U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #89
MONDAY, JULY 12, 1999, 1:00 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department. Welcome back,
Sid. First I'd like to signal the return to the Press Office of
Lee McClenny, the current Director of the Press Office, who will
be leaving us for better parts in a few weeks. I hope we'll have
an opportunity to give him a fine farewell towards the end of
the month. I'm sure you've all had excellent relations with Lee,
and he's done a superb job.
To Lee's left is Phil Reeker, who will be Lee's successor as Director
of the Press Office. Known by his former boss, Ambassador Chris
Hill, affectionately, I think, as the Grim Reeker. Is that right
- affectionately. But we welcome Phil, who will be taking over
for Lee in a matter of weeks.
A couple of announcements to make. First of all, Secretary Albright
will be leading the US delegation to Singapore to attend the ASEAN
regional forum July 25 through 26 and the ASEAN Post-Ministerial
Conference July 27 through 28, departing from Washington next
Thursday, July 22. I will post the statement that gives you a
little more details on that trip of the Secretary.
And then lastly, as you know, we're going to have a background
briefing on the return of Kosovar refugees from the United States
to Kosovo - our plans for facilitating the returns of those who
wish to return to Kosovo. We'll have that briefing about 15 minutes
following the end of this briefing.
So without further ado, let me go to Barry - are you ready with
the first question?
QUESTION: Yes. When you announced ASEAN, did you announce
any other travel?
MR. FOLEY: No, I did not.
QUESTION: Will there be other stops?
MR. FOLEY: In the region, I think that's unlikely. We don't
have a final determination of her schedule; just simply the travel
to Singapore, the several days there. Beyond that, I have nothing
more but I'm not aware of any such plans, no.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. FOLEY: Is that it?
QUESTION: No. If you want a real question, is there anything
the State Department can add or - this involves kind of stuff
you don't like to talk about too much - but the arrest of those
two Egyptians --
MR. FOLEY: I can't; I'd have to refer you to the FBI on
that.
QUESTION: On Asia, have you seen the statement by Taiwan
President Lee, in effect declaring a two-China policy?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, I have seen that statement. I can only
speak for the United States, and our policy is unchanged. Our
one-China policy is long-standing and certainly well-known. The
US position on Taiwan's future is also clear. We believe that
it is a matter for the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan
Straits to resolve. The United States has an abiding interest
and concern that any such resolution be a peaceful one; and to
that end, the United States urges both sides to engage in meaningful
substantive dialogue.
QUESTION: Do you consider his statement to be unhelpful?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not going to characterize his statement;
I can only speak for US policy. Our policy hasn't changed.
QUESTION: A follow-up -- because Mr. Stanley Ross has encouraged
both sides to have a dialogue.
MR. FOLEY: That's right.
QUESTION: Yes, especially during this autumn by the delegation
of - (inaudible) - has a return visit to Taiwan. Wang, in his
interview yesterday, said maybe President Lee's announcement has
changed or have a negative effect on this visit. Could you comment
on that?
MR. FOLEY: I think it's a little premature to say and,
of course, this is a matter for the people on both sides of the
Taiwan Strait to address directly with each other. We support
that dialogue, as I stated a few minutes ago. I wouldn't want
to forecast whether any particular statement has any kind of a
particular impact on the prospects for such a dialogue.
We think it's in the interest of both sides to proceed with the
dialogue. They've had ups and downs before; they've had declarations
before that each side has reacted negatively to but they have
managed, though, to continue the dialogue. I think they had recent
meetings that were meant to help prepare for a future visit along
the lines you discussed, and we hope that that will go forward.
QUESTION: Can I have another follow-up on the same question?
Mindful your reluctance to stray from the position the US takes
on the issue of Taiwan --
MR. FOLEY: We never stray from that position. It's not
a question of an inclination; that is our policy.
QUESTION: I am aware of that but my question to you is
the US does have access to the government of Taiwan, to President
Lee Teng Hui, and because of this statement which has caused quite
a stir in that region -- particularly in Taiwan and on the mainland
of China - are you going to restrain him?
MR. FOLEY: You know that's a provocative question that
I'm not going to - won't take the bait on. The fact is he spoke
and he can explain himself. I would refer you to the Taiwan authorities
to explain his statement. I can only speak for our policies. I
was responding, I think, to someone else a minute ago.
