U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #87, 99-07-07
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1113
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, July 7, 1999
Briefer: James B. Foley
LIBYA
1-2 US Sanctions / British Decision on Sanctions / Compliance With UN
Resolutions /Restoration of Relations / UN Sanctions / State
Sponsor of Terrorism
DEPARTMENT
3 Senators' Holds on Amb Holbrooke's Nomination / State Dept Letter
to Senators
3-5 Review of Ms. Shenwick's Allegations / Status of Investigation /
Privacy Act / Present Position / State Dept Contacts With Sen
Grassley / Special Counsel's Responsibility / Repercussions
CHINA
5-6 Written Version of Under Secretary Pickering's Oral Presentation re
Bombing of Embassy in Belgrade / Internal Review / US Compensation
to Families / Transmittal of Written Report
ISRAEL
6-7 Secretary's Contact With Prime Minister Barak and Foreign Minister
Levy /Prime Minister Barak to Washington / Secretary's Travel
Plans
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
7 Secretary's Contact With Chairman Arafat
7-8 President Assad's on Opportunity for Peace / Prime Minister Barak's
Inaugural Remarks / Resumption of Syrian Track
8 US-Russia Diplomatic Contacts
9 Implementation of Wye Agreement / Reports of Israeli Changes to Wye
Agreement
9 Travel by Amb Ross
RUSSIA / SYRIA
8,9 Arms Connection
SERBIA (KOSOVO)
9-10 US Businesses Involvement in Rebuilding While Milosevic in Power /
Humanitarian Aid
10-11 Secretary's Meeting With UN Special Rep for Kosovo
11-12 NATO Air Campaign Targets / Environmental Damage
12-13 Broadcasts to Serbian People / US Supports Peaceful Change,
Democratic Movement / Indicted War Criminals Assets Frozen
SECRETARY
11 Contacts While on Vacation
NO. KOREA
11,16 AmCit Being Held / Next Steps for Consular Access
17 Dr. Perry's Report
CUBA
13-14 Smuggled Cubans / US Policy on Legal Migration
14-15 Additional People-to-People Measures / US Policy Goals / Changes in
Allowable Remittances
INDIA / PAKISTAN
15-16 Situation in Kashmir / Prime Minister Sharif's Meetings / Restore
Line of Control & Return to Lahore Process
RUSSIA
16 Expulsion of US Military Attache
INDONESIA (EAST TIMOR)
16 Status of US Military Assistance / Responsibility for Stopping
Paramilitary Actions
BURMA
17-18 EU Mission Visit for Talks on Human Rights Issues
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #87
WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 1999, 1:20 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department. To echo my boss' normal
announcement, today is Wednesday, July 7. This is another not-on-time
briefing from your deputy spokesman. Mr. Schweid.
QUESTION: A lot of ground to cover. Let me try first, Libya. The British -
curiously, I have to say - at the UN are joining the US in opposing a
lifting of sanctions, but at the same time have fully restored diplomatic
relations with Libya. Now, before you tell me it's a British decision and
it's up to Britain, I would still try to see how the United States feels
about its best friend in combating terrorism and other problem areas, feels
about this. And if you can't deal with that, why would the US - how
does the US feel about the wisdom of the US not restoring or restoring full
relations?
MR. FOLEY: How would who feel about that?
QUESTION: Your own government.
MR. FOLEY: Well, we've stated our position on that on numerous occasions.
We have separate from the United Nations regime of sanctions which have
been suspended, as you know, we have US national sanctions on Libya, which
remain in effect and will remain in effect until our separate concerns
behind those sanctions are fully resolved and satisfied.
I would have to refer you to the British Government for comment on their
decision. What I can say is that we understand from them that this step was
taken because Libya has acknowledged responsibility for the murder of a
British police officer in London in 1984. Libya has furthermore expressed
regret for this act, agreed to cooperate with British police investigations
and offered to pay compensation to the victim's family. Now, we believe
that this parallels what we've asked Libya to do in the case of Pan Am
103. So we would hope that Libya would prove as cooperative in that
case, as well.
We've made clear for our part that Libya must comply with the remaining
requirements of Security Council resolutions before sanctions can be lifted
or further developments considered. Libya has given assurances that it will
fulfill these requirements and end support for terrorism, cooperate with
the Pan Am 103 investigation and trial, pay appropriate compensation, and
acknowledge responsibility for the actions of Libyan officials. We continue
to look for Libya to take action on these assurances.
QUESTION: So that virtually does it - clear to your position on sanctions,
but their position on sanctions is clear, too. They're with the US in
imposing - so far as --
MR. FOLEY: Yes, and there are other members of the Security Council as
well that support our view that it is not time to lift sanctions.
QUESTION: But the related issue is recognition, restoration of full
relations. So I take it that the United States sees no expectation of
restoring relations until Libya qualifies also for a lifting of sanctions.
Do they go hand in glove with you guys?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I talked about two different sets of sanctions. One has
to -
QUESTION: And there are two different sets of sanctions, yes.
