U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #86, 99-07-06
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
824
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Tuesday, July 6, 1999
Briefer: James B. Foley
STATEMENT
1 Detention of Bosnian Serb Charged with War Crimes
TERRORISM
1,4-8 Executive Order Imposing Sanctions on Afghan Taliban for Support of
Bin Ladin
CUBA
1-2 Capsized Boat Incident in Cuban Waters / Reported Arrest of US
Resident Crew
2 Cuban Offer to Return Alleged Alien Smugglers to the US
10 Canadian Prime Minister's Comments on Cuban Human Rights and US
Policy
COLOMBIA
3 FARC Statement That US Intents to Directly Intervene in Colombia
3 Update on Peace Process
INDIA / PAKISTAN
3 Update on Situation in Kashmir / Line of Control
RUSSIA
3-4 NATO Delegation in Moscow / Agreement Regarding Russian Troop
Deployment in Kosovo
4 Reported Explusion of US Military Attache
8-9 Vice President's Meeting with Russian Prime Minister Stepashin on
July 27
RUSSIA/SYRIA
12-13 Reported Russia-Syria Arms Sale
MADAGASCAR
6,7,12 Status of US Embassy / US Embassy Personnel / Safety of US Citizens
SOUTH KOREA
8 South Korea's Missile Defense Programs
NORTH KOREA
8 Possibility of a Second Missile Test / Serious Consequences If
Conducted
9 Update on Consular Access to Detained American
BURMA
9 Reported EU Mission to Burma
TURKEY
10 Recent PKK Activities in Turkey
ITALY
10 Reported Kurdish Attacks on Turkish Diplomatic Facilities in Rome
CYPRUS
10 Status of Withdrawal of US Weapons from Cyprus
SERBIA
10-12 Prospects for Humanitarian Aid for Serbia
ISRAEL
12,13 Prospects for US Visit by New Israeli Prime Minister Barak
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #86 TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1999, 1:25 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Good afternoon. Anyone in favor of holding class outside today,
under a tree?
QUESTION: No.
MR. FOLEY: I have an announcement -- or statement, rather, concerning
SFOR's detention of a Bosnian Serb war criminal which I'll post after the
briefing. We don't have a lot of time for the briefing, so I'm not going to
waste your time. The reason we don't have a lot of time is we're going to
have a background briefing here in 35 minutes - at 2:00 (P.M.) - with, I
think, one or two senior administration officials who will discuss
the new Executive Order signed by the President last night imposing
sanctions on the Afghan Taliban for its support of Usama bin Laden and his
terrorist network. So, that's in 35 minutes. So, we will attempt to move
smartly through all of your issues today.
Who would like to go first?
QUESTION: Did you have anything on the incident involving alien smugglers
off the coast of Florida?
MR. FOLEY: Are you referring to the incident last week, George, or to -
QUESTION: No, yesterday, wasn't it?
MR. FOLEY: -- the most recent reports? The Coast Guard received
information from the Cuban border guards that a speedboat headed to the US
from Cuba's northwest coast on Saturday had capsized in Cuban territorial
waters, and resulted in the drowning of one Cuban male. The Cuban border
guard stated that it rescued the survivors. Organized alien smuggling of
Cubans into the United States is a dangerous, illegal business that
exploits human tragedy. Safe, legal and orderly procedures to emigrate from
Cuba have been established precisely to prevent tragedies like the one
that occurred this Saturday. The United States provides at least 20,
000 travel documents a year for individuals from Cuba to emigrate
legally to the United States. Further questions, George, on that?
QUESTION: Can I follow up?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Has the US government been in contact with the Cuban government
regarding the arrest of the two American citizens?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we understand that the Cuban government has arrested two
US residents who were apparently the crew of the capsized vessel. The Cuban
border guard authorities have informed the US Coast Guard that they are
investigating. We don't have further information at this point. The
government of Cuba has not been in contact with the US Government regarding
return of these two apparent US residents.
QUESTION: Using the word resident - do you care specifically not to -
they may not be citizens?
MR. FOLEY: They - well, we haven't seen them - the information we've
gotten is from Cuban authorities. They apparently described them as US
residents, presumably legal, permanent residents of the United States, as
opposed to citizens. But I can't confirm that, Matt.