QUESTION: Well, it's nothing new that you have, in the
past, twisted arms with the Taiwan leadership, trying to pressure
them not to do things contrary to the interest of the United States.
MR. FOLEY: Well, those are your words and your characterization
that I don't share.
QUESTION: Does the US see his announcement as a new policy
or new position?
MR. FOLEY: We have a one-China policy. I can only speak
for the United States. I'm the spokesman - or the interim spokesman
- of the State Department and I can't really parse or analyze
the words of somebody else. I think I'd have to refer you to the
Taiwan authorities.
QUESTION: In the light of this Taiwanese position, can
you refresh us on the state of the United States' defense commitment
to Taiwan?
MR. FOLEY: I'd be happy to get that for you for the record
because, as you know, that relates to the Taiwan Relations Act.
It hasn't changed, and I have information on that for you I can
make available after the briefing.
QUESTION: Different country?
QUESTION: Well, you don't have any impact on that military
relation?
MR. FOLEY: No, it's a defensive relations -
QUESTION: What has happened in Pakistan?
MR. FOLEY: Sure. I'm sorry, did you have a particular question?
QUESTION: I want to know - the military commanders agreed
that -
MR. FOLEY: Well, I can give you our reaction to t hat announcement.
Both India and Pakistan have announced that their senior military
commanders have worked out an agreement that will restore the
line of control in the Kargel sector of Kashmir. Following the
agreement, both countries have reported significant reductions
in fighting.
The United States welcomes these developments, which demonstrate
the desire in both countries to end this crisis, which we think
has been of the utmost importance ending this current crisis.
Once the fighting has ended, we urge both countries to resume
their dialogue under the Lahore Process. We believe, in fact,
that resolving this current crisis along the line of control was
the predicate, indeed, to restoring the Lahore Process at which
India and Pakistan would be able to discuss the entire range of
issues between them, obviously including Kashmir.
QUESTION: There have been questions and reports in Pakistan
saying that the President's personal interest in the Kashmir problem
amounts to a mediation on the part of the United States. What
is your reaction to that statement?
MR. FOLEY: Well, the fact is we are very concerned about
this crisis. We've maintained very close and productive dialogue
with both India and Pakistan throughout this crisis because we
regard it as in the interest not only of the Subcontinent, but
of the world at large to diffuse this crisis and to see a restoration
of the line of control.
But international attention, be it of the United States or other
countries - it was not only the United States -- does not constitute
international mediation. Those are different concepts, and that's
not what happened here. Our interest is encouraging an expeditious
resumption and intensification of efforts by India and Pakistan
to resolve their outstanding differences, again including Kashmir.
The US is not a mediator, nor did we offer any specific proposal
for ending the fighting in Kargel.
QUESTION: One more on that. The statement by the President
and the Prime Minister says that the line of control has to be
- the sanctity of the line of control --
MR. FOLEY: Right. I don't have the exact text before me
but that was the spirit, yes.
QUESTION: So I am wondering whether when you say the sanctity
of the line of control, I take it as not only the -- (inaudible)
- the entire state -- (inaudible) --
MR. FOLEY: That's a fair reading, yes.
QUESTION: And does it also not imply that there cannot
be the -- (inaudible) - line of control.
MR. FOLEY: There cannot be what across --
QUESTION: The spread of - infiltration of -- (inaudible)
- over the line of control.
MR. FOLEY: Of forces. Well, as you know, over the years
there have been quite a number of incidents along different parts
of the line of control. Here, though, we had a full-blown crisis,
and I think both India and Pakistan deserve an enormous amount
of credit for having been able to work to diffuse the situation
and hopefully are now on the road to resolving it.
Again, what's important is the resumption of the Lahore dialogue.
That offered a significant hope for India and Pakistan to begin
to deal with issues that divide them in a different way from previously
through dialogue. We hope that that process will resume once we
have restoration of the line of control, once we have a full cessation
of hostilities. Then we would like to see the Lahore Process resumed.
QUESTION: Can I just quickly - the questioner used the
word "infiltrators," you used no word. Is the State
Department prepared yet to say whether they're dealing - the situation
involves guerrillas, infiltrators, troops --
MR. FOLEY: No, we have been consistent in not describing
the composition of those forces. (Inaudible) - came from the Pakistani
side of the --
QUESTION: That's the way it is today?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: On Cuba, -- (inaudible) - for the President of
the American-Cuban Chamber of Commerce to travel to Cuba?
