U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #85, 99-07-02

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

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

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Friday, July 2, 1999

Briefer: James B. Foley

NORTH/SOUTH KOREA
1-3    Collapse of talks / President Kim is in Washington / Missile test
       concerns / Fishing vessels / General Officer's Talks
2,3,17 Arrest of American - No consular access / Dr. Perry's report/
       discussions / Status of North East free trade area
MADAGASCAR
4      Embassy is still closed
RUSSIA
4      Military attache asked to depart Moscow
PALESTIAN AUTHORITY
4-6    Return of Refugees / Permanent status negotiations / President
       Clinton's remarks
5      Issues need to be resolved / US is not a negotiator/neutral friend
IRAN
6,18   US believes MEK is a terrorist organization / Arrests of 13 Iranian Jews
DEPARTMENT
6,7    General Clark's meeting
LIBYA
7-9    Sanctions debate / Secretary General Annan's report / Sanctions
       requirements have not been met
KOSOVO (SERBIA)
9,10   Appointment of French Health Minister to head UN mission / Senator
       Dole 's travel / Serbs released prisoners
NORTHERN IRELAND
10     Visit of team of US congressmen and women
MONTENEGRO
10     General Clark testified in Congress / US has full confidence in
       President Djukanovic's governemnt
BELGRADE
11     Time frame for employees to return to embassy / Slew of issues that
       are under review
AZERBIAJAN
12     Attacks against journalists/Refusal to release
12     US recognizes the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
GREECE
13     Defense Minister's announcement / Report is erroneous
INDIA/PAKISTAN
13     US in close contact with both governments urging them to resolve crisis
MEXICO
13     Imprisonment of high-ranking member of ruling party / Political asylum
       requested / Justice Department jurisdiction
CANADA
13,14  Seizure of US fishing vessel / US in contact with authorities
CYPRUS
14     Deployment of NATO forces to the divided island green line
GREECE/TURKEY
15     US support bi-zonal, bi-communal federation
DEPARTMENT
15,16  Status of Holbrooke Nomination
PHILIPPINES
16,17  Extradition request of President Estrada's aide

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

FRIDAY, JULY 2, 1999, 1:22 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: Would you prefer not to have a briefing today, Matt?

QUESTION: No, I want to have one.

MR. FOLEY: Okay, we can wrap this up very quickly if you want.

QUESTION: The North/South Korean talks in Beijing apparently collapsed with the North Koreans making demands that the South Koreans couldn't accept. I wondered if you have any comment?

MR. FOLEY: As we've consistently observed, a dialogue between North and South Korea is key to achieving progress on the Korean Peninsula. Talks at the vice-ministerial level began June 22 in Beijing and continued until today, July 2, ending without result. We hope that the talks can resume soon. We strongly support President Kim Dae-Jung's policy of engaging the North in direct dialogue in order to seek improved ties and enhance peace and stability. I'd have to refer you to the South Korean Government for any further readout on the Beijing talks and, of course, President Kim is here in Washington today and I'm sure we'll be in a position to amplify on the results of those talks.

QUESTION: Are there still signs that the North Koreans are preparing a missile test?

MR. FOLEY: Were you here yesterday?

QUESTION: No.

MR. FOLEY: Because we went over that. As I said, I can't get into our intelligence on the matter, but we've had long-standing concerns about the possibility of a second missile test and we made it crystal clear to the North Koreans that there will be serious consequences indeed if there is a further missile test.

QUESTION: My question basically is have things advanced in the past 24 hours?

MR. FOLEY: Since yesterday? No - not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: Can you say anything today perhaps on US concerns about South Korea's missile programs?

MR. FOLEY: Were you here yesterday?

QUESTION: I was here and I heard you yesterday, but has there been any advance on that --

MR. FOLEY: What do you mean by advance? I answered -

QUESTION: Are you able to say anything today that you weren't able to say yesterday?

MR. FOLEY: I gave repeated answers to that question yesterday and I made clear and I can go over it again - ad nauseum, if you want -- the fact that we cooperate with the South Koreans on their defense requirements. We are sympathetic to their defense requirements. We also have non-proliferation objectives that we pursue with them in the region and globally. I have nothing to say beyond what I said yesterday.

QUESTION: A similar question - the North Koreans, after the UN talks, said something to the effect that there would be very severe consequences if the South Koreans didn't withdraw from disputed waters and do you - are you advising the South Koreans to take this -

MR. FOLEY: I'm not familiar with that statement. What I can tell you though, as you know, I reported yesterday, and it was in the press, that some North Korean fishing vessels had crossed that separation line - I believe it was yesterday -- although there were no warships involved, and they withdrew back across that line after a number of hours. These were fishing vessels. What I can tell you is that general officer talks, hosted by the UN command, were held at Panmunjom today, July 2. The talks concluded without specific results, but another meeting has been proposed. There's no date for it yet, but we believe there are chances that there will indeed be another meeting. I believe that the United Nations command in Korea has issued a statement at the conclusion of those talks. We continue to welcome DPRK participation in the general officers talks, which are aimed at reducing tensions and preventing future incidents involving the Northern Limit Line. I'd have to refer you to the UN command for any further details.

