U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #109, 99-08-23

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

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

824

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Briefer: James B. Foley_

MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
1-2,3	Arrival and Schedule of Palestinian Officials Abu Mazen and Saeb
	 Erekat in US/ Meetings with Secretary Albright 
1	Criticism by Hezbollah of Secretary Albright's Trip to Middle East
2	Reported Agreement by Israelis and Palestinians on Safe Passage and
	 Port in Gaza 
2	Goals of the Secretary Albright's Trip to Region
CHINA
3-6	Status of American Citizen Daja Meston's Detention and Hospitalization
NIGERIA
6	Reported US Government Advisory to Oil Companies to Evacuate Staff
	 from Region 
SUDAN
6	Reported Request for Asylum by Sudan's Ambassador to Malaysia
7	US Reasons for Strike Against El Shifta Chemical Facility
IRAQ
8-11	Denial of Passport Validation for Travel to Iraq by Congressional
	 Staff 
17-18	Visit to US by Iraqi Soccer Team
SOUTH KOREA
11,18	Dr. Perry's Meeting with South Korean Unification Minister Lim Dong-won
COLOMBIA
11-14	US-Colombia Dialogue on Problems in Colombia
LIBYA
14-16	Criticism of the Department/Trial of Suspects by Some Pan Am 103
	 Victim Families 
INDONESIA
16-17	Congressional Call for Peacekeeping Forces in East Timor
NORTH KOREA
18	Plans for Further Meetings/Status of Missile Talks
GERMANY
19	Meetings in Germany on Holocuast-Era Forced and Slave Labor Issues

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB # 109

AUGUST 23, 1999 1:05 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: Good afternoon. I don't have any statements, so Barry, I'll go to right to your first question.

QUESTION: A clarification to begin with. Two Palestinian negotiators will be here this week. When will they see the Secretary, and do you happen to know if they'll see other folks as well?

MR. FOLEY: Secretary Albright will meet with Palestinian officials later this week to discuss matters of common interest, including, of course, her upcoming trip to the region and Wye implementation. I don't have a fixed date yet for when that's going to be; it'll be later this week -- towards the latter end of the week. As we made clear, the Palestinians and Israelis are negotiating directly on the best ways and means of implementing their obligations under the Wye Agreement. We welcome this fact of their working directly with each other and we will do what we can, as we have in the past, to facilitate this.

QUESTION: Did you happen to notice that the Secretary General of Hezbollah has criticized the Secretary - Albright, saying that her trip isn't going to do the Arabs any good and it'll only bring misery. I have lots of quotes if you need them but I don't know if that's something you want to respond to?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think when the enemies of peace criticize the peace process, that is a sign that the peace process is back on track. The fact of the matter is that there are enemies of the peace process -- people in the Middle East who do not wish to see progress, do not wish to see movement towards a final resolution of the political problems in the Middle East and who are, frankly, not at the end of the day friends of the interests of the Palestinian people. That kind of criticism will in no way deflect the Secretary from her mission on this trip and, indeed, our engagement, along with our partners in the Middle East, towards bringing the peace process to a successful conclusion.

QUESTION: Do you have the names of the Palestinian officials coming?

MR. FOLEY: I think -- maybe I didn't note -- I believe Abu Mazen is perhaps en route today. And yes, Mr. Erakat is expected to be coming; but I can't confirm that, Barry.

QUESTION: They will be here tomorrow, some are reporting.

MR. FOLEY: I was told, I believe, that Mr. Abu Mazen may be en route now, but that Mr. Erakat could be coming but hasn't departed. I can't confirm that he is coming. We are going to be meeting with the Palestinians at the latter end of the week, but I can't confirm when that will be.

QUESTION: Even if he arrives tomorrow or tonight the meeting won't be until the end of the week?

MR. FOLEY: With the Secretary, that's right.

QUESTION: Will he be meeting with --

MR. FOLEY: I don't know whether he'll have other meetings. Let me check after the briefing to make sure that I was right to blurt out that I had heard he was en route today.