MR. FOLEY: Yes. The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign
Assets Control issued a license to the Chamber of Commerce delegation
to Cuba because it is a people-to-people exchange, consistent
with the President's efforts to help the Cuban people without
strengthening the Cuban Government.
The delegation is focused on learning more about Cuba's small
and tightly controlled private sector. We understand that the
delegation plans to spend at least half of its time meeting with
non-governmental and private sector entities. Indeed, that was
one element, I believe, in OFAC's decision to provide that license.
QUESTION: How many people are going to go?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have the composition of the delegation.
I'd refer you to the Chamber of Commerce.
QUESTION: And the time - is there a limitation of the time
they may spend there?
MR. FOLEY: I'd have to check that for you.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - and what do you think of it?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I wouldn't read very much into it at this
point. I think, obviously, we - ever since last year and then
especially in January, when we announced some new measures --
have been trying to seek ways, without in any way tampering with
the essence of our policy, which is to maintain pressure on the
Cuban Government until it begins to undertake a genuine transition
to democracy; but nevertheless working within that reality to
try to reach out to the Cuban people increasingly to help them
create more space in which they can operate. We've undertaken
measures to help the church to operate more freely.
So if the Chamber of Commerce can go to Cuba and begin a dialogue
with, admittedly, a small and tightly controlled private sector
that is nascent but not necessarily growing, we think that's a
good thing to let happen. But I wouldn't over-read great significance
into their visit because the fact of the matter is that given
the fact that there's been no real change in Castro's policies,
there's been no relaxation of political repression or real permission
of the freedom of expression and civil rights and certainly no
movement towards a free economic system, we still have the US
embargo in place. So there are no opportunities for commerce as
such; therefore, that is the logical question since the Chamber
of Commerce is going there. We see that and we licensed it because
they endeavored to begin a dialogue with the private sector there
such as it exists and to give them some sense of connection and
hope with the outside world.
QUESTION: A lot of folks would make the argument that the
end of Soviet support - there are new opportunities there - new
opportunities for commerce, and that commerce could be the precursor
or the harbinger of reform - political and economic - and of course
everybody's out to make a buck in this world. So if the Chamber
is going to talk to those folks, is it too huge a leap to begin
to imagine some sort of a dialogue between the US Government and
the Cuban Government? In other words, people are arguing -- and
well-intentioned people I would think, one would think - are arguing
that you don't have to see the end of Castro before you can begin
to change Cuba. Whereas you're holding to a policy which is waiting
for Castro to go before certain things can fall in place.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I would quibble with the last part of
that question.
QUESTION: Well, maybe I overstated it but you know --
MR. FOLEY: There's a lot in your question and it would
be difficult for me to remember all of it and parse it.
QUESTION: I know, I'm sorry.
MR. FOLEY: I think on the - but you ask a question that's
been raised many times over how many years has Castro been in
power - about 40 years now. It's been raised many times --
QUESTION: More than ever.
MR. FOLEY: -- many times questioning the embargo policy.
I think it's fair - I'm not going to reopen that debate but I
think it's fair to say that Castro can be counted on to do that
which will perpetuate his dictatorial control over Cuba. So that
those who argue that if we tried a relaxation policy have to take
into account that the dictator of Cuba will do that which is necessary
to ensure his power, and we don't expect that he'll countenance
any kind of change in the political or economic system. So we
remain open to change without seeing any signs of a willingness
to change on his part but we've said that we're willing to cooperate
or have dialogue with a Cuba which is beginning a transition to
democratic rule. But we don't see any such sign of any such development.
I probably have left out other aspects of your question.
QUESTION: With the number of Cubans trying to sail to the
US on a raft increasing, does the US believe Cuba is sticking
to the migration accords?
MR. FOLEY: I don't think we have any reason to question
that, at least as far as I know. Obviously, we are distressed
over the latest incident that occurred over the weekend. The survivors
of that unfortunate incident have arrived at Guantanamo naval
base, and they are now being interviewed by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service to determine if any of them have a well-founded
fear that they would suffer persecution if they returned to Cuba.
If any were found to have a valid claim, they would be resettled
in a third country.