QUESTION: The Cuban Government has offered to return these citizens and
those -- another group of 20 or 18 US citizens involving this - the
smuggling of illegal aliens.
MR. FOLEY: That is true. We have not formally responded to the government
of Cuba except to restate our commitment to combat alien smuggling. So,
we're currently reviewing that offer.
QUESTION: To clarify on that - on that report, the response the US has
not given yet is on what? Is it the offer that if the Cubans return them to
the United States we promise to prosecute? Is that --
MR. FOLEY: I don't have the details of what the Cubans have put on the
table. Specifically, I'm not sure I would be in a position to comment about
it in any case. They have offered to return the - apparently 26 alleged
alien smugglers to the US. We have this under review; we're looking at the
information they've provided, as well as our own laws and I'm not in a
position to give you an answer yet because we haven't made a decision
yet on that.
QUESTION: Can you take the question as to what arguments there are
against prosecuting them in the US?
MR. FOLEY: I'd be glad to take the question, sure.
QUESTION: I have a follow-up on Cuba. Has the State Department given
already its recommendation to the White House about the suspension of Helms-
Burton, Chapter Three?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that that has occurred. Obviously we have an
understanding with the European Union to seek a waiver, but in terms of the
timing and the exact status of that request I'd have to take the question.
I've not heard anything recently on that subject.
QUESTION: On Colombia: Do you have any comment on one of the FARQ leaders
saying that US - the US is planning to directly intervene in Colombia?
MR. FOLEY: It's absurd. There's no need to embellish the answer. It's
untrue; it's absurd; it's misinformation; it's not something we have any
intention of doing.
QUESTION: Can you be more general on the talks beginning again tomorrow
between --
MR. FOLEY: Well, we support those efforts. We support President
Pastrana's efforts in particular to achieve peace in Colombia. We note that
his efforts reflect the consensus and desire of the Colombian people for
peace and national reconciliation after almost 40 years of bloodshed. We
believe that a negotiated settlement is the best way to resolve Colombia's
long-standing civil conflict, and that progress in the peace process will
enable the Colombian Government - with our support - to accelerate anti-
narcotics efforts against production and transit of cocaine and heroin.
Peace talks between the government and the FARQ are scheduled, as you say,
to begin tomorrow, July 7. We fully endorse these talks, and express our
hopes for their success.
QUESTION: Another subject - it appears that the Pakistani Prime
Minister's commitment to end the conflict is not translatable into action
on the ground given the emotions running. Do you think that he in fact has
the ability to bring this conflict to an end?
MR. FOLEY: Certainly we believe he is the Prime Minister of Pakistan;
that he is in charge of the government; and that he speaks on behalf of
Pakistan. And you saw the statement that he issued with President Clinton
when he visited here on Sunday. I believe also the army Chief of Staff has
made a comment in the last 24 hours or so, indicating support for
restoration of the sanctity of the Line Of Control. That was obviously a
very important commitment that both President Clinton and Prime Minister
Sharif agreed to on Sunday that's in the statement. I can't really
parse it for you, but we - it was indicated in that statement that -
and I read: "It was agreed between the President and the Prime Minister
that concrete steps will be taken for the restoration of the Line Of
Control in accordance with the Simla Agreement of 1972."
So, that's what we expect to happen. In terms of when it happens, we can't
predict that. But certainly it is our view, and I think it is a shared view,
given the statement that they reached, that this is a situation that
carries with it the danger of escalation, and that it's in the interest of
both India and Pakistan that de-escalation be achieved -- and that the
first step in order to return to the more hopeful situation that prevailed
at the time of the Lahore Summit is to restore the sanctity of the
Line Of Control - that's the first step that's essential.
QUESTION: Could I ask you to go over to the talks in Moscow between NATO
and the military of -- the Russian military -- and perhaps give me - give
us a response from the US government on this agreement which is supposed to
be iron-clad? And perhaps contrast and compare what was accomplished in
Helsinki as opposed to what further was done in Moscow?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think the important point to understand is that
arrangements were agreed in Helsinki, but that it was always going to be
left to military-to-military talks that were to take place at SHAPE -- and
actually began last week at SHAPE -- to develop the precise details of
those deployments. That's precisely what happened. There were talks at
SHAPE last week. They did not reach conclusion, and then a NATO delegation
went to Moscow over the weekend. These talks in Moscow resolved outstanding
military technical details on Russian participation in KFOR, especially on
precise deployments, command arrangements and rules of engagement.