QUESTION: There's a report from there that the Israelis and the Palestinians have come to an agreement on two issues in Wye: the safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank and the building of a port in Gaza. Do you know if that's true?

MR. FOLEY: I've read the press report. I haven't had a chance to confirm that with our experts who work on the issue. But after all, we're not involved in those meetings. As I mentioned in response to Barry's first question, these are direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. So we wouldn't necessarily be the first to know.

I believe that the news of this reported agreement was put out in the region today. If it's true, we certainly welcome it; that's progress.

QUESTION: Can you tell us what the Secretary is to do on the trip? I know it's a big question, but does she hope to pin down this timetable and get it absolutely firm for the withdrawals and all the other stages under Wye?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not in a position today to lay out specific goals for her trip. Indeed, I think we have characterized her trip in more general terms, as an effort on her part to consult directly with a broad range of parties on the Middle East -- you've seen the list of the countries she's going to be visiting -- to take stock of where we are and to help push the peace process forward.

But in terms of specific goals, I'm certainly not in a position to talk about that today. And indeed, as I indicated, I wouldn't read this trip as having a specific goal agenda in the sense that the Secretary would involve herself in the kinds of negotiations that the parties themselves are undertaking right now; at least as far as Wye implementation is concerned. But she'll be going there, as I said, to take stock; to try to encourage the peace process to go forward in a way that it has begun to go forward now in the last few weeks. But beyond that, if I have more to say in advance of the trip, maybe we'll have some kind of a briefing here next week before she departs.

QUESTION: Forgive me for coming in late. Did you announce when the Secretary might be meeting with senior Palestinians --

MR. FOLEY: Towards the latter part of the work.

QUESTION: Do you have any update on the American in China -- the detained American with a broken back? What do you all make of the comments made by his Australian colleague upon the Australian's release?

MR. FOLEY: Right. The American citizen, Mr. Meston, is in serious but stable condition in the intensive care unit in a hospital in Xining, China. An American consular officer and physician met with Mr. Meston on August 20 and 21, and received extensive briefings on his condition from hospital officials.

The consular officer had additional meetings with Mr. Meston on August 22 and, I believe, also today; although I don't have a read-out. But he provided Mr. Meston with materials -- namely, books and food -- to ease his stay.

The consular officer and a US physician contacted Mr. Meston's wife from Xining and briefed her on her husband's medical condition. I understand she is perhaps by now arrived in China and will be visiting with her husband.

We are working with the Chinese authorities, with Mr. Meston's family and other interested parties to ensure he receives the best possible medical care, including, when possible, a medical evacuation to a place where he can be further treated for his injuries.

Chinese authorities tell us that their investigation of Mr. Meston is suspended while he is hospitalized We continue to urge the Chinese Government to conclude all actions regarding Mr. Meston and facilitate his departure from China as soon as possible.

Now, in terms of what Mr. Lafitte, the Australian who has departed China and has returned home to Australia, has made comments to the press. We have met also with him -- a consular officer has met with him in Australia. First of all, we welcome his release. We are concerned by the reports that Mr. Lafitte was placed under intense psychological pressure by Chinese authorities. I stress these are reports at this stage. We are going to be following up with him to request further information.

We can assure you, though, that since our consular officer has arrived on the scene in Xining, we have seen no evidence that Mr. Meston is under any kind of pressure from Chinese authorities. In terms of his injuries, what I can tell you is that the reports on his medical condition that we have received from our officials in Xining are consistent with the report from the Chinese that Mr. Meston jumped or fell from a window while attempting to escape. Let me stress, however, that given his medical condition, our conversations with him to this point have been focused on ensuring that he is receiving appropriate medical care, and on determining his plans for the future. Once the medical situation permits, we expect to be in a position to have further conversations with him regarding the circumstances of his detention.