Unfortunately, there appears to have been a death in that incident.
The body of the deceased has been transported to the Guantanamo
naval base for positive identification. What I can tell you, though,
is that we regard our immigration with Cuba as of critical importance
and of continuing importance because it's designed to promote
safe, legal and orderly immigration to the United States. We permit
up to 20,000 Cubans to immigrate to the United States every year
in a legal, safe and reliable way. We want to do what we can to
discourage people who take risks at sea, through clandestine immigration
attempts, and certainly we want to do everything we can to prevent
alien smuggling. Certainly, part of the post-incident investigation
that's underway is focusing on that very question as to whether
this was, indeed, an alien smuggling incident.
QUESTION: Can you do anything to prevent the smuggling?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I would have to refer you to the Coast
Guard on operational matters.
QUESTION: Why has not the US Government accepted the Cuban
Government's offer to extradite or deport 26 Cuban smugglers?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as I told you, Jim, or your colleagues,
I think about a week or so ago, that is an issue that we are examining.
As I told you at the time, these cases involve complex issues
regarding foreign and US laws, jurisdictional questions and the
adequacy and potential admissibility of any available evidence.
We are reviewing all of the available information; we have not
yet reached a decision. So that hasn't changed since the last
time we discussed this.
I would note, however, that we are determined to use the full
force of US law and law enforcement measures to combat alien smuggling,
which we believe is a very dangerous policy that seeks to extract
profit from a desire to immigrate, and that risks the lives of
innocent individuals.
QUESTION: About 100 countries or more will go to Geneva
or send representatives Thursday to hold a conference of the contracting
powers of the Geneva Convention to discuss conditions of civilian
Palestinians in their territories. I understand that US policy
is focused on the Oslo Process, but one, you are a signatory of
the Geneva Convention, and two, this very conference is based
on the uniting for peace principle that you have used repeatedly
to hold other conferences when the Security Council is deadlocked.
My question is, what are your political and legal grounds to refuse
attending this conference, and how successful was your pressure
on your friends and allies not to attend?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't accept the latter part of your
question. But what I can say -- I can check the record to give
you a legal answer, if that's what you're looking for. I'm more
interested in giving you a policy answer and a practical answer.
We think that such a conference is ill-timed. We think that it's
also unnecessary. The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister
of Israel and the Chairman of the Palestine Authority have just
met, had a very successful positive meeting, pledged each of them
to move forward together on the peace process. Certainly now is
not the time for this body to examine that issue, when that is
not a venue which can produce in any way progress on the peace
front and in the peace process.
So we regard it as something that we don't support, and we're
looking forward to Prime Minister Barak's visit here later this
week and to moving forward on the peace process, which is reality
not parliamentarism.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - who said he would work with allies
and friends not to attend the conference so it's --
MR. FOLEY: I'd refer you to his office, then. I'm not going
to get into the specifics of our diplomatic dialogue with other
nations. I can speak to you what our view of the conference is,
however.
QUESTION: Can you confirm that you have been trying, with
your friends and allies, not to attend the conference?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not going to talk about our private diplomatic
--
QUESTION: You gave a practical policy answer. I assume
there is a legal answer, too.
MR. FOLEY: I said I would check on it.
QUESTION: Like what the settlements are covered by the
Geneva Convention.
MR. FOLEY: Let me check on it. You know, Barry, I'm not
a lawyer.
QUESTION: No, no, I'm just saying the US Government position
is based not only active politics, but legalisms.
MR. FOLEY: Right.
QUESTION: Has Sweden gained access to the American woman
being held in North Korea?
MR. FOLEY: No, they have not. However, I think I can report
a hopeful development, however, in that regard. As some of you
may have seen on television, Senator Torricelli traveled to Pyongyang
on a private visit over the weekend. He was traveling without
any State Department officials, but we understand he met with
the North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gye Gwan on a variety
of issues, including the case of the detained American citizen.
Senator Torricelli traveled to Beijing en route to North Korea,
and he met with officials from the US Embassy in Beijing, where
he was fully briefed on the case involving the detained American
citizen. As Senator Torricelli himself made clear, he had hoped
to be able to secure the American's release when he was in North
Korea. Unfortunately, she remains in detention. But significantly,
during his meeting with the Vice Foreign Minister, Senator Torricelli
was informed that the Swedish charge will be permitted to travel
to Rajin this coming week for a consular visit to the detained
US citizen. Therefore, we certainly hope and expect that this
visit will indeed be permitted.