MR. FOLEY: The UN sanctions that are yet to be lifted, and we do not
support lifting those sanctions at this -
QUESTION: Nor does Britain, but they're having full relations.
MR. FOLEY: Nor does Secretary General make such a recommendation in his
recent report, which is being discussed today in the Security Council.
Apart from that, the United States has national sanctions against Libya,
and Libya will have to meet our concerns or satisfy our concerns fully,
thoroughly and definitively before we consider any further steps down the
road in adjusting our relationship with Libya, be it the question of
changing our sanctions policy, be it the question of political relations of
any kind.
QUESTION: Jim, I wonder a couple things on the Holbrooke nomination.
Let's give it a whirl.
QUESTION: Can we stay on the Libya subject? Does the United States
consider that Libya is an active supporter of terrorism or is it a passive
supporter of terrorism? That is, in its support of terrorism, is it merely
being a host country for some undesirable groups, or is it actually out
there committing acts of terrorism?
MR. FOLEY: Well, Libya is officially deemed by the United States as a
state sponsor of terrorism. That covers a multitude of sins, if you will.
It covers relations with terrorist groups, their support to terrorist
groups, their harboring of terrorist groups. Our sanctions also relate to
Libyan programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. There are a whole
range of concerns we have with Libyan policies.
QUESTION: But you can't say if Libya is an active --
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think I've indicated the areas of Libyan support to
terrorism that are of concern for us. I think that's about as specific as I
can get.
QUESTION: On the Holbrooke nomination, we'll just give it a whirl. Can
you confirm that Senators Lott and McConnell have placed holds on the
Holbrooke nomination?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, that's our understanding, that there are two additional
holds by senators on the Holbrooke nomination. As you know, Ambassador
Holbrooke's nomination to be our next Ambassador to the United Nations was
approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It awaits a vote by the
full Senate. We don't believe that other issues external to Ambassador
Holbrooke's qualifications should be linked to his confirmation; we've made
that position very clear all these many months.
Ambassador Holbrooke is an excellent nominee. We certainly need him now at
the
United Nations to promote American interests. I think nobody in the Senate
disputes that fact that we have important interests to pursue at the United
Nations and he is certainly superbly qualified to pursue our interests at
the United Nations. So we hope that those issues will be de-linked and that
we'll see Ambassador Holbrooke in New York as rapidly as possible.
QUESTION: Let me just confirm, you said two senators. Are you confirming
that they are Lott and McConnell in addition to Grassley?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have that information. I've certainly read it in the
newspaper today as you have, but I can't confirm that.
QUESTION: Can you also confirm if the Senate --
MR. FOLEY: I think you should direct your question at the senators.
QUESTION: Right, but can you confirm that the State Department has been
notified about which senators are putting a hold on the -
MR. FOLEY: I don't know that because I don't know officially whether
those two are the senators who have the holds. So I can't confirm whether
we've been, obviously, informed of that.
QUESTION: Just a final question. Can you also tell us which senators that
letter went to - the letter that went from the Inspector General's office
last week? I believe you said it went to Grassely and a few others.
MR. FOLEY: Yes, it was actually a letter signed by the Assistant
Secretary for Legislative Affairs, and it went to several senators. I don't
have a list, but they include certainly Senator Grassely, who had written
to us. This letter was in response to his correspondence. The letter went
to Senator Helms, to Senator Lott, but beyond that I don't have a
list.
QUESTION: Can you tell us where the administrative review of Ms. Shenwick
is?
MR. FOLEY: In 1997, Ms. Shenwick filed a complaint with the Office of
Special Counsel. The OSC, as I indicated to you last week, is an independent
federal agency established to investigate, among other things, allegations
of prohibited personnel practices. She alleged that the Department had
retaliated against her for what she believed to be protected whistle-
blowing. The State Department vigorously denies these allegations and also
the facts that underlie those allegations. We do not retaliate against
employees who make protected disclosures to the Congress, and we did not
retaliate against her.
We have been cooperating fully with the OSC during the course of its two-
year independent investigation. The Department understands that the
investigation is in its final stages and that the OSC will perhaps soon
reach a decision on the merits of the case. But again, this is an
independent federal agency, and we do not have an ability to influence the
pace of its deliberations.
QUESTION: Has the employee in question signed the Privacy Act waiver that
you all - you all, in previous public comments, had said that you were
limited in your comments on the issue because of the Privacy Act. Has she
made that easier for you, as far as you know?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I believe it was your network that ran a piece of
information from us about a week ago or so indicating that we had not
received a waiver of the Privacy Act. My understanding is that has not
changed. That is certainly fully within her rights.
QUESTION: Is she still being paid?
MR. FOLEY: I think so; I would have to check that. The fact is that she
was - it was determined by the State Department's Executive Resources Board,
in an independent action that was not connected to her performance
evaluation in 1996, but the Executive Resources Board determined that the
Department can most effectively utilize Ms. Shenwick in the SES position,
Senior Executive Service position, which is at her rank as Director of
Acquisitions Management. She was directed to report to work in that
position at the opening of business on June 29 of this year.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. FOLEY: I'd have to check that for you.