Under the agreement reached in Helsinki last month, Russia will provide one
or two battalions in the US sector, operating in Kosovska Kamenica; provide
1,000 personnel in the German sector, operating near Malisevo, and one
battalion in the French sector, near Lausa. There will also be a Russian
group in the UK sector, for airfield logistics of the Pristina airfield.
So, yes, it took some time to iron out those details. It took a second set
of meetings in Moscow after last week's meetings at SHAPE, but they have
reached agreement. As you can see from television pictures, the Russian
troops are now flying into Pristina, and they will be beginning their
deployments to their sectors in short order.
QUESTION: Also on Russia, is the US prepared yet to comment on the
expulsion of this military attache? And if not, why not?
MR. FOLEY: Excuse me. I still have no comment. I have to continue what I
said on Friday, which is not to comment on the matter.
QUESTION: Well, it seems to me that there's been - it's been reported now
in two Washington newspapers, and - finally, I don't understand why the US
is refusing to say anything about it.
MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry. I can't go beyond that.
QUESTION: Jim, at the beginning of the briefing, you announced a
background briefing. Can you talk to us about why the President decided to
take the actions taken vis a vis the Taliban and what it means - what
affect the sanctions would have?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, I can in general terms. Of course, I will refer you to
the statement that the White House has just issued, and secondly, we'll
have some experts here who can give you more detail and information about
the announcement. But what I can tell you is the Executive Order was issued
pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the National
Emergencies Act, and other authorities which provide wide authority to the
President to impose economic sanctions to protect the US against threats
to its national security and foreign policy interests. The President has
formally determined that actions and policies of the Taliban pose such a
threat. The order blocks all property and interests in property of the
Taliban; including the Taliban leaders that are listed in the annex to the
order that are in the US or that are - hereafter come within the possession
or control of United States persons. The order prohibits any transaction or
dealing by US persons within the US and property or interests in property
blocked pursuant to the order, including the making or receiving of any
contribution of funds, goods, or services, to or for the benefit of the
Taliban.
Now - in plain English because that is -
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. FOLEY: What was that, Barry? Are you feeling -
QUESTION: No, no -- (inaudible) - heat of the cameras, not to the -
MR. FOLEY: You can imagine how I'm feeling -
QUESTION: It must be awful for you, too, but --
MR. FOLEY: Plain English - here's what's happening. We have undertaken
very vigorous and consistent efforts - vis-a-vis the Taliban - to persuade
them to stop harboring bin Laden and his terrorists infrastructure. We've
worked, as the President indicates in his statement, assiduously to
persuade them to expel bin Laden to the US for trial; or if that's not
possible, to a third country where he will face justice for his crimes and
to end the safe haven that the Taliban are currently giving to bin
Laden and his network.
I think many of you have followed some of those meetings and discussions
we've had with the Taliban. They've made certain undertakings in the past,
and yet we see today that bin Laden, of course, remains free to use Afghan
territory controlled by the Taliban to maintain his infrastructure; to
continue to plan terrorist attacks; to continue to make public statements;
threatening terrorist attacks against American civilians and innocents. So
we finally decided to take action because the Taliban, themselves, have not
taken action. They basically face a choice - whether they want to -
whether they want to be able to trade with the United States; want to be
able to enjoy the reputation as an organization that aspires to a
responsible political role, or whether they want to be shunned and isolated
for giving harbor to bin Laden.
Over the past few months we've received intelligence reflecting a pattern
of activity that indicates planning for terrorist attacks against American
interests by bin Laden and his associates. This terrorist threat is
continuing as shown by measures we had to take last week to close
temporarily half a dozen US embassies in Africa. Again bin Laden continues
to enjoy sanctuary in other facilities in areas of Afghanistan controlled
by the Taliban, and they have simply not heeded our repeated requests for
them to expel bin Laden to a country where he can be brought to justice.
They've not taken effective measures against bin Laden. He continues, as I
said, to issue threats to kill Americans while enjoying the protection of
the Taliban, and at the same time his associates continue to engage in
activities indicating pending, planned terrorist attacks.