QUESTION: On the other North Korea subject -- the arrest of the American - anything new on that? Or are still in the same -

MR. FOLEY: I don't have anything new on that. In other words, our protecting power in North Korea - Sweden - has not yet had consular access. We are hopeful that access will be acquired by the Swedes. Let's remember, the North Koreans did provide notification to Sweden of this arrest or detention, and we've not concluded that there will not be consular access provided to the Swedes. It is true though, but it hasn't happened yet.

QUESTION: Does this - I seem to remember that the convention calls for rapid access. Does this now fall into the category of not rapid access?

MR. FOLEY: What I can tell you is that we have an interim consular agreement with North Korea -- I don't know if this is a mirthful subject, Jonathan -- but under the interim consular agreement between the US and the DPRK, notification of the arrest of an American citizen is supposed to take place within four days of the arrest. I believe they more or less made that. I think it was about five days, but the notification took place. Consular visitation is supposed to be permitted within two days after a request is made by the Swedish protecting power on behalf of the US.

I think it's right to say that technically those terms have not been met, but we understand that this is a very remote area of North Korea, access is difficult, so we're not willing to conclude at this point that the issue or the realization of consular access is not going to happen. We were hopeful that the Swedish charge will be permitted to travel to Rajin - is the name of the area - and be granted consular access. Obviously, we are - as you're asking every day - we're also very seized of the matter and we continue to be in touch with the Swedes in order to find out the prospects for consular access, and will be in a position to report to you when it happens and to report to you if we have changed our assessment of the prospects for access.

QUESTION: Is that the free trade area in the northeast?

MR. FOLEY: I'd have to confirm that for you.

QUESTION: On North Korea, I believe Dr. Perry mentioned back in May when he was in North Korea that if the North Koreans curtailed their missile and nuclear programs, that they could see a broad expansion in its relations with the US. What does that mean? Does that mean easing sanctions, normalizing diplomatic relations?

MR. FOLEY: You put it in a very, very kind and gentle way, Kelly, and nevertheless we have been very consistent in not discussing publicly the details of former Secretary Perry's review. I would have to refer you to the statement he made, I think in Seoul, when he left North Korea, in which he spoke to some degree about the general nature of the ideas that he discussed with the North Koreans. Indeed he did confirm in general terms what you said, which is that he talked about - with the North Koreans - prospects for a really qualitatively improved relationship between North Korea and the United States, between North Korea and our allies, between North Korea and the international community, which is predicated upon North Korea's addressing our concerns in the missile and the nuclear area. Beyond that, though, we have not gone into any kind of detail publicly. Obviously, this is a very important diplomatic issue, and a very sensitive one, and we're going to await the completion of Dr. Perry's report before being in a position to say any more.

QUESTION: Even though President Kim apparently talked about some of the proposals in an interview?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I can only say that from our perspective, we've been very consistent in not discussing publicly -- I don't believe that President Kim laid out in the kind of specificity you're drawing me towards. I think he made some general comments about Dr. Perry's mission.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. FOLEY: Well, you know, he's not far from here. He's just up the street or across town, and maybe he could do better at this podium than the Deputy Spokesman.

QUESTION: Anything new in Madagascar - the embassy?

MR. FOLEY: There's no change. It remains closed.

QUESTION: Can you tell us about the military attache in Moscow that the Russians have told to leave?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have any comment on the matter.

QUESTION: On another subject, could you tell us what the US policy is currently on the return - the future return of Palestinian refugees?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, the policy is what it has always been, which is as President Clinton said yesterday, resolution of this aspect of the peace process will depend upon the shape of the final agreement. It's a long- standing US view that the issue of Palestinian refugees is a matter that has been reserved for permanent status negotiations, and that like all permanent status negotiations -- and as you know there are other important issues involved in those talks - it needs to be dealt with and resolved by the parties themselves.

QUESTION: Is that all he said about refugees?

QUESTION: No, he also said - he said something about - that he has always believed that Palestinians should have a right to return and live where they want. Is that consistent with the policy that you've just expressed?

MR. FOLEY: I think the President was clear that this is an issue that will depend on the nature of the agreement that emerges from permanent status negotiations. I think he was rather explicit about that, talking about depending on the nature of the agreement, what emerges from the negotiations. This is not a matter fora the United States to decide. As with the other important permanent status issues, the decision rests with the parties, with Israel and with the Palestinians, and we're not in any business of prejudging the outcome of those negotiations. They will be determined by the parties themselves.