QUESTION: Have you heard from the communique about
any desire for cash in exchange for a visit?
MR. FOLEY: I've not heard anything like that. That's not
something that's envisaged in any way in the agreements to which
the North Koreans are a party. We have an interim consular agreement;
there is the Vienna Convention on Consular Matters, to which they
are a party. This is a question of international law. They are
obligated to provide consular access.
QUESTION: Senator Torricelli also said that, at least in
his mind, he walked away from the North Korean meeting with the
suggestion that they are intending to test the Taepo Dong II sometime
later this year. Do you have - there's been some ambiguity about
it so far. Do you have any comment about that?
MR. FOLEY: Ambiguity about what?
QUESTION: About their intentions to actually test it.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think there's never been any question
about whether they can or are capable of conducting such a test.
The question is whether the will conduct such a test. We have
been crystal clear both from this podium and in private messages
that a second missile test by the North Koreans will have very
serious consequences. I've not spelled out what they are, for
reasons of diplomacy, but the North Koreans do understand in a
general sense that the vision that former Secretary Perry has
laid out, which is also contained within the agreed framework
to some degree, of a different and better relationship between
North Korea and the United States would be seriously and negatively
affected if there were another missile test. But I'm not in a
position to talk about what the specific negative consequences
will be, except to underline that they will be negative.
QUESTION: The North Koreans yesterday apparently also called
for a revised or updated armistice agreement and stated that if
such an agreement had been in place a few weeks ago they wouldn't
have had this naval clash with South Korean boats. Do you have
anything on that?
MR. FOLEY: I've not heard that but as you know, we have
the forum of the Four Party Talks that have been ongoing. The
purpose of those talks is to reduce tension on the Korean Peninsula
and to devise a permanent peace regime on the Peninsula. So we
have a forum for addressing those concerns and each side, including
the North Koreans, can bring whatever ideas and concerns they
wish to the table. So that's the forum we're operating in.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - North Korea?
MR. FOLEY: Sure.
QUESTION: The government of India announced over the weekend
that it seized a North Korean merchant vessel which was ostensibly
carrying a cargo of sugar. They found 300 boxes of missile parts,
components, guidance systems, blueprints and operating instructions.
Do you have anything further about that?
MR. FOLEY: I don't. I'd have to check to see if we know
anything about that or whether indeed I can say anything about
that.
QUESTION: In Iran, the student demonstrators in Iran seem
to be calling for greater freedom. Does the United States encourage
them in their quest or --
MR. FOLEY: I think I would have a two-part answer. First,
we have followed with concern the reports of violence being used
to put down widespread demonstrations by Iranian students in support
of freedom of expression and democratic values and the rule of
law. We are also concerned by reports that hard-line vigilante
groups had been involved in violent attacks on students with the
apparent complicity of elements of the police forces. We have
noted other instances of this troubling practice in our human
rights report.
We have made clear on previous occasions that we view with concerns
action anywhere -- not only in Iran -- that restrict freedom of
assembly and the peaceful expression of political views. The rule
of law cannot be achieved through repression of fundamental freedoms,
including freedom of expression, association and assembly. We
oppose the disruption of peaceful assembly through the use of
violence and deeply regret the resultant injuries and loss of
life.
Arresting individuals for the peaceful expression of their political
views runs contrary to international human rights norms. We call
on the government of Iran to protect peaceful demonstrators and
to respect international human rights standards, including the
rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Again,
this is something that we would stand for in any country.
In terms of the other part of your question -- namely what is
it that we would support -- it's not only a question of opposing
police repression and the repression of freedom of expression,
freedom of assembly, these are universal rights. President Khatemi
has made it a standard of his presidency and his campaign for
the presidency, the promotion of an Iran that develops the rule
of law -- not the rule of law made in America or made anywhere
else, but a rule of law that has universal applicability.
Clearly, these actions by some of these vigilante groups supported
by some elements of the police, apparently, run obviously very
counter to that project, which seems to have quite a bit of public
support in Iran to establish a society within the framework of
the Islamic Republic in which there is respect for freedom of
expression, the rule of law, democratic values and pluralism.