QUESTION: The first thing - two - one, is the embassy in Madagascar still
closed?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, it is.
QUESTION: And - OK. And two, I forgot what it was - oh, right - the trade
with - Taliban trade with the United States - this really doesn't have too
much teeth in it, does it - because there is very little trade between -
MR. FOLEY: Yes, in terms of - in terms of assets, rather, the effect is
likely to be modest. The Treasury Department would have more information on
that. In terms of trade, it's fairly modest, but it's not - it's not
insignificant. We had, in 1998, about $24 million in two-way trade -- $7
million in exports and $17 million in imports -
QUESTION: What year was that?
MR. FOLEY: 1998. But I think that whatever the concrete impact - this
sends an unambiguous message of the commitment of the United States to take
action against those who shelter international terrorists, like bin Laden,
and will help to further isolate the Taliban internationally.
So, two points - crucial points: Our embassies were attacked. These were
violent attacks against the United States government, against United States
employees, against civilians, against African employees of our embassies
and innocent civilians - both African and American. And we are resolute in
responding to those who perpetrate such acts, and may be planning similar
acts.
Secondly, though, on the Taliban themselves - this is a group that aspires
to international legitimacy - to acceptance - to playing a part - a
recognized, legitimate part in Afghanistan's political future. We are
stating here very clearly, today, that based on their actions so far, they
are beyond the pale. They are not acting in a way that allows them to be
treated legitimately - Barry, I'm sorry -
QUESTION: (inaudible)
MR. FOLEY: -- that allows them to be treated with respect internationally.
We believe that is important to them, and they can take steps to reverse
this measure. I've been very clear on why we've done this - it has to be
harboring bin Laden. They can choose to stop harboring bin Laden, and these
measures can be reversed.
QUESTION: Can we go back to your statement originally?
MR. FOLEY: Is this on the same subject?
QUESTION: Yes. Your statement all but says that it links the Taliban or
threats from bin laden - excuse me - bin Laden and threats thereof to the
closing of the embassies. Did you mean that, or did you just mean that it
creates a certain atmosphere that makes the US sensitive to -
MR. FOLEY: That's a good question. I'd have to go check the record to see
how explicit we've been about specific places and specific authors of
potential terrorist acts. The fact is, we have said that we've seen a
continuing pattern of activity on bin Laden's part, so we've continued to
say that he could act again the way he did last summer. We're prepared and
vigilant. Secondly, we've said that those particular embassies have
faced threats and we've taken action. I would hesitate to go further
than that.
QUESTION: You seem to link them together just now, but maybe it's
unintentional. You seem - when the embassies were closed there were just
suspicious people - or suspicious surveillance -
MR. FOLEY: There was surveillance.
QUESTION: But you did not - nothing was said about by whom. This
statement today implies, suggests that it was bin Laden people who seemed
to be eyeing the embassies.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I can't be more specific than that, for obvious reasons.
But it's clear that bin Laden is planning further terrorist activities and
we are prepared to take preventative measures and responsive measures, as
well.
QUESTION: Is the Taliban now saying to the United States or -- in its
meetings with US officials -- that bin Laden is -- does reside in territory
that they are controlling in Afghanistan?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'd have to check that and, I think, in the interests of
everyone here, since you probably have other issues to discuss, we will
have a couple of experts here in 20 minutes who can answer those questions.
As you know, we did indicate publicly - and our officials can confirm this -
that at some point in our diplomatic conversations with the Taliban, they
had indicated that he had moved out of areas that they control. But I -
obviously we are not satisfied in any way with the Taliban's non-action
and, in fact, continued harboring of bin Laden. I think what we've done
today - the President's Executive Order -- speaks for itself in terms of
your answer. But let's let the officials give you some more.
QUESTION: Jim, one more on this because the experts won't be on camera
apparently; they'll be on background - is that right? So on this, what
effect does it have on the relations that the Taliban have with other
countries - or with countries, since you don't recognize them as a country?
The Saudis are involved - what effect would it have? Any US sanctions on
the Saudis if they continue to have relations? How does that work?
