying "uncle" and giving up, with any kind of formal peace agreement; that NATO must not let Milosevic sort of hold the key to whether NATO goes in or doesn't go in with a ground force. Can you say what the thinking is in this building?

MR. FOLEY: Sure, I can clarify what our position is. I think that the British authorities would be best to answer your question in terms of their view on this. My understanding is that there's no daylight between the US and the UK position. I've spoken to counterparts at my level in London, and they affirmed that. I think Robin Cook made it clear -- that NATO first of all is committed to the air campaign and that, as Foreign Secretary Cook and Secretary Albright wrote in their op-ed piece, we believe it's working; and we believe it's well understood in Belgrade that the air campaign is working.

Secondly, Foreign Secretary Cook, I believe, yesterday acknowledged and supports the idea that we are not planning to fight our way into Kosovo; that we will send ground forces into Kosovo, but they will be a peace- keeping force. We continue to believe that the air campaign will produce a change of course on Milosevic's part. We're beginning to see signs that that is increasingly understood in Belgrade. We believe we'll know it's over when it's over. We'll be able to ascertain that and there will be Serb acquiescence at the end of the day. That's what we continue to expect.

QUESTION: I hear you say there's no daylight between the US and the UK, but pick up any newspaper this morning and you'll see reports of the British trying to convince the Americans to go forward with the ground option. I mean, what do you attribute that to?

MR. FOLEY: Right. Well, the UK spokesman and political officials have consistently and assiduously denied those reports all weekend long, and including yesterday. So I can only refer you to what they're saying; I can't refer to what the newspapers are speculating about in London. Having spoken to one of my counterparts in London this morning, they affirmed that, indeed, the British press is in a kind of frenzy on that issue, and that the British spokesmen are continuing to maintain that those stories are not true. And to my knowledge, they're not true, in fact. President Clinton today made clear that we believe in the air campaign and it's going to continue and it's going to work.

QUESTION: Could I clarify one point please? So, you are saying that you agree with the British position, which is that there could be an international force that goes into Kosovo without an explicit peace deal or okay from Milosevic if NATO were to think that conditions were right.

MR. FOLEY: No, I did not say that - most emphatically. Our position is that we will send ground forces into Kosovo in a peace-keeping mode, not in a combat mode, and that this will occur in a permissive environment, not a non-permissive or a semi-permissive environment, and that we will obtain Serb acquiescence at the appropriate time. That's what I'm saying.

QUESTION: But before you go in with the troops, you'll get Belgrade's acquiescence. You won't send -- in other words, ground troops will not go in until Milosevic says "uncle"?

MR. FOLEY: That's our position, yes.

QUESTION: President Clinton this morning was asked about that, and he was not nearly as categorical as you are. He was asked about those ground troops, and his answer was that all options remain on the table. All options would include a non-permissive environment. Would you agree that there is a nuance of difference there?

MR. FOLEY: No. Secretary Albright said the same thing here when she was standing with Foreign Secretary Cook, I think the day or two before the NATO summit. That's always been our position and for that reason NATO Secretary General Solana instructed the military authorities to update their plans and assessments, and that's what the NATO military authorities are doing currently. We're not ruling options out; we're not taking things off the table. What we are doing is emphatically stating that the air campaign is our strategy, number one; number two, the air campaign is working; and number three, we expect to deploy ground forces into Kosovo in a peace-keeping mode and not in a combat mode.

But I think just in terms of the President's statement, what he was really emphasizing in that statement is that Mr. Milosevic should be under no illusion that he can either outlast us or outfox us in Kosovo. We will stay at the air campaign until our objectives are met.

QUESTION: Also on the diplomatic track, you haven't mentioned the United Nations' special envoys, Mr. Bildt and the other gentleman. Are they playing what you can describe as a healthy role, or are they noise on the line?

MR. FOLEY: No, I think we've been in touch with at least one of them that I'm aware of, and I think Mr. Bildt has been traveling to various European capitals meeting with European leaders. Our understanding is that both the envoys are currently at work thinking about focusing on the implementation of a peace agreement, which is going to be a very complex undertaking involving, obviously, many complicated matters - the reconstruction of Kosovo; the civil administration of Kosovo; the coordination of efforts. That's what they're working on, is my understanding.