QUESTION: Also, can you tell us whether there's been, since the letter
went to the senators last week, has there been any attempt by the State
Department to contact Senator Grassley? Has there been any response to that
letter? Has he acknowledged --
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of a response. That's not to say that there
hasn't been one on his part, but I'm certainly not aware of it. As I
indicated here from the podium on Friday, the Office of Special Counsel was
established by statute by the US Congress, precisely to adjudicate such
cases in an independent way, free of any kind of external influence or
pressure. So it's a body whose work is independent and whose work cannot be
interfered with in any way. So this is not a matter that is within our
hands at the moment; it's before the OSC. I think all parties to this
issue will have to await the outcome of the OSC's deliberations.
QUESTION: And again on Ms. Shenwick, what repercussions would there be if
she didn't turn up on the 29 and start work on that post?
MR. FOLEY: I'll have to look into that for you.
QUESTION: Can I try on something else? Sort of a follow-up to the
distribution of the Pickering transcript at dinnertime last night. I
understand that the Chinese --
MR. FOLEY: Dinnertime? What time do you have dinner, Barry?
QUESTION: Well, late last night. Just as people were leaving, we got this
transcript. It was good to see it; we've been waiting for it. But I wonder
if that's the end of it, because the Chinese wanted, I understood, another
delegation - or maybe the same delegation - but wanted another visit and
wanted a written statement. I don't know that that's ever been dealt with.
It's just sort of footnote to this business, but I'd like to wrap it up if
I could.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think I can answer both questions. First of all, a
written version of Ambassador Pickering's oral presentation has been given
to the Chinese first. Secondly, Ambassador Pickering delivered a full and
detailed explanation to the Chinese and answered their questions concerning
his oral presentation.
We have no additional explanation regarding the events in question, nor is
the investigation into what occurred ongoing. So we believe that the
explanation was full and satisfactory.
QUESTION: Okay, I may have read it differently on that last point. I read
that transcript late into the night yesterday and tried to read every word.
In it, it said something about we're continuing - (inaudible) - if we find
any need for disciplinary action, we would take it. So something is still
working its way through the system.
MR. FOLEY: Well, that is a separate issue in terms of how things
happened.
QUESTION: Oh, in terms of how things happened.
MR. FOLEY: We've completed that investigation.
QUESTION: But you're still looking to see if there's any --
MR. FOLEY: Well on that particular issue, we will inform the Chinese of
all appropriate information on any further results of our internal review
with respect to the question of whether any disciplinary action is called
for.
Let me also say that should any further written materials be produced - for
example, if there's any congressional testimony on this subject --- we will
make those available to the PRC as well.
QUESTION: Another question that's left unanswered by that report was the
issue of compensation. It said that the US had offered immediate compensation
for the families of the three and the injured. Can you tell us how much
that was? Did the Chinese accept it? The second thing is that it said that
there was going to be discussions about compensation for the embassy damage
itself and that they were complicated by the damage to the US Embassy
in Beijing. What's the status of that?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have any monetary information to provide to you.
I'm not sure that has been addressed to this point. But as we reported at
the time, during his visit to Beijing Ambassador Pickering conveyed our
willingness to provide a humanitarian payment to the injured and the
families of those who were killed. We are, as I indicated, prepared to
discuss this through diplomatic channels. So I think that remains to be
done.
But he also told the Chinese that we are willing to discuss the issue of
damage done to China's embassy in Belgrade, and that will also take place
in subsequent diplomatic channels.
QUESTION: There's been no payment yet, then, made?
MR. FOLEY: To my knowledge, yes, there has not.
QUESTION: Jim, in what form was the written version transmitted to the
Chinese? You said at the beginning --
MR. FOLEY: You mean in English or in Chinese? It was on paper.
QUESTION: No, through Ambassador Sasser, from Pickering, in the
mail?
MR. FOLEY: I confess, Charlie, this is a level of detail that surprises
me a bit. I don't have the answer. It was probably communicated through our
embassy. Often we send information to an embassy in the field to communicate
to a government, and they attach a diplomatic note to it and they type it
or it's printed from the computer. But I have nothing in my book on
that.
QUESTION: So I've surprised you.
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Inquiring minds want to know.
QUESTION: As long as we're asking you in the area of communications, has
the Secretary - even though she's on vacation - been in communication with
the new Israeli Foreign Minister? There are indications from Israel that
she has. And where are we; what does that amount to, besides congratulations?
Barak is coming here; we're okay on that. But is there traffic now between
the two?