So to sum up, we're concerned by the report from Mr. Lafitte regarding his treatment; not regarding Mr. Meston's treatment. Number two, the report from the medical authorities, including the US physician, indicates that his injuries are consistent with the Chinese version of how he came to be injured; in other words, from a jump. Number three, we're not drawing any definitive conclusions, though, about the circumstances of his injury until we've had an opportunity really to explore the matter with him.

QUESTION: But does that mean, when you say the reports of injuries are consistent, does that mean that -- I mean, was he asked about how this happened to him? Did the consular officer ask, or the doctor ask him what happened?

MR. FOLEY: Again, as I stated initially, he had just come out of, I believe it was surgery and in stable condition but serious; he's stabilized but he's in serious condition. Our conversations have focused essentially on his medical condition, on his needs and wants. We really haven't gotten into the matter of the conditions that occurred prior to his injuries occurring. In the limited discussions we've had with him, we've not heard anything that indicates anything other than what the Chinese indicated happened.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. FOLEY: From him -- from him -- to this point. As I said -- if I can stress again what I said a minute ago -- we haven't drawn any definitive conclusions one way or the other about the matter.

QUESTION: Okay, sorry. Jim, to follow up, would the word "torture" be too strong an adjective to describe what these gentlemen endured?

QUESTION: It's a noun.

QUESTION: I'm sorry -- torture is an adverb.

(Laughter.)

Torture is a noun.

MR. FOLEY: Thank you, Barry.

QUESTION: -- or a verb. Do you think that these gentlemen were tortured?

MR. FOLEY: Well, again, I can repeat what I just said, Bill, which is as far as Mr. Lefitte is concerned, he came out of China and reported -- I think to the press and also I believe we heard this from him directly -- that he had been subjected to some psychological pressure and we're concerned about that. He did not report on Mr. Meston's treatment as far as I know, was not an eyewitness to his treatment. We cannot state, at this point, anything definitive about the nature of Mr. Meston's treatment in China. I've only commented about the nature of his injuries that appear to have occurred as a result of a fall or a jump.

QUESTION: To follow up -- the Chinese said that these gentlemen were conducting illegal investigations into the World Bank project. Were their investigations, in the eyes of the United States, were they legal and justified?

MR. FOLEY: At the time that the World Bank gave conditional approval to the loan for the resettlement project in Qinghai -- forgive me if I'm mispronouncing that -- the Chinese Government said that access to the project site by outsiders would not be impeded. So in that respect, we recognize, of course, that China has the right to decide who does not enter its country. But nevertheless, having made that invitation, as it were, in connection with the loan, we believe that Mr. Meston, if he had been detained by Chinese authorities, should have been released by the Chinese authorities. So there's an accident that seemingly has intervened in the meantime. But as I stated a few minutes ago, it's our view that as soon as his medical condition permits, that the Chinese authorities conclude their actions against him and indeed release him and allow him to leave the country.

QUESTION: As far as you can tell, are there any inconsistencies in the documents he submitted to the Chinese as to what he might be doing while he's there or where he might be going?

MR. FOLEY: You'd have to ask the Chinese authorities about that. We did not have anything to do with his travel or to approving his travel on the basis of any representations. Those are obviously representations he made to Chinese authorities in order to obtain a visa.

QUESTION: Jim, you don't know that?

MR. FOLEY: No. I don't know whether he stated in his visa application precisely what he was going to be doing in China. I'd refer you to the Chinese authorities.

QUESTION: You use the word suspend their investigations while he's hospitalized.

MR. FOLEY: Right.

QUESTION: Did they specifically say that they intend to resume them when he is fit enough to undergo more questioning?

MR. FOLEY: I don't know whether they said they were going to resume. It could be implied by virtue of the fact that they described it as a suspension. In our view, they would have by now established what they needed to know about his presence in China. We're not aware that he has broken any laws in China. In any event, we believe the best course for all concerned, including the Chinese authorities, is to see to his immediate release as soon as this is medically advisable.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- his medical expenses? I understand the Chinese were asking for payment.

MR. FOLEY: I believe there are discussions underway involving payment for his medical expenses. I don't have those details, though.