QUESTION: So in other words, there is a distinct division of labor here. They're talking about what comes after peace breaks out; you're talking about making peace break out.

MR. FOLEY: Yes. Anyone I haven't called on yet on Kosovo? I'll come back to you.

QUESTION: You reported to us earlier that you saw signals out of Belgrade, some of them semi-official, that there was a greater willingness to accept some of the G-8 principles.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Will that be sufficient - just the G-8 principles?

MR. FOLEY: Well, as I stated a few minutes ago, quoting the summit language - and I will read it back to you again - we are determined to continue insisting that Milosevic meet NATO's five conditions. The G-8 went a long way towards bridging the gaps among all G-8 members, coalescing around some broad principles, the details of which need to be further fleshed out. But we in NATO - and we're the ones conducting the air campaign - will continue the air campaign until those objectives are met.

QUESTION: On a related point, what degree of credibility do you attach to these statements that are floating out of Belgrade today - more official or less official?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we're not going to attach credibility to anything short of acceptance of the NATO five conditions. It is simply, from an analytical perspective, noteworthy that the kind of debate we've seen in Belgrade over the last few weeks about the need to come to terms with the international community, based on the growing awareness that the air campaign was becoming too punishing and that the future would be disastrous for Serbia, is perhaps - I stress perhaps - beginning to be reflected in official circles. But clearly, we will want to see a clear-cut acceptance of the NATO conditions. In that case, under the conditions or circumstances that I mentioned, we would be prepared to halt the bombing.

QUESTION: I just want to go back to that ground troop thing. This debate's gone up and down. At one stage, senior US officials, including, I think, Secretary Cohen, at one stage, did talk about the possibility of using ground troops in a semi-permissive environment.

MR. FOLEY: I've never heard that, Jonathan, not from a US Government official.

QUESTION: So you don't - there's no thinking that there might possibly be some circumstances in which there's no serious resistance but Belgrade has not accepted the presence -

MR. FOLEY: No - well, we've said we're not ruling out options, we're not taking things off the table. But we - to repeat myself - believe in the air campaign; we believe it's really taking apart the Serb military both throughout the FRY and increasingly on the ground in Kosovo. It's going to work. But we're going to keep at it until it's over, unless Milosevic reverses course in the meantime.

What Robin Cook, I think, was saying yesterday was that this air campaign is working and we need to keep an eye on its progress; it's going to achieve our objectives. Remember what the President said when we launched the air campaign on March 24 - that one of the aims was to cripple Milosevic's military forces in Kosovo. We're in the process of destroying them, as well as crippling much of what he's got militarily and security- wise throughout Serbia. So that's what's happening; that's what Robin Cook was talking about. We need to keep an eye on that - the progress on the ground. Our position remains, though, that we're not going to send ground forces into a non-permissive or semi-permissive environment.

QUESTION: Is it a fair assessment that the US position right now -- we've got Deputy Secretary Talbott in these talks in Helsinki - is that the idea, should Chernomyrdin and Ahtisaari go to Belgrade, that Chernomyrdin would be in charge of relaying to Milosevic one more time the G-8 principles and that Ahtisaari would concentrate with Milosevic on talking about the modalities of setting up post-conflict Kosovo? Is that a fair description?

MR. FOLEY: First of all, I don't know the answer to that. Secondly, I wouldn't probably get into that level of detail if I had the answer, simply because this is a very important and sensitive and ongoing negotiation we're involved in.

QUESTION: These are all reports coming out of Helsinki, quoting diplomats.

MR. FOLEY: Right, but that's quoting diplomats; that's not the US Government speaking authoritatively from the State Department podium. I'm not going to talk about, though, Deputy Secretary Talbott's ongoing negotiations.

QUESTION: Two things. First, not to belabor this point on Robin Cook, but I believe -

MR. FOLEY: But we're going to belabor it.