MR. FOLEY: Yes. Yes, Secretary Albright spoke last evening or late last
night to Prime Minister Barak; and she spoke this morning, European time,
with Foreign Minister Levy. Those were both calls to congratulate both
leaders on the assumption of their positions. As you indicated, these were
congratulatory phone calls. She also, of course, expressed her keen
interest in working with both of them to advance the peace process. She
spoke also today with Chairman Arafat to convey a similar sentiment, that
we are very eager to work with Israel and the new government, as well
as the Palestinian Authority, to help reinvigorate the peace process, put
it back on track. We look forward to Prime Minister Barak's visit here. I
don't have the announcement - haven't seen it yet from the White House.
You'll have to check with them. I think one will be forthcoming because
we're expecting that visit soon.
So these were essentially congratulatory calls. The Secretary took the
opportunity to express her support for the peace process and to working
with all the leaders in advancing the peace process.
QUESTION: Do you have any long-range weather forecast?
MR. FOLEY: In hopes that the weather will improve in Washington or -
QUESTION: Or that if it stays bad here, maybe the - (inaudible) - will
not have hit the Middle East and she could go there to cool off. Or to
tread water - whatever.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think it's likely that she will be making a trip to
the region. We haven't set a date yet; first things first. Prime Minister
Barak is going to come here and then we're going to consult with the
Israelis and the Palestinians. I would expect a visit to the region by the
Secretary in the near future.
QUESTION: The Syrian track, which the Russians have been involved in
lately. I guess she didn't call the Syrian Foreign Minister, but how are
you keeping up with that? Have you heard of the positive Syrian statement
that they want to move step by step with the new prime minister?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, well, we've seen reports of the statement by President
Assad together with President Yeltsin, that Prime Minister Barak's election
represents an opportunity to work towards a comprehensive peace in the
region. Such positive statements are very welcome, and we look forward to
consulting with Israel's new prime minister and all the parties on how to
advance progress on all tracks of the peace process.
We note that the Prime Minister, in his inaugural address to the Knesset,
made clear that a comprehensive peace between Israel and all of her Arab
neighbors is one of his highest priorities. So we certainly encourage a
resumption of the Syrian-Israeli track. Certainly, Prime Minister Barak has
indicated he wants to move forward on that front as well.
QUESTION: Do you have any general observations on Mr. Barak's inaugural
address?
MR. FOLEY: Well, not beyond what I just said in terms of welcoming his
stated commitment to move forward on all fronts of the peace process. I
think we found that very encouraging.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - the Russian-Syrian arms connection again?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have anything more for you from yesterday.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, do you know any more? Does the State Department --
MR. FOLEY: No.
QUESTION: Your cautionary note yesterday was registered, but I don't
think it had an impact on Moscow. It sounds like they're revving up to -
what is the quote here - I don't know, whatever. They seem to be preparing
for another arms deal. This is the Russian Prime Minister now involved in
coming here and ready to receive another IMF loan. Is there any contact
between the US and Russia as to whether - private diplomatic contact, like,
don't do it, it ain't helpful?
MR. FOLEY: Barry, it's hot up here.
QUESTION: But I mean, Russia - you cooperate -
MR. FOLEY: Although President Truman said, if you can't stand the heat
get out of the briefing room.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - you want him gone?
MR. FOLEY: No, I didn't have anyone in particular in mind. No, Barry,
seriously, I don't have anything from what I said yesterday -
QUESTION: No, I mean, you're talking about cooperating with - there are
areas of cooperation and then there are areas of bombing Yugoslavia,
disagree politely. But do you folks agree on how to move in the Middle East,
or do the Russians have their own game plan?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we are in communication with the Russians on a range of
global issues, including the Middle East and the Middle East peace process.
They were a cosponsor, as you know, of the Madrid conference and have
maintained, along with the European Union and others, an active interest in
promoting the peace process. I believe we have a common interest in
promoting the peace process. Beyond those generalities, though, I have
nothing to report about latest diplomatic contacts with the Russians on
advancing the peace process.
I think, in our view, to be very frank with you, this is a matter,
essentially, for the parties. I think Prime Minister Barak has made it
clear that in his view, this is a matter primarily for the parties. The
United States, as always, is certainly willing to play a helpful role in
that process, to play any role that the parties want us to play. But
nevertheless, the philosophy that it's up to them remains our watchword. We
encourage them to engage in direct bilateral talks and to solve their
problems and the issues between them themselves. We will play whatever
helpful role they want us to play.
QUESTION: That's the peace-making position, and it's clear. I just was
asking about whether Russia providing weapons to Syria is some --
MR. FOLEY: I answered that question yesterday. I would be glad to repeat
it. It doesn't mean I've backed away from what I said yesterday.