QUESTION: How are these views being communicated to Iran,
through this forum or any other way?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, through this forum.
QUESTION: Because Britain has just upgraded its relations.
Is that a vehicle now?
MR. FOLEY: With Iran? I'm not aware of that.
QUESTION: I think they have, yes. In May they did, actually.
MR. FOLEY: I'm not going to tell you anything new about
this. You know -
QUESTION: No, no, no. I just wondered how the message gets
to Iran.
MR. FOLEY: We have called for an authoritative official
dialogue with the government of Iran. They are, I think, until
now, they have not been ready for that. So the President and Secretary
have proposed other steps to help to pave the wave for a better
kind of relationship.
QUESTION: Do you see these developments as possibly a turning
point in the struggle for power inside Iran?
MR. FOLEY: I think really that's a little inappropriate
for me to comment here on where events may be leading on the ground
in Iran. I think that they are going to have parliamentary elections
next year, I believe. Certainly, those will be important elections
in determining Iran's future, just as the presidential election
was a few years ago.
But I can tell you what our policy is in reaction to specific
incidents or questions you may have. But I think it would be very
hazardous to sort of try from an official podium to analyze the
course of events in Iran.
QUESTION: Speaking of policy, I wouldn't ask you to restate
it if there isn't any subtle or otherwise a change in policy,
but what is the US policy on American firms doing business or
traveling even to Libya?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we have not in any way adjusted our sanctions
regime. Maybe you weren't here last week because the Security
Council was considering Secretary General Annan's report, concerning
the possibility of lifting sanctions on Libya, and we made clear
that the United States doesn't support that. But I also made clear
that we have a whole range of national sanctions which will require
Libyan actions to deal with our concerns. We're not in any way
- I think there was a press report actually last week that I shot
down on Thursday that alleged that the US was rethinking its national
sanctions policy on Libya; that's not true.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - on Friday it developed. Despite
your shooting, it developed on Friday that the Treasury has approved
American oil companies going there and having a look at their
equipment. I wondered if - I think State had to go along for this
to happen. I wondered if this suggests some new --
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen that. No, because I checked. There
was a report in one newspaper, I think on Thursday, that, as I
said, alleged that we were rethinking our sanctions policy. I
checked at authoritative levels, and that is not true. Whether
the Treasury Department licensed someone to go take a look at
existing equipment, I don't know. I'd be happy to check that for
you.
QUESTION: I just wondered if it suggested something.
MR. FOLEY: No.
QUESTION: Has the US made any further headway with some
of its Security Council allies in coming up with a -- (inaudible)
- new inspection regime/sanctions regime in Iraq?
MR. FOLEY: I've not really seen reference to that in the
last few days. As you know, you had quite a number of questions
a week or so ago when the Security Council was having scheduled
meetings on different proposals for restarting weapons inspections
in Iraq. We indicated that we were largely comfortable with and
supportive of the UK-Dutch draft resolution. My understanding
is that there was support coalescing around that proposal by the
Dutch and the United Kingdom. There are other drafts; there are
other views. But certainly, I think there was a growing preponderance
of support in the Security Council for the approach contained
in that resolution. But I'm not aware that there have been further
meetings since then. I'm certainly not aware of any new developments.
QUESTION: Senator Grassley is blaming Secretary Albright
herself for his hold on the Holbrookee nomination, saying "Albright's
retaliatory treatment of this whistle-blower" is the reason
that he's blocking Holbrookee's nomination. Do you have any response
to that?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, a brief response. First of all, I am not
going to respond to Senator Grassley's letter from this forum,
at this podium. We will respond to that letter by mail, so now
is not the time for me to respond to it.
However, we've stated previously, though, that we challenge those
allegations and the facts alleged behind those allegations. Certainly
I think Mr. Rubin has made it very clear, having served with Secretary
Albright not only here but also in New York, that she scrupulously
adheres to personnel practices and has never discriminated or
mistreated any colleague or employee. I can say that's certainly
true also from my perspective. So that's an assertion that I would
reject.
But the larger question, though, that you're raising about the
hold on Ambassador Holbrookee's nomination, it's clear that a
number of senators have placed holds on his confirmation for reasons
that have nothing to do with Ambassador Holbrookee's qualifications
to be our next ambassador to the United Nations. These senators
have made it very clear that they believe a, Ambassador Holbrooke
is imminently qualified; b, he's needed in New York; and c, he
ought to be going to New York. So I think the ball is in their
court.