QUESTION: Yes, I know, but I believe in today's New York Times he was quoted as saying that NATO must be prepared to send ground troops into Kosovo, even before the Belgrade government is ready to accept the terms of a UN-backed settlement - something to the effect of we're not going hang around waiting for Milosevic to invite us in. Now, doesn't that - if that statement's true -

MR. FOLEY: I think he said we're not going to necessarily need some kind of a signing ceremony, a formal event of that nature. Our position is that we will know it's over when we see it; we'll know it when we see it. We'll be able to ascertain at the appropriate time that we've completed our military objectives, and that Belgrade has given its acquiescence to its acceptance of the five conditions.

QUESTION: Based on those words you just used, would that be in agreement with what Foreign Secretary Cook is saying?

MR. FOLEY: You'd have to read all of what he said. He makes clear that he backs the air campaign -- that is the only strategy that we're pursuing now -- and that we need to be prepared to act when our objectives are met.

QUESTION: To the POWs, just a question on the release - the timing today. I know the Administration has said that it should not be viewed as a goodwill gesture, but couldn't it be argued that since it's today, it might be a sign to sort of jump-start the diplomatic efforts?

MR. FOLEY: Why today -- because of meetings going on in Helsinki?

QUESTION: Just because of intensification of the diplomatic efforts this week and the time of the day.

MR. FOLEY: I don't believe it had - no, it had no connection to the diplomacy. The fact of the matter is I can give you some of the information about the release of the POWs, but Mr. Bacon at the Pentagon will be in, I think, a more authoritative position. The two Serbian prisoners of war were returned to Yugoslav authorities at a border crossing in Hungary earlier today. During their captivity, we have ensured their humane treatment and protection and have complied in every respect with the Geneva Convention. During visits by the ICRC, the prisoners expressed appreciation for the treatment they received. This is in sharp contrast with the treatment that the American soldiers received while in Yugoslav custody.

As we've made clear previously, there was no quid pro quo involved in their release. These soldiers were combatants while our servicemen were on a non- combat patrol on Macedonian territory and should never have been abducted. I think if you're asking something about the timing, because we've had them in custody for several weeks, let me just say we take very seriously our responsibility under relevant Security Council resolutions to cooperate with the ICTY as well as our responsibilities under the Geneva Convention.

So we specifically undertook to ascertain whether the POWs would be willing to speak to the ICTY. Under the Geneva Convention, POWs are not required to provide any information beyond their name and rank and service number. In this case, the US, thanks to the good offices of the ICTY, was able to ascertain that the POWs did not provide the required consent to proceed with such interviews. Once that was completed, they were released.

QUESTION: Why is it so important for the US to stress that this is not a goodwill gesture? I mean, certainly it's not a gesture of ill will, so -

MR. FOLEY: No, it's not - you're right. But it was not sort of diplomatic signal or a move tied to something else.

QUESTION: Is there anything so wrong with saying that it's a gesture of good will?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I wouldn't want to mischaracterize what we've done. I wouldn't want to mischaracterize because it would be nice simply to say yes to your question. But the fact is we didn't seek out these POWs. They weren't captured by US forces; they were given to US forces; they were turned over to us - we had not sought them out. We sought no gain in keeping them, and so we released them as soon as it became practical to do so, having fulfilled our obligations to the ICTY.

QUESTION: Okay, so that means that they were released once it had been determined that they wouldn't cooperate with the ICTY?

MR. FOLEY: Right.

QUESTION: Atwood has been your chief coordinator for humanitarian issues there. Now he's asked the President to withdraw his nomination and said he's a short-timer now for his other responsibilities. So a number of things: how will this impact on the management of the refugee issue, which is pretty important, I think you would agree, in the region? Had he been figuring in this evolution of a reconstruction strategy for the region, given his previous experience in Bosnia? And what does it say about the rest of the nominations that you have stacked up befor the same committee that he expressed frustration with?

MR. FOLEY: Well, first of all, Secretary Albright regards Brian Atwood as a fine public servant, and he is a long-time friend of the Secretary's. She believes he would have made a really effective Ambassador to Brazil, but she supports his decision.