QUESTION: One of Prime Minister Barak's colleagues today is saying that
he expects the Israeli side to seek some changes to the Wye agreement. Does
the United States see that as a distraction? Would you rather that they
just pressed ahead with what they agreed and then move on, or are you happy
to let them start wrangling on that one?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I've not seen that statement. I think in his inaugural
address yesterday, Prime Minister Barak indicated that he supported
implementing the Wye agreement. That certainly is the view of the United
States Government, that not only Israel but the Palestinians, obviously,
both sides should implement that which they agreed. We look forward to that
happening. In terms of any adjustments to the Wye agreement, again, I've
not heard that. It's not something that I can comment on. We support
the Wye agreement as negotiated. If the two parties themselves were
to agree to talk about the Wye agreement and agree on matters along the
lines you're suggesting, that's something we could live with. But we're not
calling for that; we're not endorsing that. We believe the Wye agreement
ought to be implemented, and we understand from the Prime Minister's
statement yesterday that that's exactly what he intends to do.
QUESTION: Would you expect Ambassador Ross to go out in advance of the
Secretary to the Middle East?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have any information about his travel plans.
QUESTION: What is the US Government's policy for American businesses that
are seeking to be part of the rebuilding effort in Kosovo and Yugoslavia?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we certainly support the ability of American businesses
to participate in the reconstruction of Kosovo, similarly in Bosnia, as has
been the case. We think that American companies deserve the right to
compete on an equal footing with European companies and other companies. We
believe American enterprises have a lot to offer not only in terms of their
products and what they can build, but also in what they can share and what
they can help others learn about our way of practicing free enterprise.
So we certainly support a level playing field for American businesses.
On the subject of Kosovo, let me also tell you that Secretary Albright
yesterday had a two-hour luncheon meeting with Bernard Kouchner, who was
newly named by Secretary General Annan as his special representative for
Kosovo. This was a very positive meeting. The Secretary was most impressed
with his energy, passion and commitment to doing the job. He's fully aware
of what a tall order his job is because, in effect, it's going to fall on
his shoulders to run the civil administration of Kosovo during this
interim period. He conveyed to her not only his strong commitment,
but also his sense of the urgency of getting people - officials, police
- in on the ground and successfully mounting the initial stages of setting
up the UN administration.
So it was a very good meeting. They've spoken subsequently on the phone to
their luncheon yesterday. She's very encouraged by his commitment to the
job.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up, Jim? With Milosevic continuing to be in
power, are US businesses allowed to participate in the rebuilding in
Yugoslavia?
MR. FOLEY: With what?
QUESTION: With Milosevic remaining in power, while Milosevic is still in
power.
MR. FOLEY: I thought your question was about reconstruction of Kosovo.
Did I misunderstand?
QUESTION: It was; this is a second question. Would US businesses, or are
US businesses allowed to reconstruct things destroyed in Yugoslavia?
MR. FOLEY: Is that a trick question?
QUESTION: No, it's not; totally innocent.
MR. FOLEY: I'm joking, but you know our position is that we do not
support reconstruction in Serbia while Milosevic remains in power. So we do
not, therefore, support American firms or any firms participating in the
reconstruction of Serbia while Milosevic is in power.
QUESTION: What about contracts having to do with humanitarian aid?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I wouldn't want to rule it out. Again, this probably is
the decision, however, of humanitarian agencies - of NGOs, of international
organizations that will be responsible for humanitarian relief inside
Serbia.
QUESTION: Where was this meeting between Albright --
MR. FOLEY: Innsbruck.
QUESTION: Innsbruck, Austria?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: I thought she was on vacation. What is this - she's on the
phone with Arafat and --
MR. FOLEY: I don't know if this Secretary of State is ever fully on
vacation. She is on vacation, but she's also keeping in very close contact
with officials in Washington every day, and she's been in contact with
counterparts around the world, as I just indicated.
QUESTION: OK, so has she been in touch with anyone else that you haven't
told us?
MR. FOLEY: She's spoken to Secretary General Annan a couple times. She
spoke to Foreign Minister Ivanov, I believe it was yesterday morning,
following the successful conclusion of the NATO Russian talks in Moscow. I
think she's spoken to Foreign Minister Schuessel of Austria.
QUESTION: But because she's there.
MR. FOLEY: You said that.
QUESTION: Well, Jim, you just told us she had lunch in Austria. I mean, I
think the cat's out of the bag now.
MR. FOLEY: But I don't have a read-out of that phone call, Matt. It's
helpful information, though, thank you.
QUESTION: Has she had any calls with Lott or McConnell?
MR. FOLEY: Not that I'm aware. The Senate is on vacation - is really on
vacation.
QUESTION: Any news on the American being held by the North Koreans?
MR. FOLEY: No, nothing further.
QUESTION: There's a UN team investigating environmental damage from the
war in Kosovo and Yugoslavia, and complaining that NATO's not being
cooperative. Can you reassure them?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'd have to refer you to NATO; NATO can answer for
itself. But what I can tell you is that we believe that one person is
responsible for the damage of NATO air power over Serbia and Kosovo, and
that's Mr. Milosevic. He had every chance to settle this diplomatically, to
get a better settlement diplomatically, at Rambouillet than he got
following the NATO air campaign. We made no secret of the fact that the aim
of the NATO air campaign was to degrade Milosevic's military capability.