QUESTION: You don't think the President's statement was kind of judgmental - the kind of unilateral judgmental statements that you ask the Israelis and the Palestinians not to make? He told you that he'd like - he told the nation, the world how he thought the Palestinians should be able to feel about where they live. And he said I believe they should feel that they have a right to live wherever they like. That's kind of straight forward. That's sort of like Arafat saying I believe we ought to have a state, and it's like the Israelis saying I believe we have a right to Jerusalem forever more - all of it. Isn't that judgmental? He also - of course the caveat is always there; it's really up to the parties - but the US is expressing from the very top a very strong opinion. Isn't that sort of loading the dice a little?

MR. FOLEY: Well, you term it a caveat. It's not a caveat, it's a cornerstone of our approach.

QUESTION: But he said more than that; he said what he thinks should happen.

MR. FOLEY: But the President said it - this is a matter that will be produced by the nature of the agreement that is reached by the parties. That represents no change in our position. You're right, Barry, that he did talk about Palestinian aspirations in this area. We recognize aspirations of parties going into the permanent status negotiations. However, we have consistently maintained -- nothing the President said deviated from that principle -- that this is a matter not to be decided by the United States, but to be decided by the Palestinians and the Israelis themselves in agreement - they have to reach agreement - in the context of permanent status negotiations.

QUESTION: He did not only refer to Palestinian aspirations, he said - he gave his support to the aspiration of - actually of Arab governments -- to have thousands of refugees or reported refugees or grandchildren of reported refugees moved into Israel, thereby changing the character of the Jewish state. He also spoke again, as he did in Gaza, of the right of the Palestinians to have their own land. And he also said, of course, the decision should depend on the parties. So you're really sort of softening what he said, but I could understand you work for him and the Administration and you're not going to disagree with them, but I thought it's the kind - it struck me as the kind of judgmental statement that you've been urging both sides to avoid.

MR. FOLEY: I think I've answered your question, Barry, and the President was very clear that all of this is going to depend on the nature of the final agreement. The United States is not a negotiator. We feel very strongly that these are issues - although we want to play any kind of helpful role that the parties themselves want us to play. But we are a neutral friend of the process and we believe that the Israelis and the Palestinians alone will make the decisions on the nature of their relationship that will emerge in the permanent status negotiations.

QUESTION: What would you say Mr. Barak's statement - did you see the statement by the Prime Minister-elect that the President's statement is unacceptable?

MR. FOLEY: I did not see it.

QUESTION: This is the new Prime Minister that you're all optimistic will see things your way and he says it's unacceptable. Any comment on his response?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not going to share your editorializing about what our views are or not.

QUESTION: Do you have a response to his statement? I guess that's your answer -- that it's up to the parties, right?

MR. FOLEY: Absolutely, yes.

QUESTION: As a matter of principle, does the United States think that refugees have a right to return to their home?

MR. FOLEY: We recognize that the refugee issue is a very important, even sensitive issue, just as the status of Jerusalem is, just as the future status of the Palestinian entity. These are issues that have to be tackled by the parties. They're difficult issues and have to be resolved by agreement of the two sides.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the question --

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm giving you my answer. The fact is we're not prejudging the outcome, we're not making assumptions about how it's going to turn out because this is not a US decision . I repeat what I said to Barry - this is not a United States decision.

QUESTION: Then does the Arab-Israeli conflict differ from any other conflict where the United Nations charter guarantees the right to return to refugees?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we think that the issue has to be resolved. Obviously, there is a refugee issue - an important one - that needs to be resolved. The fact is Israel and the Palestinians have committed to sit down and discuss and hopefully resolve all these issues, and we support that process.

QUESTION: Jim, yesterday there was a letter released with 130 Members of US Congress signing - Representatives signing to Madeleine Albright, asking that the United States should look into working with the Mujahadin. Do you have anything on that?

MR. FOLEY: I did yesterday. Off the top of my head, I can tell you we of course do not support -

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. FOLEY: We do not support that resolution. We believe the MEK is a terrorist organization. It has a very checkered past, and that past includes the killing of Americans. This is an organization that also supported the take-over of the US embassy in Tehran, and therefore we oppose the resolution.

QUESTION: Can you tell us who General Clark is meeting with right now?

MR. FOLEY: You'd have to ask Mr. Bacon.

QUESTION: He's in this building.

MR. FOLEY: I'm not familiar with General Clark's schedule.

QUESTION: I saw him walk in about an hour ago.

MR. FOLEY: Did you ask him?

QUESTION: I wasn't allowed close enough to.