MR. FOLEY: I think the Saudis have been very clear that bin Laden is an
ex-Saudi citizen whom they oppose - whose terrorism they oppose -- and I
think we see eye-to-eye on bin Laden entirely. I think this sends a very
strong signal of the United States' resolve that we're not going to conduct
business as usual with the Taliban, and it certainly sends a signal to
others as well, that - about our views. I won't seek to characterize their
views, but I think that -- at least in terms of bin Laden himself
is concerned -- as I said, I think we and the Saudi Government see
eye-to-eye that this is a menace that has to be dealt with.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - they also have -- Pakistan recognizes them?
MR. FOLEY: What's your question?
QUESTION: The question is what effect would it have - is there any
adverse effect on US-Pakistani relations -
MR. FOLEY: Our understanding is bin Laden is in Taliban-controlled areas
of Afghanistan and operates there. We urge anyone who has any influence
over what's going on inside Afghanistan to exert their efforts to make sure
that he's unable to conduct further terrorist attacks, and indeed that he's
brought to justice.
QUESTION: I'd like to ask about the missile problem. There are some
conflicting reports that a North Korean test launch of a missile is
imminent or some say not. How do you assess that? And another question is
that last Friday, South Korean President Kim told President Clinton that he
hopes to extend the missile range of South Korean missiles, and he hopes to
talk about it with the United States. What is your position on the
extension of the -
MR. FOLEY: Well, on the second issue - South Korea's defensive capabilities
and programs, we had several days -- one, in particular, here in this
briefing room -- where we covered that to the extent that I'm able to cover
it. Secondly, there was a briefing at the White House following President
Kim's visit, and I assume that that issue was raised, and I would simply
refer you to the transcript of that briefing. I am not familiar, myself,
with what transpired between the President - the two presidents - in that
meeting in any kind of detail.
On the first question, I repeat simply what I said yesterday; the issue is
not - Friday, thank you -- (laughter) -- Matt - it's been hot - it's been
hot the last few days; it kind of has an effect. But we have made very
clear -- the issue is not whether -- it's not when there would be a second
missile test by North Korea. I don't think people doubt that it's a
possibility or within North Korean capabilities to conduct another missile
test. The issue is whether, and we have made it very clear that there
will be serious consequences if North Korea conducts another missile
test, and we urge them strongly not to do so.
QUESTION: Is the State Department taking any part in the talks on - the
latter part of this month with the Russian Prime Minister - Stepashin?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I believe the Vice President has issued a statement
today concerning the meeting on July 27th of the US-Russian Joint
Commission on Economic and Technological Cooperation. I'm certain the State
Department will be playing a role in that meeting, but this was just issued
this morning. I'd have to check which officials might be participating -
QUESTION: One more on other subject. Have you seen a report that the
European Union has sent a delegation to Burma? Does the United States have
any objections to the EU taking up direct dialogue with -
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen that report.
QUESTION: Going back to the Russians and Stepashin's visit - it's a
heavily economic visit. He's bringing economic experts, and the commission
will only meet for a couple of hours and then he's going to go look at
American companies. Can you state for the record to go with that story what
is the current US position on US support for further loans to Moscow?
MR. FOLEY: We understand that the IMF has received a draft of a report
regarding - excuse me, I'm in the wrong place - we understand that the IMF
and Russia, I believe, have reached some preliminary level of agreement on
a further disbursement of assistance. I think that has not yet been
formally approved by the IMF. I would have to refer you to the Treasury
Department for the exact status of the US position on that. As you know,
Barry, we defer to Treasury on those questions.
QUESTION: Is there any development of - American student who has been in
custody in North Korea?
MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry. A development on -
QUESTION: The woman; the American student.
MR. FOLEY: Oh, the woman in North Korea. We understand that the Swedish
charge has not been granted consular access to the detained American
citizen in North Korea. It has now been almost two weeks since the Swedish
charge first requested consular access to the detained American citizen on
June 23rd. We note, as we have previously, that the government of North
Korea has an obligation under the interim consular agreement with the
United States, signed in 1994, to permit consular access to detained
US citizens. Also the North Korean government has an obligation under
Article 36-A of the Vienna Convention, on consular relations, to permit a
consular representative of the US to communicate with detained US citizens.
We fully expect the government of the DPRK to meet these obligations, and
are continuing to press for consular access. We consider an early consular
visit critical in order to confirm in person the American's health and well-
being and ensure that she has not been mistreated.
QUESTION: Are they insisting on some sort of material gain in return for
access?