That included attacking the country's industrial capacity as the conflict
continued. NATO targeted very carefully, however, and tried very hard to
avoid collateral damage.
I would have to refer you to the Pentagon and to NATO for any questions
about specific targets hit or industrial plants destroyed. But again,
responsibility for any attendant environmental damage, if there is any,
rests with him.
In that regard, we believe that the ongoing democratic movement in Serbia,
which we've been seeing more and more of in the last days, is very
significant. I would take this opportunity to remind the authorities in
Belgrade that the eyes of the world are on them, and they need to
understand the importance of allowing for internationally recognized rights
of free assembly, of freedom of speech. We believe that the hopes of the
entire Serb people lie with those who wish to promote democratic change and
a better future for the people of Serbia. So we're watching very carefully
as these events unfold in Serbia today.
QUESTION: Jim, back to George's question on the American - I know you
don't have any new information, but at what point does the US --
MR. FOLEY: Are we finished with Kosovo?
QUESTION: No, one more. Are the broadcasts which are being retransmitted
by the aircraft flying near Serbia -- are those still continuing?
Broadcasts in Serbian directed at the Serbian people?
MR. FOLEY: I believe they are. But let me stress something, though: that
change will have to come from inside Serbia. Because of Milosevic's
repressive policies and his denial of information to the Serb people, we
will continue to try to make information available to the people of Serbia.
But what is happening in Serbia today -- the democratic movement and the
growing support we're seeing on the streets of many Serb cities, including
cities controlled by Milosevic's own political party -- are truly the work
of the people of Serbia themselves. We are not their political advisors.
This is their movement.
But I would say that we certainly support peaceful change inside Serbia and
we've seen powerful examples of successful, non-violent movements that have
produced dramatic political change in our lifetimes. Certainly, we've seen,
going back to the example of Gandhi in India, Martin Luther King in our own
country and of Corey Aquino in the Philippines, that "people power"
is powerful indeed. What's happening in Serbia today is very significant.
Again, we repeat that the authorities in Belgrade have to understand that
this is a movement that the world is watching very closely and very
carefully. Again, this is an internal movement. I think you've seen some of
the stale old propaganda that blames people who want change in Serbia for
being tools of outside interest. Nothing could be further from the truth.
And I think the people of Serbia see through those lies today.
QUESTION: You're obviously very keen on this democratic movement. Is
there anything the United States is doing or can do to encourage it, apart
from making statements like this?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we are and have been looking at ways to try to create
space independent of the regime in Serbia. Historically, we've given help
to the free and independent media and to labor organizations. We've helped
to -
QUESTION: Are there immediate plans?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we're looking at the matter. I think we've given some
money in the past to international organizations, or NGOs that tried to
help create democratic space in Serbia and we're still looking at that and
we intend to be as helpful as we can. But I think the important point is
the one I made a minute ago, which is that this is not a made-outside-of-
Serbia movement. This is an internal, home-grown movement of people who
understand that Milosevic has only brought ruin and misery and isolation
to his own people, and that their future -- inevitably -- lies in democracy
and lies in reintegration with Europe. Milosevic's days are numbered. It's
impossible to predict how many numbers there are in those days. But
certainly, Serbia historically has been a part of the West. Its separation
from the West has been an anomaly. Serbia has not only failed to develop
democratically in the last ten years, it's been completely absent from the
movement towards free markets and integration that's occurred in the
other former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe. So
they have a lot to catch up on, and I think one can sympathize with
the sense of impatience that's growing on the part of opposition leaders
and their followers inside Serbia.
QUESTION: Jim, I don't necessarily expect you to answer this question,
but I'm going to put it out there anyway so that the discussion is full.
Isn't it true, though, that the United States has gone quite a bit farther
than just sort of looking at the issue of trying to overthrow or create
democratic change in Serbia and replace Milosevic? Newsweek this week has
quite a long piece about a presidential finding and covert efforts
to sort of -- sabotage his financial transactions, his bank accounts
in various countries. Can you speak to that question?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I can't speak to any specifics of what you're asking,
but certainly his assets and those of all indicted war criminals are, by
international law, frozen. Certainly, we want to do our part to implement
our obligations under the War Crimes Tribunal statutes.
QUESTION: There are 22 Cubans sitting on a key outside of Miami, Florida,
that are suspected to be smuggled from Cuba. There was an abortive incident
last weekend, I believe, and a successful incident a couple of weeks ago.
Is the US concerned about this seeming increase in the number of smuggled
Cubans?
MR. FOLEY: I have not seen that report about additional Cubans who may
have recently arrived, you say, in -
QUESTION: They're sitting in Elliott Key off of Miami.
MR. FOLEY: In Florida. I've not heard that report. I'd have to refer you
to the INS for any information on it.
But what I can tell you is that the United States is committed to promoting
safe, legal and orderly migration, as put forth by the September 9, 1994,
joint communique, and the May 2, 1995, joint statement. Working in tandem,
these accords are intended to discourage dangerous open-sea voyages, while
providing legal means for migration. There has, as you point out, been a
recent upsurge in the number of Cuban migrants. The increase in migrant
arrivals appears to reflect a rise in organized alien smuggling activity.