QUESTION: Can you find out?

MR. FOLEY: Doubtful.

QUESTION: The sanctions debate -

MR. FOLEY: No, Matt, seriously, I can look into it for you and try to find out --

QUESTION: Please. I'd like to know who he's meeting with.

MR. FOLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Jim, the Libyan sanctions debate. I understand that the United States is not yet satisfied that Libya has met the conditions for an end to the sanctions rather than a mere suspension. Can you tell us what more the United States wants Libya to do to satisfy the conditions?

MR. FOLEY: We believe Secretary General Annan's report makes clear that Libya has not yet complied with the remaining UN Security Council requirements. They are: end and renounce support for terrorism; pay appropriate compensation; cooperate with the investigation and the trial; acknowledge responsibility for the actions of Libyan officials. We note and we also welcome Libyan assurances that it will fulfill the remaining requirements, as reported by the Secretary General. However, the sanctions, which are now suspended, cannot be lifted on the basis of assurances. We are looking Libyan actions in the areas that I described.

QUESTION: To follow up on that, Jim. You talked about paying compensation and cooperating with the trial. Does that mean that in fact the sanctions cannot be lifted until the trial has ended, because you couldn't really expect them to pay compensation until the trial is complete? These people --

MR. FOLEY: I think it's a fair question. I don't think it's been fully resolved. But obviously, the fact is that Libya has not met all of the requirements as I indicated, in terms of actions. And therefore, the question is hypothetical at this point. I recognize that it's a legitimate question, but I don't think we're in a position to answer it.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) these guys haven't been found guilty?

MR. FOLEY: Well, it's a fair question. But we believe that they haven't met the requirements for the lifting of sanctions.

QUESTION: Can we untangle this a little better, or a little more? The Secretary was asked about this at the UN on Wednesday. In fact, just now I had the occasion to look at what she said. And she said, she's waiting for the Secretary General's report. She said we'll wait and see what the -

MR. FOLEY: We have the report now.

QUESTION: Yes, well it's not clear to me - and I'm sure you can help - is the UN had a body of sanctions, yes, but the US has its own sanctions.

MR. FOLEY: Right.

QUESTION: I inferred from her statement that she meant we, the United States, will look at this report and decide what we're going to do, what we think is appropriate, right?

MR. FOLEY: But we obviously -

QUESTION: We must have a view of course --

MR. FOLEY: Not only a view, but a vote on the matter.

QUESTION: Yes, well we're tougher than - the US has been tougher --

MR. FOLEY: Well, we do have our unilateral sanctions. You're absolutely right. But I think the subject that -

QUESTION: -- right? You're talking about --

MR. FOLEY: The position you're raising is the UN sanctions.

QUESTION: Right. Our US sanctions stand?

MR. FOLEY: Right.

QUESTION: You used the phrase - word - lifted. But they can be suspended?

MR. FOLEY: They are suspended.

QUESTION: Yes. But I mean they can be suspended indefinitely, as far as the United States is concerned?

MR. FOLEY: They are. They are.

QUESTION: Indefinitely?

QUESTION: Well, the suspension -

QUESTION: Barry, can I get in this - what is the difference between an indefinite suspension and a lifting?

MR. FOLEY: Well, a lifting is a formalization.

QUESTION: So that's what we're talking about? Just a formal definition?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Nothing defacto?

MR. FOLEY: Well, they are suspended, therefore they're not functioning - they're not in effect now. But I believe it has significance. It's not just a word, it's a clean bill of health, if you will, in effect. Suspension is provisional. Granted, it is an ongoing suspension, but I think words have meaning in international relations.

QUESTION: I'm zero for two here - I'll try for an answer on this one. Do you have any reaction to the Secretary General's choice for administrator in Kosovo - the French Deputy Health Minister?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, we welcome Secretary General Annan's announced appointment of French Health Minister Bernard Kouchner as head of the UN mission in Kosovo. And also American Diplomat Jock Covey as his principal deputy. We look forward to working closely with both of them. These appointments are a crucial step in the establishment of the UN mission in Kosovo.

QUESTION: Can I go back to the Russia question for a second. Why exactly is it you don't have any comment?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have any comment. I don't need to elaborate on it.

QUESTION: Was the US officially notified --

MR. FOLEY: I have no comment on the matter.

QUESTION: You won't tell us if you were officially notified?

MR. FOLEY: I have no comment on the matter.

QUESTION: Back on Kosovo? Senator Dole is going to Kosovo on Sunday - July 4th he's going to Kosovo. He's going to look into the question of the missing and disappeared - I guess - Kosovar Albanians for the most part. Do you have any idea of the magnitude of that problem?