He has, obviously, as you say, played a critical role in our Kosovo policy and in dealing with the humanitarian crisis, the plight of the refugees. He will be staying on for some time. I don't have the answers, specifically, to your question as to how long he will stay on. But it clearly will be a high priority of the President and the Secretary to nominate a very capable replacement, but I have nothing to announce on that today.

QUESTION: Changing the subject again, now that the Israeli elections are over, how does the US plan to proceed in reviving the peace process?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, well, first of all, let me tell you that Secretary Albright spoke last evening - it was about 3:00 a.m. Israel time - to Prime Minister-elect General Barak. This was following the President's conversations with General Barak and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Secretary Albright congratulated him on his victory, said that we look forward to working with him in restarting or resuming the Middle East peace process. He was obviously very elated with his election victory, but also he indicated to the Secretary that he is ready to roll up his sleeves immediately and get to work on the important agenda facing him; first of which, of course, is to constitute his own government.

Secretary Albright spoke, I think in the last hour and a half, to Prime Minister Netanyahu. She wished him very well - both him and his family - in their future endeavors. She has been through the political process herself on both the winning and losing ends, and I think they shared some thoughts on the vagaries of political life. But she thanked him for their work together. As you know, the President saluted Prime Minister Netanyahu last evening in a telephone call and in a statement, and she echoed those sentiments.

In terms of specifically what the next steps would be with the next Israeli Government, it's a little premature. As I indicated, General Barak has 45 days to constitute a new government. Obviously there's a patchwork composition of the new Knesset, and he's going to have to determine the shape of his government; so it's premature to talk about specific steps with the next government, at least related to the peace process. Once he's taken office, we will consult to elicit his thinking about how he sees the period ahead. We have made clear for some time now that it is, in our view, important to implement the Wye River memorandum and to launch permanent status negotiations on an accelerated basis. We are also committed to reaching a comprehensive agreement and we want to see how best to resume negotiations on the Lebanese and Syrian tracks.

QUESTION: How many ambassadorial levels -- (inaudible) - before the Foreign Relations Committee now?

MR. FOLEY: That's a very good question. I'm ready for Kosovo and the Middle East and other subjects today, but I'd have to find that out for you.

QUESTION: Just a quick - you say he's willing to roll up his sleeves and get to work.

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: You meant on the peace process, or just on --

MR. FOLEY: I think, including the peace process, yes.

QUESTION: He said that he's ready to go?

MR. FOLEY: Yes. I mean, he's got a heavy domestic as well as international agenda, and he indicated to the Secretary that he was ready for some hard work.

QUESTION: Did he say that he stood by the Wye accords?

MR. FOLEY: I don't know if they got into that level of detail. What the Secretary told me was that General Barak had just come back from that rally that you saw on TV. It was 3:00 a.m. in the morning. I think the duration of the call reflected the lateness of the call.

QUESTION: Does the United States believe that the prospects for progress are much greater now than they were, say, a month ago in the Middle East peace process?

MR. FOLEY: Well, General Barak has indicated, I believe, throughout the campaign, his commitment to the peace process. So we fully expect to move forward with the Israeli Government, with the Palestinian Authority. Also, as I indicated a minute ago, we would like to see a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East and we will be looking toward the revival of the Syrian and Lebanese tracks as well.

QUESTION: Do you have any observations on the news stories suggesting Administration elation over the outcome of the election?

MR. FOLEY: I really don't put a lot of stock in those stories. We've been very careful, as is normal and as is appropriate, not to take any position on the Israeli election. I can assure you that had the result gone the other way, that I would be standing here today saluting someone else as the next or the continuing Prime Minister of Israel. So we have not taken a position before the elections; there's no reason to take a position after the elections. We work with every government of Israel. It's a democracy, and we have historic ties and common interests, and we work with every government of Israel. We look forward to working with the new one.