MR. FOLEY: I don't believe we've had any elucidation of the reasons for
the delay thus far in providing consular access.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment -- the PKK terrorist organization
renewal and increased attack to civilian Turkey -- targeting Turkey?
MR. FOLEY: We've designated the PKK as a terrorist organization. It
doesn't surprise us that the PKK engages in terrorist activities, but we
take this opportunity to urge them to cease such activities. I believe Mr.
Ocalan, himself, I read today, has issued a similar appeal to the PKK
organization and we think it ought to be heeded.
QUESTION: And also, the Italian Government even bothered to stop some
terrorists and the Kurdish attacked the Turkish diplomatic facilities in
Rome. Do you have any comment on this?
MR. FOLEY: No, no I don't.
QUESTION: The last one and the - Greece withdraw all the US-made weapons
from Cyprus?
MR. FOLEY: I can't give you a different answer from last week. I'd refer
you to what I said last week.
QUESTION: Do you have any opinion or comment about the new policy that
Prime Minister Chretien is trying to engage with Cuba?
MR. FOLEY: You'd have to be more specific than that. That's an extraordinarily
general question. What --
QUESTION: Well, last week --
MR. FOLEY: I'm not trying to be difficult, but that's pretty general.
QUESTION: Last week he announced that he plans to commit investment in
Cuba regarding the new - (inaudible) - the actions by the Cuban Government
in favor against human rights. And he says we are going to base according
to what he does in terms of human rights, but still he's rejecting the US
policy of the embargo.
MR. FOLEY: We certainly believe that - that Prime Minister Chretien is
right to highlight the fact that there has been a negative trend in the
human rights situation in Cuba over the last year. Of course the situation
has been fairly negative and dire for many, many decades now, but in the
period surrounding the visit of the Pope to Cuba, there were hopes that
were raised that there might be an opening to civil society; there might
be a relaxation of repression and greater space given to private
individuals and organizations to exercise their God-given rights in Cuba.
Certainly those hopes have been dashed; there's been a crackdown on
expression of - political expression and independent groups. We think that
Prime Minister Chretien is certainly right to highlight these negative
trends.
QUESTION: Yugoslavia: It seems there's a campaign underway to persuade
the United States and its allies to invest, or to make humanitarian
contributions to opposition-held areas. I seem to recall that the
definition of humanitarian was open to debate, and I wondered if there was
any more consideration going on to what kind of aid could go to such
areas?
MR. FOLEY: I think - it's an interesting question; it's certainly an
important and legitimate question and I don't think we need to be
theological about it in a general sense or in an abstract sense. We want to
do that which is going to help promote democratic change in Serbia. The
Serb -- people of Serbia deserve a better leadership. They certainly
deserve someone other than an indicted war criminal to be their leader.
They deserve to be part of the wider Europe. They deserve to be part of the
Stability Pact, and part of Euro-Atlantic institutions; and to join
with the rest of Europe in its march away from communism and towards
free markets and political freedom. And we will do that which helps promote
those goals. We don't want to that which may help entrench Milosevic in
power further and longer.
Now, in terms of the definition of humanitarian aid, you are right that
it's something that we're going to continue to look at. We've been very
clear - President Clinton has been very clear that we will provide
humanitarian assistance, we will not help Milosevic rebuild Serbia, for
obvious reasons. In terms of the specific details, though, of how we're
going to define this, beyond humanitarian assistance, it's really going to
depend on several factors - one is the assessment of the actual damage, and
I think that is ongoing -- damage to infrastructure, water, and electrical
utilities.
Secondly, there needs to be an assessment of the indigenous capacity to
make repairs. But we are very mindful of the situation of many of the
opposition cities and politicians and leaders in Serbia, and the desire of
their people which, after all is most important -- to have a better future.
We are going to try to do everything we can to help them. But we're going
to be very careful to ensure that what we do does not help Milosevic, and
does not extend, for a single day, his tenure in power, which - well, after
all, I think it's important to state that he will not be president
of Yugoslavia forever. I think anybody watching TV in the last few weeks
has to be certain that there is growing opposition to his rule. The people
of Serbia know what kind of a hole he has dug them - dug for them over
these last 10 years. And they know that their future is with a different
leadership - a better future. So, your question is a very good one, it's a
legitimate one. It's something we're going to continue to look at. But we
have those considerations constantly in mind as I described.