MR. FOLEY: I've read different reports. I think before giving you a public figure, I'd want to check with our experts on the matter and maybe I can get back to you in the afternoon.

What I can tell you is that certainly the Serbs released - I think it was 166 prisoners back about a week ago and in our view this was probably just the tip of the iceberg. We believe through anecdotal evidence that large - much larger numbers of Kosovar Albanians were taken from Kosovo into the FRY and are in detention there now and therefore we're very concerned about their fate and we are insisting that all of them be released. But your question has to do with specific numbers and let me check and perhaps in the Press Office we can make that available if, in fact, we do have a ballpark figure on the matter.

As you know, there were some questions raised here in the briefing room and in the press yesterday about statistics and figures related to the numbers of dead and missing in Kosovo during the air campaign and I think as we were at the time, we want to be cautious about statistics when we're not in a position actually to confirm them on the ground.

QUESTION: Northern Ireland - do you know anything about a team of US congressmen and women being there and in some way being involved in the talks?

MR. FOLEY: I have not heard that.

QUESTION: You have not heard that?

MR. FOLEY: I have not heard that.

QUESTION: General Wesley Clark testified yesterday in Congress and stated that he's afraid now of a Serbian attack against Montenegro. Do you have anything on that?

MR. FOLEY: We are and remain concerned about the situation in Montenegro. What I can tell you is that Milosevic and the Yugoslav army continue to maintain a threatening environment against Montenegro with the very large presence and deployment to Montenegro of Yugoslav army troops whose strength has been bloated to approximately 40,000 troops - and that's about four times their normal presence - so 40,000, as opposed to normally 10,000 VJ troops in Montenegro. General Clark is absolutely right in pointing out the danger of the destabilizing presence and activities of the Yugoslav army in Montenegro, including in the Sandjak region and threats by the Yugoslav Army to the democratically-elected government of President Djukanovic. The deployment of Yugoslav army troops, tanks and check points around Montenegro and reports of ethnic violence against the residents of Sandjak can only mean that Milosevic hopes to intimidate and bring under his control the people and government of Montenegro.

The US has full confidence in the government of President Djukanovic in Montenegro, and it supports NATO's policies regarding Montenegro, including the statements by Secretary General Solana and General Clark regarding the situation there.

From the beginning of NATO's military campaign in March, the US and NATO have stated that any move by Milosevic to undermine the legitimate administration of President Djukanovic or plans to destabilize Montenegro will be considered provocative and dealt with appropriately.

QUESTION: Did you express your concern to the Yugoslav Government about the situation?

MR. FOLEY: We're not in direct communication with the Yugoslav Government, but I have a feeling that what we say from this podium is read in Belgrade.

QUESTION: On that subject, when are - is there any time frame that's set up for the - for people going back to the embassy in Belgrade?

MR. FOLEY: I don't think that's a matter that's imminent, but it's certainly one of the many issues post-conflict that are under review.

QUESTION: Could that happen while Milosevic is still in power?

MR. FOLEY: First of all, it was the Yugoslav Government that broke diplomatic relations with the United States and other NATO members; we weren't the ones who broke diplomatic relations. So I think in the first instance it's hypothetical because we'd have to see what Belgrade was planning to do in that regard. But I'm not in a position to answer what we might or might not do down the road. We certainly will not do anything which lends any legitimacy - formal or otherwise - to an indicted war criminal such as Milosevic. We do, obviously, have a very important desire to promote democratization in Serbia, and we will do that which helps us promote that agenda. But I'm not in any way foreshadowing what decision we've made; that's one of many issues that are under current consideration.

QUESTION: When you say - "what decision we've made," does that imply a decision has been made?

MR. FOLEY: No, no it should not. To my knowledge no such decision has been made. I meant under consideration, not active consideration - just simply there's a slew of issues that we're facing across the board.

QUESTION: Having an embassy and having an ambassador --

MR. FOLEY: We've not had an ambassador there for quite some time.

QUESTION: Okay. Accrediting diplomats to the government of Yugoslavia is a form of legitimization of Mr. Milosevic, or not? I mean, you say that you won't accredit any diplomats to Belgrade?

MR. FOLEY: I didn't say that, Jonathan. What I said is that anything we might do would not in any way be designed to in any way reinforce or legitimize Milosevic's rule. He's an indicted war criminal. We believe that more and more Serbs recognize that their future lies with a different leadership, and we want to encourage and support those aspirations. But I'm not foreshadowing in any way any kind of decision in this regard. Matt simply asked me a question that we haven't answered.

QUESTION: Does accrediting diplomats to Belgrade lend legitimacy to the government in Belgrade?

MR. FOLEY: We're not going to do anything which lends legitimacy or credibility to Milosevic. I can't answer the question.