In terms of Ambassador Holbrooke's future, we support an early
vote by the full Senate to approve his nomination to be our next
ambassador to the United Nations. In terms of the specific matter,
though, that you raised, as I've stated previously, this is subject
to the adjudication of an independent federal agency - the Office
of Special Counsel that was established by Congress precisely
to insure the integrity of such decision making, such adjudication
- free from any external intervention or outside pressure. We
intend to respect that process and we await the outcome of that
process.
QUESTION: I just came back from vacation. I just wanted
to make sure you're following that.
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Back on the Middle East, on Friday the State
Department issued a security warning for Lebanon, particularly
in the area of Sidon. This has triggered an angry response from
the Lebanese Prime Minister. He said it was unjustified and uncalled
for. Do you have any response to what he has said?
MR. FOLEY: Well, this was an update of an earlier travel
warning that we've had in effect for quite some time. As you'll
remember a few years ago, we lifted the passport restrictions
on travel to Lebanon because we felt it was justified to recognize
the fact that conditions had improved in very important ways over
the last years, and also accepting the reality of the fact that
many Americans of Lebanese descent or origin were traveling to
Lebanon and there had been changes that we wanted to acknowledge.
But equally, we have a responsibility to Americans traveling anywhere
in the world, not only to Lebanon; but to warn them of existing
dangers in a given country or in a different area of a country
or over a particular problem - crime, for example -- or a security
problem in a particular part of the country - not only Lebanon,
but everywhere around the world. So we stand by this statement
that we urge American citizens to exercise caution as they travel
to Lebanon. That doesn't mean that they are unable to travel there,
as had been the case previously.
QUESTION: Do you want to add anything to the White House's
briefing - and you don't have to, of course - but the White House
has brief observations and after the Arafat-Barak meeting? I mean,
you know what they said - we expect them to fulfill Wye and there's
no, as far as I can see, any conflict between implementing Wye
and also having final status talks. Is there - has anybody talked
to these two players? The Secretary's back; evidently she often
gets on the telephone. Maybe you want to do --
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that she's spoken with foreign
leaders today. I did check before coming in.
QUESTION: Just asking.
MR. FOLEY: I don't believe that that is the case. Clearly,
Prime Minister Barak is coming here; he's coming here in a matter
of days. We look forward to his visit and, I believe, Secretary
Albright is going to meet with the Prime Minister on Friday. I
don't have a specific time yet for you. So I'm not sure we need
telephone diplomacy in the lead up to an imminent visit.
We were very encouraged by the meeting between the Prime Minister
and Chairman Arafat and I think I was a little perplexed by some
of the reporting in today's newspapers that suggested there might
be a contradiction between implementing Wye and moving on permanent
status negotiations. But I would say two things: first of all,
the Wye River Accord itself envisages precisely that; secondly,
Chairman Arafat yesterday, himself, said he saw no such contradiction.
So I think it was a non-story.
QUESTION: Is the embassy in Madagascar still closed?
MR. FOLEY: It has reopened.
QUESTION: When?
MR. FOLEY: This is the most important news of the day.
QUESTION: When did it reopen?
MR. FOLEY: I believe it reopened today; I'd have to check
that for you, Kelly. We were looking to make certain security
upgrades at the embassy that have now been completed and we believe
it's a better, more secure facility now. I can't, for obvious
reasons, go into details.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. FOLEY: No.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. FOLEY: There were some physical changes, yes; I don't
have details on what those were.
QUESTION: The US delegation that's going to China.
QUESTION: I wonder if there are any other embassies that
have recently have had their operations suspended, other than
the ones that -
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think Mr. Rubin was still here at the
time when he reported that some had temporarily suspended operations.
All of them but Madagascar rather quickly reopened for business.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- new embassies?
MR. FOLEY: Not that I'm aware of, no.
QUESTION: US delegation going to China to talk about compensations.
MR. FOLEY: What's the question?
QUESTION: What do you have on it?
MR. FOLEY: So, it's a softball in a way. During his trip
to Beijing last month, Undersecretary Pickering conveyed our willingness
to provide a humanitarian payment to the injured and the families
of those killed, with the details to be worked out diplomatically
in forthcoming meetings.