QUESTION: If it had gone the other way, would you be standing here saying we fully expect to move forward?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we felt that the electoral period had, by its very nature, created an interruption in the peace process. We were very realistic about that and said so from this podium. If the other party had won the election, we certainly would be calling for a return to the peace process.

QUESTION: To follow on that - if the election had gone the other way, would you be saying that Netanyahu had indicated his commitment to the peace process all the way through -

MR. FOLEY: You know, we don't answer advance hypotheticals from the podium. We're not going to answer sort of retrospective hypotheticals, I can assure you of that.

QUESTION: You just did. You answered -

MR. FOLEY: I said answer; I think that was a unilateral statement.

QUESTION: Over the weekend, President Khatemi was in Syria, and referred to Hezbollah as a humanitarian organization. I'm just wondering if the State Department has any reaction to that.

MR. FOLEY: Well, we're not changing our designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

QUESTION: But what do you think of the Iranian President's -

MR. FOLEY: That's one of the, as you know, major points of separation between us and the Iranian Government - terrorism, support for terrorism, notably.

QUESTION: I want to go back to Mr. Atwood withdrawing his candidacy. You all aren't concerned at all that Senator Helms has the ability to intimidate your candidates?

MR. FOLEY: Secretary Albright has an excellent working relationship with Senator Helms. It's really been one of the hallmarks of her tenure as Secretary of State. She likes and respects the Senator, and because they have such a good relationship, they're able to get a lot of important work done for the country. I'm not going to comment about the particulars of this nomination. As I said, Secretary Albright respects the decision that Brian Atwood has taken. She is a long-standing friend of his, and would look forward to continuing that relationship in whatever capacity Brian Atwood might be able to fill in the future.

QUESTION: To follow on that, it has been a year since Ambassador Holbrooke's nomination as put before this Committee, and you have not been able to get that - even a vote in the committee, never mind onto the floor. Are you going to continue to press for his nomination? Should you now, as with this nomination, which had been before the Committee for a year, move on to another candidate?

MR. FOLEY: Well, concerning Ambassador Holbrooke, I think we've stated our position many times from this podium. There's no need to restate that today.

QUESTION: Anything further you're going to do to press for him?

MR. FOLEY: I really have nothing further to say. I think we've made very clear our position on his nomination, and that it's not a new story.

QUESTION: What could you tell us about what's been done so far by the US team visiting North Korea?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I believe they arrived today; and, therefore, I don't have a lot to say about what they've done, except that they arrived. Let me try to expand, elaborate on that.

QUESTION: Safely?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, safely, thank you. That sounded like Charlie Wolfson's cough and it was not. Arrival network.

The State Department team, as I indicated, arrived in North Korea today to begin preparations for the first visit to the suspect underground site at Kumchang-ni. The team expects to travel to Kumchang-ni and begin its work on May 20 and stay in the vicinity until it completes its work. That's really all I have on the visit today.

QUESTION: Can you tell us not who they are by name, but what exactly - what type of people are these? What do they - what kind of jobs do they do normally? Are they State Department people or do they have --

MR. FOLEY: They come from a number of government agencies, I believe. There are 14 individuals, including technical specialists. That's all I have, though.

QUESTION: How long are they expected to stay at the site?

MR. FOLEY: Well, until they complete their work. I don't think we have a scientific sense of how many days they're going to be there. But obviously, they have an important job to do and they'll leave when it's finished.

QUESTION: Dr. Perry's - do you have any dates Dr. Perry's visiting North Korea? There's one report that Dr. Perry's going to bring a letter from the President. Can you confirm this?

MR. FOLEY: I think Secretary Albright was very clear yesterday in what she wasn't going to get into, and I'm certainly not going to do things differently. She indicated that Dr. Perry has indicated in the past that he would travel to North Korea under the right circumstances, and that such a visit would be a valuable part of the review that he is conducting. When the circumstances are correct and such a trip could do the most good with respect to the purposes of his review; then we will make an announcement to that effect. I have no such announcement to make today.

QUESTION: This has to do with kind of Kosovo, but not really. The embassies in China, did they re --

MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry, go back to North Korea.