QUESTION: Do you have any details about the ethnic cleansing now in Sandjak?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have details on it. As I said, we've had some reports that there has been ethnic violence against residents of the region, but those are reports. I don't think we're in a position to confirm them.

QUESTION: Two questions about Azerbaijan - there were more reports about attacks on journalists in Azerbaijan and also despite the US Government appeal in May, the government of Azerbaijan refused to release the journalists. Do you have any comment on this issue?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we are concerned about reports of attacks on journalists in Baku, and we urge the government of Azerbaijan to take concrete steps to protect the freedom of the press and its ability to operate without interference. We urge the government to find and prosecute the people responsible for the beatings that apparently have taken place in various press offices in Baku. I would also note - I think you referred to -- the fact that the State Department last May called on the government of Azerbaijan to release Azerbaijani journalist, Fyad Gakhramanli, and we highlighted his case in our 1998 human rights report on Azerbaijan. We believe that he was in prison for political reasons. So, we again call on the Azerbaijan Government to respect freedom of expression and other basic internationally-recognized human rights.

QUESTION: What can you tell us about the press reports that US officials have agreed to the establishment in the United States of the permanent mission of the separatist republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is a state of Azerbaijan and remains under Armenian occupation?

MR. FOLEY: Well, those reports are not true. The US nor any other nation recognizes the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh republic as an independent state. We've not agreed to provide any diplomatic recognition or official status to a representative of - or office of Nagorno-Karabakh in this country. The law in the United States does not prohibit individuals - private individuals, including foreign nationals, from establishing a wide variety of commercial and other private organizations here - NGO-type organizations. But this does not in any way connote US government agreement with or recognition of their goals and activities.

QUESTION: While we're in the area, this week Greek Defense Minister announced that next month, or maybe this month, they will be signing some kind of defense pact with Iran and Armenia, as a NATO partner. Do you have any thoughts about that?

MR. FOLEY: Yes. We are pleased to have been informed through our Embassy in Greece, in Athens, that this report is erroneous. Erroneous. And that Greece has no intention of signing any defense agreement or establishing a defense relationship with Iran. Moreover, the Greeks have clarified to us that the conference, I think that was reported July 12th in Athens, is a session of a long-standing tripartheid economic commission. The conference has no defense component.

QUESTION: Are you able to confirm in any way or comment on reports of imminent breakthrough on the Kashmir conflict?

MR. FOLEY: We've seen media reports about possible movement towards a peaceful settlement. This would indeed be a very encouraging development. We cannot confirm it, though. Obviously, we're still in close contact with both Pakistan and Indian Governments to urge them to work together to resolve the crisis.

QUESTION: Also on media reports on the other side of the world - there's a report in the Mexican press that a former high-ranking member of the ruling party of Mexico - who is now, I believe, imprisoned in New Jersey - has asked for political asylum in the United States. Anything on that?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I've heard the report. I can tell you that we never comment on asylum cases. Obviously, this is a matter under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department, and I have to refer you to them to see if they're able to shed any light on that report.

QUESTION: From Mexico to neighbor to the North. What's the story with the Canadians seizure of this US fishing vessel and is it serious enough for the US to do anything diplomatically about it?

MR. FOLEY: I do have something on that, because I've just see the report, just about an hour ago - it came up with the waves, although I think it happened early this morning. An Alaskan fishing vessel - US fishing vessel - - was seized by a Canadian enforcement vessel in the early morning, July 2nd. At the time of the seizure, the boat was fishing for black cod in waters claimed by both the United States and Canada - at what's called the Dixon entrance between Alaska and British Columbia. We've asked Canada for an explanation and we plan to take appropriate action. I think, obviously, you'll want to know more about it, as do we. Without further information on the reasons behind Canada's action, it's really just speculative at this point. In terms of why it happened and what the impact of the action might be on the broader relationship.

QUESTION: Wider conflict is not imminent. (Laughter.)

MR. FOLEY: Reports thereof are grossly exaggerated.

QUESTION: Yes, on the ongoing non-process --

MR. FOLEY: We have a follow-up.

QUESTION: What do you mean we plan to take appropriate action?

MR. FOLEY: We plan to be in very direct contact with the Canadian authorities to find out what happened, why it happened, and to work to resolve the matter. What I can tell you - I think that these get to be complicated issues. You know, we haven't done fish here in about - in a couple of years, basically. I think some of you who are veterans here know that normally around July and August, we have salmon for lunch in the State Department Briefing Room. I haven't dealt with this issue in some time, but nevertheless I looked into the issue of this particular area, because - as you know, we've reached agreement. We just signed it with Canada on fishing and preserving the stocks - the salmon stocks in the area. But this is a different matter. It has to do with territorial gray area at this Dixon entrance where US and Canadian maritime boundary claims overlap.