QUESTION: On Madagascar -
MR. FOLEY: Do you have a follow up?
QUESTION: Yes. So, you - I read from what you say - you seem to be
leaving the option open that you could help opposition areas with
reconstruction of infrastructure?
MR. FOLEY: I didn't say that. Those are your words. Those are your words.
I said in terms of infrastructure, we have to see an assessment of the
damage, we have to analyze indigenous capabilities, and we have to make
sure that we're not going to help Milosevic in any way. That does not
indicate anything specific at this point. We are, at the same time, very
mindful of the aspirations of the Serb people and the democratic opposition
to effect political change in Serbia. We're mindful of that, and we're
going to try to be supportive of that.
We have about five minutes.
QUESTION: On Madagascar, do you have a general assessment of the safety
of American citizens in that country? And does the extended closure of the
embassy have any effect on their safety?
MR. FOLEY: Not really. Let's remember, the embassy is closed; it's
operations are suspended, but we haven't withdrawn our personnel from the
country. And what that means is that the embassy is still in a position to
provide emergency services to American citizens in a given country - in
this case in Madagascar -- and that the embassy continues to activate and
keep working the warden network that connects us to Americans throughout
the country. We've closed the embassy because of security concerns
regarding US Government facilities. So that's an important distinction. And
we are working with the government to improve the embassy's security
posture, and we hope the embassy will be able to reopen soon. We do
not believe Americans visiting Madagascar are at greater risk because
of considerations that have caused the embassy to remain closed. We
continue to advise American travelers to exercise prudent caution as
suggested in the Consular Information Sheet for Madagascar that we issued
in February. A couple more questions - let's go to someone new; I'll come
back to you.
QUESTION: Another subject - Syria wants to buy new arms from Russia.
What's your comment on President Asad's visit, and how does this visit
affect the Middle East peace process?
MR. FOLEY: I think it's premature to comment on the political impact of
the visit. In terms of arms sales though, we would be very concerned about
any new Russian arms sales to Syria or to any other designated state
sponsor of terrorism. There is a provision under US law which - under which
assistance may be withheld from a government of a country that transfers
lethal military equipment to a country determined by the Secretary to be a
state sponsor of terrorism; and as you know, Syria was so designated in
1979. But in terms of the political impact of the visit, I think it's
simply premature to assess how the visit is to go. If the aim is to try to
build momentum for the Middle East peace process, then that could be
positive. Certainly we take note of Prime Minister Barak's accession to the
prime ministership today and we congratulate him and the new Israeli
Government and cabinet, and note his commitment to pursuing a comprehensive
Middle East peace which we fully support.
QUESTION: One more on the Taliban?
MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry - we really covered it, and we're going to have a
background briefing in a few minutes. I'd rather not exhaust the remaining
time.
QUESTION: A couple of follow-ups to that one. Obviously Syria has
acquired weapons of lethal - lethal weapons over the last 10 years. Has
this provision ever been applied before?
MR. FOLEY: Yes. On March 29, the Secretary determined that Russia had
transferred lethal military equipment, namely anti-tank guided missiles, to
Syria. In accordance with the law, she decided to waive sanctions in that
case against the Russian Government, but did not waive sanctions with
respect to the three Russian firms directly involved in the transactions.
One more question.
QUESTION: To follow up on the Middle East -- same subject. Now that Prime
Minister Barak has a government and has taken office, are there any - what
are the plans for high-level meetings?
MR. FOLEY: We expect him to travel to Washington soon. I'd refer you to
the White House for any details on that. Another question?
QUESTION: I have one.
MR. FOLEY: Okay. Can you check to see if they're ready or not, because we
could go on another -- would you like a two minute break? This will be the
last question then.
QUESTION: Well it's not that exciting a question - it's just that I
noticed before coming out here today that the Festival of San Fermin has
begun again in Pamplona -- I'm wondering if the State Department has any
cautionary words or bits of advice for Americans who'd like to throw
themselves in front of charging bulls beginning tomorrow morning?
(Laughter.)
MR. FOLEY: We don't have a bull policy here from the State Department
podium. I'd have to check that one, Matt. Thank you.
END 2:05 P.M. EDT
"(
|