QUESTION: Yesterday both the Secretary and the Foreign Minister talked about -- (inaudible) - lost in the shuffle, but they talked about whether the United States had degraded its ability to defend South Korea. There were two passing comments on --

MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure they formulated it in that way.

QUESTION: Something like that. Can you amplify on that at all? Has there been a sucking away of assets from South Korea? I know there were some troops taken from there. Have they been replaced? What have you done to maintain --

MR. FOLEY: The particulars of the answer, I'd have to refer you to the Pentagon for. I don't have that at my fingertips, in terms of the troop numbers and the status and the readiness. I think the political message, though, was clear that Secretary Albright and Foreign Minister Hong made yesterday, which is that we are vigilant and that we are capable and that has not changed. But in terms of the specifics, I don't have those; so I urge you to talk to Mr. Bacon about that.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- the South Koreans raised? I mean, clearly there is some concern -

MR. FOLEY: Not in the bilateral meeting.

QUESTION: They didn't raise it as a concern yesterday?

MR. FOLEY: No. I think that - the Foreign Minister made a little joke at the start of his remarks. I don't think he considers it a joke, but he made in a light-hearted manner - that it was good that he'd come to make sure that our attention was not simply focused on Kosovo. Of course, that's not the case; we remain focused all around the world, and the Secretary was able to assure him of that. But the specific question, though, you're asking didn't come up in their bilateral meeting.

QUESTION: Last week it was said from this podium that the embassy and consulates that were damaged in China were going to reopen for at least some services I believe yesterday. Has that happened and has an assessment of monetary damage been done; and has a decision been made on who is going to pay for this?

MR. FOLEY: Yes. That's not the answer to your question; it's yes, I have an answer. Over the weekend and on yesterday and today, there were no significant protests in the immediate vicinity of our offices in Beijing or elsewhere in China. Ambassador Sasser and embassy staff are now able to move freely between their residences and the embassy. Consulates general Guangzhou and Shanghai did not sustain significant damage and have reopened for most routine business including American citizen services.

Until further notice, no non-immigrant visa services are available at any of our posts in China. Immigrant visa services, including orphan processing, resumed in Guangzhou today - I'm sorry - yesterday, excuse me. Due to the more extensive damage inflicted on the embassy in Beijing and the consulates general in Chengdu and Shenyang as a result of the violent demonstrations May 8-11, these facilities remain closed to the public for routine business through yesterday. I don't have an update - I'm sorry - today and if there is any change in that status, I'll let you know this afternoon.

We will decide on the resumption of other activities, including routine non- immigrant visas processing, as repairs are made and as conditions warrant. Our travel warning issued on May 9 has been superseded by a public announcement advising American citizens in China to review security practices, remain alert to the changing situation and avoid areas where demonstrations are in progress. Official travel by US Government employees to the People's Republic of China remains temporarily suspended because our China post cannot yet provide appropriate support to official visitors.

In terms of the damage that you were asking about, the embassy and other missions suffered broken windows and other damage from rocks. There were small fires in the motor pool at the embassy that also caused some damage. The Consular General's residence in Chengdu was destroyed by fire. That was the one really significant damage; the others are sort of a relatively minor order that can be fixed. We have not yet been able to conduct a comprehensive damage assessment, but this process has begun now that the security situation allows us unimpeded access to our facility. So I can't answer your question while that review is underway.

QUESTION: The "until further notice no non-immigrant visa service," is that purely because of damage or is that punitive?

MR. FOLEY: It's not punitive in any way whatsoever.

QUESTION: I don't know if this has been answered or not in response to Matt's question, but does the United States have to pay China for destroying their embassy?

MR. FOLEY: That was not Matt's question; Matt was asking about damage to US facilities.

QUESTION: No, but I mean - right --

MR. FOLEY: What we have stated is that we are conducting a thorough, detailed review -- at the Chinese request - investigation of what happened; of what led to the tragic and mistaken bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Until that review is completed, it's premature to talk about what will ensue as a result of that.

Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 2:42 P.M.)


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 Tuesday, 18 May 1999 - 23:47:53 UTC