I can tell you about the usual procedure for dealing with this gray area is the following: For more than two decades, the US and Canada pursued measures to avoid confrontation in the Dixon entrance boundary region, including the adoption of a flag-state fisheries enforcement regime in the disputed area. In accordance with this regime, the United States refrains from exercising fisheries jurisdiction over Canadian vessels fishing in the disputed area, and Canada refrains from exercising fisheries jurisdiction over US vessels fishing in the disputed area. And this enforcement regime applies to all US and Canadian vessels fishing in the disputed area. And that's the matter under dispute.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) why can't you just divide it up between the US and - -

MR. FOLEY: Well, as I indicated, this is a two-decade-old issue, and it would be wonderful if such an issue was subject to such a rather easy resolution as you've described. I imagine it's not.

QUESTION: On the ongoing process for the demilitarization of the Republic of Cyprus, (inaudible) the US and the (inaudible), do you know when NATO forces will deploy to the green line of the divided island?

MR. FOLEY: Mr. Lambros, you know very well that's a provocative question that has no basis in fact. And with all respect, I won't bother to answer it.

QUESTION: It's in process --

MR. FOLEY: It's not true. It's not true.

QUESTION: About the US weapons used in the island, I believe Greece missed the deadline of this withdrawal from the island. Do you have any reaction to this?

MR. FOLEY: No, I can't confirm that. I think I said the other day that Greece and Turkey have indicated to us that they've completed withdrawal of those -

QUESTION: But the deadline is in June.

MR. FOLEY: -- weapons. In terms of the status itself, it's not something I can get into. As you know, the report that we prepared is a classified report.

QUESTION: Another question is the Turkish Foreign Minister Ismail Cem -- he was in New York and he met the Secretary General in the UN, and he said that under the G-8 announcement of the Security Council resolutions, Turkey not endorse or encourage (inaudible) attendance of the Kurdish meeting which the Secretary General is planning to call in the fall. Do you have any reaction?

MR. FOLEY: I didn't quite ascertain all the elements of the statement or the question, but we certainly continue to support UN efforts to promote a resolution of the Cyprus problem, and the United States is very clear that we continue to support a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation.

QUESTION: What is the State Department doing to break the deadlock on the Holbrooke nomination holds in the Senate?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we're talking to members of the Senate. I can tell you that. But we regard this, essentially, though, as a matter for the Senate and the senators to resolve. As you know, this whole issue is one of senatorial prerogatives that do not involve or engage the Executive Branch of government.

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has approved Ambassador Holbrooke's nomination to be our next ambassador to the United Nations, as well as a number of other diplomatic nominations. And it ought, in our view, go to the full Senate for rapid action because we think the United States -- and that means all Americans, Republican, Democrats, Members of Congress, -- as I said, all Americans deserve a very strong and effective ambassador working for us at the United Nations. So, we hope that the Senate will move quickly and act on the merits.

In terms of what we are doing in discussion with the Senate, I think what I can tell you is that there was an erroneous press report in one of today's newspapers, that indicated that the State Department had canceled a couple of meetings on the Hill yesterday and today to discuss this matter with Senator Grassley, in particular. And that press report is just untrue. What I can tell you is that there was no meeting actually scheduled. What happened was that Wednesday evening, about 7:00 p.m. or a little thereafter, Senator Warner proposed that some State Department lawyers come up and meet with Senator Grassley to discuss the issue of his hold. And we said that we would want to be able to attend the meeting but we had to check with the Justice Department to get clearance from them from a legal perspective and this was very late in the evening. We weren't able to obtain that, so we weren't able to set up the meeting. There wasn't a meeting scheduled that was canceled. We indicated to the Senator and the Senators that we would want to meet just as soon as we had the Department of Justice clearance, which came on Thursday morning.

What happened is we sent a team of State Department lawyers up to the Hill yesterday so that they'd be in a position on short notice to meet at any time with Senator Grassley or others and that never happened. I think we don't know exactly why that meeting did not happen, but certainly there was no meeting canceled - not on Wednesday; not on Thursday by the State Department.

But beyond simply answering their questions about the status of the case that Senator Grassley has raised - and of course we have very important Privacy Act considerations that we have to respect in that respect -- there's not much we can do. I think the important point here is that this personnel matter -- which I can only get into in a very limited way if you wish -- but that personnel matter is currently before an administrative tribunal, which is the Office of Special Counsel. That's an independent federal agency which was created by Congress specifically to insure that there be no external pressure or influence brought to bear in the adjudication of personnel matters. So that is an independent agency that is currently considering the case, so it's not something that can be interfered with.

QUESTION: In addition to the Grassley hold, there are apparently two other anonymously placed holds. Do they refer to the same issue as the Grassley matter?