There is no indication that the Cuban Government has eased controls that
deter illegal migration, and we expect the government of Cuba to continue
to uphold migration agreements with the US in deterring illegal migration
by peaceful means.
QUESTION: Is the US prepared for any onslaught? I mean, were they --
MR. FOLEY: I'm sure various federal, state, local agencies have
contingency plans. But I have to dispute, though, the sort of alarmist
premise behind your question. We don't have evidence of a crisis. We don't
see - although there's been a recent upsurge in incidences of alien
smuggling, we don't see the kind of numbers that would justify the type of
question you're asking.
QUESTION: Jim, do you have any comment on the report today in The New
York Times suggesting that the US is contemplating an announcement on
additional people-to-people measures vis-a-vis Cuba?
MR. FOLEY: Well we're always looking for ways to try to reach out to the
Cuban people. That has been the essence of the President's and Secretary of
State's philosophy: to create space for the Cuban people for civil society
to grow, while pending a democratic transition in Cuba, which we're also
trying to promote. But I'm not aware of anything specific in that regard.
I've not heard anything in that regard.
What I can tell you is that the fundamental goal of US policy toward Cuba
is to promote a peaceful, democratic transition and respect for human
rights. US policy is premised on maintaining pressure on the Cuban
Government for change through the embargo and the Libertad Act, while
working to aid the development of independent civil society. Our policy was
exemplified by the measures announced in January 5 to provide support for
the Cuban people, while denying the regime the means to maintain its
repressive system.
On January 5, as you know, we authorized the expansion of charger flights
between the US and Cuba and a number of other steps having to do with
direct humanitarian cargo flights, restoring direct passenger charter
flights, restoring the authority for family remittances to Cuba in the
amount of $300 per quarter, also simplify/expedite the licensing of
commercial sales and donations of medicines and medical supplies consistent
with existing law. This was announced in January, and we're working on all
those steps.
QUESTION: Are you're contemplating additional airports and changes in
remittances so that they won't be limited to $300 per quarter?
MR. FOLEY: I've not heard anything about the latter point you raise. In
terms of additional cities, what we're looking at currently is where and
what cities are concentrated Americans who have family ties to Cuba who
wish to take advantage of this provision that we announced in January.
We're going to make decisions on that basis. It's simply a function of
where people live in the United States. I don't think we've made decisions
in that regard yet, though.
QUESTION: Jim, do you have anything on the situation in Kashmir?
MR. FOLEY: I have no update from yesterday. I have no indication of any
fundamental change. I believe the fighting continues there. Certainly,
Prime Minister Sharif is returning today. He stopped en route back from the
United States in London. He met with Prime Minister Blair. So he's only
returning today.
But our information, in terms of what's happening on the ground, is that
the fighting there continues along the Line Of Control in the Kargil
sector. Indian leaders have declared that military operations will continue
until all the forces infiltrated from Pakistan are removed or withdrawn
from their side of the line.
As you know, in a statement following his meeting with Prime Minister Blair
yesterday, Prime Minister Sharif agreed that it was important that concrete
steps be taken swiftly to restore the Line Of Control and return to the
Lahore Process. We certainly support that, as the President indicated on
Sunday.
QUESTION: The militants, though, made some rather muscular statements
today, to the effect that they aren't buying this deal and they're going to
continue to fight on and stay where they are. So I wondered how you read
that.
MR. FOLEY: Well, as I said yesterday, the head of the army indicated
publicly that he supported the Prime Minister. So I would point out only
that the Prime Minister is returning today. Our understanding is that he
plans to meet with the parliament, meet with opposition leaders to discuss
the way forward. We believe, certainly, that the Prime Minister is
committed to an early resolution of this crisis, and that means restoration
of the Line Of Control and return to the Lahore Process, which was a very
hopeful development that occurred earlier this year, in which India and
Pakistan agreed to discuss the whole range of issues between them,
including Kashmir. That is the way, in our view, to go forward and to get
beyond this crisis with its dangers of escalation.
Let's remember that what we support here is not anything that's against the
interest of Pakistan, or against the interest of India. We believe it's
fundamentally against the interests of both peoples for this crisis to
continue, for the conflict to continue with its attendant risk of
escalation.
The Prime Minster met with President Clinton on Sunday, met with Prime
Minister Blair, and found support from those two important friends for
restoring the Line Of Control and returning to the Lahore Process.
QUESTION: Are you confident that India will go back to the table, go back
to the Lahore Process?
MR. FOLEY: I believe they've indicated that they want to see, obviously,
restoration of the Line Of Control. But I believe certainly privately, if
not publicly, that India remains committed to the Lahore Process.
QUESTION: Can I ask you a question that I started to ask 20 minutes ago,
which is, what --
MR. FOLEY: Were you rudely interrupted?