The State Department's legal advisor, David Andrews, accompanied
by an interagency delegation, including our East Asian Pacific
Deputy Assistant Secretary Susan Shirk, are traveling to Beijing
this week to follow up on our offer of a humanitarian payment
and discuss issues related to property damage. I can, perhaps,
get you, after the briefing, exactly when they left or are leaving
and how long they're going to be there; I don't have that.
QUESTION: I think more for TV purposes, since this next
briefing is background not on-camera -
MR. FOLEY: I don't have a lot of information for you on
that Kelly. I'm sorry, but I can read something for you, but I'm
going to leave for our briefer to flesh out some of the details.
But the State Department has contracted an international organization
to help Kosovar refugees in the United States return to their
homes in Kosovo. This fulfills a commitment that the US made when
it first offered refuge to up to 20,000 Kosovars in late-April.
The Department is going to be working with the International Organization
for Migration to arrange the return travel. IOM, as it's called,
brought the Kosovar refugees to the US. Refugees who want to return
will be required to complete and sign an IOM application.
Refugees, as I've stressed repeatedly, refugees themselves will
make the decision whether to return or to permanently settle in
the United States. While the Department is not encouraging Kosovar
refugees to return precipitously, it is responding to growing
interest among them to return sooner rather than later, which
is not altogether surprising when you look at the attitude. After
all, the refugees are voting with their feet all throughout the
Balkans, as literally hundreds and hundreds of thousands have
chosen to return quickly from the neighboring states where they
had been in camps. So we're getting similar indications from the
refugees here in the United States.
The return program is open to all Kosovar refugees evacuated from
Macedonia under our special admissions effort and who will have
arrived in the US by July 31. The State Department's Bureau of
Population, Refugees and Migration will fund the return travel
of Kosovar refugees who depart the US before May 1, 2000, next
year. These refugees also will not have to repay a travel loan
that they agreed to before they arrived here. This effort will
help refugees return who can't afford to do so otherwise. Refugees,
of course, may return without US assistance at any time. But in
terms of all the kind of nitty-gritty details we have, we'll save
that for the briefing afterwards.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - about signs of growing interest
from the refugees? Can you tell us where you get that from and
can you quantify it in any way? Is there a formal process for
them?
MR. FOLEY: I would have to save that for the briefer who's
been involved, deeply involved in those issues. But we have had,
either directly or through the host NGOs in the various US cities
where refugees have gone, we've had an opportunity to consult
with refugees and to get a sense of their desires. This doesn't
mean that they're all going to go back to Kosovo; not one is obligated
to return to Kosovo. But we do see growing interest in not only
a return, but a return soon. I think it's to the great credit
of the Kosovar people that even though many of them have had this
opportunity for a life in the West and a life, in particular,
in the US, they are very, very much attached to their homeland.
They see all of their fellow refugees going back and I think they
want to be in on the ground in what is going to be a success story
for them as Kosovo rebuilds.
QUESTION: On Colombia, the fighting is worse in Colombia.
Did you have anything you wanted to say?
MR. FOLEY: I don't think I have a lot of information about
the upsurge in fighting. What I can say, though, is that we do
understand that the fighting between the FARQ and the Colombian
security forces did continue over the weekend. The latest press
reports put the number killed in the weekend's fighting at about
80. We understand the government of Colombia announced a limited
curfew on July 10. This curfew applies to all or part of ten of
the country's 32 provinces. Residents are allowed to move freely
within villages or towns. Local government authorities have been
given permission to extend the ban to daylight hours.
While we expect that the government and the FARC peace talks will
resume as planned on July 20, we are outraged by this latest outbreak
of FARC attacks. We call upon the FARC to cease these attacks
and to engage in substantive peace negotiations - real peace negotiations.
Thank you.
QUESTION: Mr. McGuiness of Sinn Fein is in Washington.
Is he having any meetings over here?
MR. FOLEY: I'd be glad to check that. I didn't know he
was in town.
QUESTION: Right in the beginning where Barry started -
I know you can't talk about the investigation, but does the State
Department not have any comment at all regarding the arrest of
the two bombing -
MR. FOLEY: No, I refer you to the FBI.
QUESTION: Nothing? Not welcoming this, nothing at all?
MR. FOLEY: I refer you to the FBI. Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:55 P.M.)