MR. FOLEY: I don't think we - at least I have been asking to try to find out more about that and I certainly don't know what those other holds are about. Obviously the person - the people to ask are up on Capitol Hill - the Senators themselves. I don't know what they are.

QUESTION: Nobody knows whose they are?

MR. FOLEY: No. But we think that it's pretty clear, and as Senator Lott indicated and the vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee indicates, that a lot of Senators believe that Richard Holbrooke ought to be in New York representing the United States and we hope they will act on that basic truth.

QUESTION: Another subject - I asked about this two days ago - it's kind of minor, but this extradition request for one of President Estrada's top aides?

MR. FOLEY: Yes. I had something for you yesterday, Matt, on that. If I can engage in dilatory tactics for a few seconds maybe we can - they can bring that rapidly to the floor. Are there other questions in the meantime?

QUESTION: Forgive me if I go back just for a second to North Korea. One criticism of the policy has been that too often bad or provocative behavior on the part of North Korea gets rewarded and that perhaps talk of preparing for another missile test and stuff of this sort is just the North Koreans trying to sort of up the ante and get concessions from the US and South Korea, etc. How do you respond to that kind of criticism of US policy towards North Korea?

MR. FOLEY: We don't think we've rewarded North Korea at all. The fact of the matter is that the Agreed Framework, for example, has frozen North Korea's development - North Korea's nuclear capabilities. That's in the United States' interest; that's a program that they were working on very aggressively in the early 1990's that has been frozen and that's an enormous plus to the security of the United States and to our friends in the region.

Kelly, you're absolutely right - there was all kinds of speculation that comes up every few months on the issue of food aid, but the fact is that we have resisted any attempts to make food aid part of a negotiating package - a price for this or that. We have been very consistent in asserting the principle that we do provide food aid but we provide it on the basis on humanitarian need, based on assessments of competent international food authorities.

So I think the premise is just not true, and the fact is that we tend to look at the question you raise from the opposite perspective which is that were the North Koreans to proceed with another missile test there would be negative consequences. And without spelling those out, I think the North Koreans understand that negative consequences are not positive consequences and that it would behoove them not to engage in a second missile test.

At the same time, Dr. Perry has had discussions with North Korean leaders about the possibility for a better relationship but one in which North Korea has the prospect of good relations with the international community including the United States, but in which North Korea has addressed our concerns about missiles and nuclear weapons developments. That's a plus for everyone if those concerns can be successfully addressed. I think there's no reason to look at it from the angle that you are describing. We have an overriding obligation to protect the security of the United States and our friends in the region as well, and that is what is motivating our policy in North Korea and elsewhere.

And now, Matt -- you didn't see that slight of hand - this has been in front of me all along. Extradition requests from the US Government to the Philippine Government are made under the US-Philippine Extradition Treaty - bet you didn't know that - which has been in effect since 1996. Any requests for extradition would be handled in a normal matter through diplomatic channels. The Department of Justice should be contacted for further details.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) can I ask -

MR. FOLEY: As we move into the July 4 holiday that I would leave you with some very --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) because the holiday's approaching, you wouldn't have said all that, right? Listen, here's another thing that you can jump on if you wish. The House International Relations Committee has passed a resolution condemning the arrest of 13 Iranian Jews on spy charges and Benjamin Gilman, the chairman of the committee, says the arrest is an indication Iran is going backward. I haven't asked lately - maybe someone has lately - but is there something the US is doing to try to undo these arrests? Is there something you can talk about on it? Khatami has been noticeably silent on the subject, and there are people in this building who had all sorts of hopes that things were changing in Iran. So could you address - is the US doing anything? And does this reflect, as Mr. Gilman seems to think, a backward movement?

MR. FOLEY: I think, Barry, that you'll understand that 13 human beings are involved here - people who we believe are innocent; we've stated that - that the charges are unfounded and unacceptable. And so we've made very clear our views publicly, but also to describe publicly our efforts to persuade Iranian authorities to do the right thing and to drop the charges and release them are not necessarily those that would be best described publicly. But rest assured that we're in contact with other governments and we think this is a very important matter.

As to putting this into the mix of a general assessment of the human rights picture in Iran, it's perfectly legitimate for Congressman Gilman and others to do so and we do so ourselves. We hope to see Iran move towards the establishment of the rule of law - the protection of human rights. We hope to see those kinds of changes reflected also in Iran's international policies. There's nothing wrong with wanting to see an Iran, which is an important country in the region, an important civilization, playing a responsible role; contributing to and benefiting from international affairs. That does not in any way mean that we are under any illusions about the problems and the practices in both the domestic and international spheres on the Iranian scene.

Thank you

(The briefing concluded at 2:10 P.M.)

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