QUESTION: Yes, I think so. I know that you don't have any further
information on the North Korean - the American woman there. But at what
point does the US step up; I mean, really start to put the screws to the
North Koreans? I understand that the woman that's being held is elderly and
there are serious health concerns about that.
MR. FOLEY: Well, we don't have a Privacy Act waiver signed.
QUESTION: Yes, I know.
MR. FOLEY: So I'm not able to talk about her. Obviously, we're very
concerned about her situation, concerned about the fact that we have not,
through our protecting power, had the consular access which is guaranteed
under an agreement we have with North Korea - an interim consular agreement,
which is guaranteed under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. This
is important to us.
What I've told you -- every day now -- is that we expect there to be
consular access, and we have not made a determination that there will not
be consular access. So I think that answers your question. If we arrive at
such a conclusion, then we will consider that matter accordingly, and treat
it with the seriousness that it deserves. We are concerned about the fate
of this American citizen, and we are trying vigorously, assiduously,
through diplomatic channels, to reassure ourselves about her status and
condition, and make sure that these international agreements are respected.
QUESTION: One more that you had no comment on for the last couple days,
but I'll try again. That is the American military attache being --
MR. FOLEY: No, I have nothing further for you.
QUESTION: Will you allow me a question on East Timor, please? There's
been a Senate amendment on June 22, urging tougher US policy towards
Indonesia. In the last weeks, different NGOs, like OxFam, are complaining
about the misuse of World Bank funds for the pro-Indonesian integration
cause in East Timor. (Inaudible) - attacks every day from the militias
against United Nations --
MR. FOLEY: We do what every day, I'm sorry?
QUESTION: We saw every day attacks from the militias against the United
Nations mission there. So I have two specific questions for you: Are you in
favor of a hold of World Bank money until a fair vote is assured in East
Timor? And are you in favor of a ban of US military assistance and arms
transfer to Indonesia until Indonesia stops supporting the paramilitary
groups?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'd have to check the record on the second question to
find out what is the status of our relationship with Indonesia on that
score. So I can't answer that for you now; I'll get that answer for you
later or tomorrow.
But on the first question, we have made it very clear - unmistakably clear -
our view that the actions of the militias or paramilitaries on East Timor
are unacceptable, number one. Number two, and more importantly, the
Indonesian Government has a responsibility, the Indonesian military has a
responsibility to bring those militias under control. This is an important
process, this vote that's scheduled to take place in late August. It's a
potential resolution to a long-simmering and very bloody problem, with a
potential way out that provides an opportunity for the people of East
Timor to decide their own future peacefully. It's in everyone's interest
- the people on East Timor and Indonesia writ large - that this be allowed
to go forward peacefully and fairly. So we continue to call on the
Indonesian Government to meet its responsibilities to ensure that the
militias are brought under control, and that threats to the UN cease, and
that threats to the integrity of the vote cease as well.
We think this is an important vote; we want it to take place. But it must
take place under appropriate and safe conditions.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - Dr. Perry is going to Moscow. Do you have
anything on this?
MR. FOLEY: No, I have nothing on that.
QUESTION: I have a question and maybe you have something to date. Have
you seen the reports that there has been a four-person European Union
delegation in Mayanmar, formerly known as Burma?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have any views on that?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, we support the discussions by the special European
mission which has arrived in Burma for talks intended to encourage Burma to
improve its dismal human rights performance. The US has long urged Burmese
authorities to begin a real substantive dialogue with the National League
for Democracy, including Aung San Sui Kyi, and leaders of Burma's ethnic
minority groups, leading to a peaceful democratic transition. We call on
Burma to improve its human rights record by stopping such practices as
forced labor, extra-judicial and arbitrary executions, rape, torture, mass
arrests, forced labor - I mentioned that already - forced relocation
and denial of freedom of expression, and by permitting the parliament
that was democratically elected in 1990 to convene. So we support the
team's effort.
QUESTION: Do you have any indication that Burma has changed its mind,
that the regime has changed it mind and is willing to sort of consider
these issues in a positive way?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I personally have not seen anything recently that
indicates any change in their consistent stonewalling in this regard.
QUESTION: Then how come you're endorsing this mission? I thought the
whole --
MR. FOLEY: Because it's important to discuss this matter with them. If we
are alone waging an effort to spotlight the dismal human rights record in
Burma, that' s one thing. We have to do our job as befits our view and
vision of human rights in the world. We're willing to do that if we stand
alone. But it certainly is more effective when others join that struggle.
So in that regard, we support the fact that the EU is willing to go there
and to sit down and discuss these issues with Burma. The message needs
to be constantly reinforced with the Burmese authorities.
QUESTION: So you're persuaded that this is going to focus mostly on human
rights and not prospect for business?
MR. FOLEY: Our understanding is that the purpose of the mission is to
focus on human rights and the prospects -- check that -- the ongoing
political stand-off between the government and the opposition.
Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2: 05 P.M.)
|