QUESTION: Have you gotten either from the Chinese doctors or from the American physician any kind of estimate of how long he might have to be hospitalized before he could be moved or before the Chinese might resume -- if they're going to -- their investigation?

MR. FOLEY: Well, my understanding -- I'm going to sound like my boss now when I preface this with I'm not a doctor. But he has been stabilized but he does have serious back injuries. I saw a report somewhere in the press indicating he was paralyzed. That apparently is not the case. There is some urgency, though, to his receiving specialized treatment -- spinal treatment. There could be some kinds of risks involved in not having that sort of specialized attention. That we would underscore in urging that he be allowed to depart as soon as medically feasible.

QUESTION: You just said that there's a discussion underway for payment of medical expenses. A discussion between whom?

MR. FOLEY: I believe that in the private sector and perhaps in the NGO community there are discussions underway in that effect.

QUESTION: Another subject -- in Nigeria there was a report today saying the US Government had advised all companies to evacuate their US staff from the region. Is this true?

MR. FOLEY: I have not heard that. I'll look into it and see if I can get something for you after the briefing.

QUESTION: Do you know the report that Sudan's ambassador to Malaysia is trying to get asylum in the United States?

MR. FOLEY: I heard that report; it was brought to my attention just before the briefing. I have no information on it, though.

QUESTION: Also on Sudan --

MR. FOLEY: Tag-team journalism.

QUESTION: There's a story in The Washington Post Saturday or Sunday raising some questions about the veracity of the rationale for attacking the pharmaceutical plant. Do you care to address that?

MR. FOLEY: Right, well, I can provide a lengthy answer if you'd like, or you can stop me when you've heard enough because what I have to say echoes what we said at the time of the strike against the chemical facility. But we certainly stand by the decision that the President took last year to hit that facility as well as terrorist targets in Afghanistan.

We have reliable information that bin Laden was seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons for use against American targets. We had solid evidence that EMTPA, which is a known VX precursor was found just outside the Shifa facility. We knew that the only definite proven use for EMPTA was as a precursor to making VX and that there were no known commercial uses.

We also know and knew, that bin Laden had close ties to the government of Sudan, which was also attempting to acquire chemical weapons. We targeted this facility precisely to prevent such deadly weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists.

I can go over some of the more specifics involved in our thinking and our justification for taking this action at the time, if you wish. Kelly, I heard you had a question similarly -- I can continue if you're interested.

QUESTION: You couldn't -- I'm saying this the wrong way -- but there was some sort of a pending case having to do with the freezing of the assets of the owner of that under some sort of terrorism law which you couldn't prove in court? How does that gibe with your irrefutable evidence?

MR. FOLEY: Well, our actions against the Al Shifa plant were not in any way predicated on that person's ownership of the plant. We only learned of his ownership of the plant after the strike. But his connection with the plant had nothing to do with our reasons for striking it. It had to do with the fact that we knew of bin Laden's intentions in regard to acquiring chemical weapons. He'd issued a fatwa authorizing and encouraging attacks against American citizens. He'd just destroyed two American embassies and killed hundreds of people. We knew he was planning further attacks; we knew he had ties to the Sudanese Government; we knew he had ties to the Sudanese military industrial group that itself was responsible in the Sudanese Government for developing chemical weapons and we'd found EMPTA in the vicinity of the plant. So those are the reasons we struck it, and we stand by that decision.

QUESTION: Do you think Dick Tracy is going to help you catch them?

MR. FOLEY: Who's Dick Tracy?

QUESTION: Do you know about this?

MR. FOLEY: No. I know --

QUESTION: Evidently the FBI's going to have its Ten Most Wanted appear one at a time and Dick Tracy pals, beginning with Usama bin Laden. So I just thought you wanted to welcome it or --

MR. FOLEY: I'd would refer you to the FBI.

QUESTION: This was a weekend announcement; the news was slow over the week.

MR. FOLEY: We, I think, announced a week or so ago that we released a video on rewards from the Heroes Program -- it's called Rewards For Justice Program. We did a public service announcement highlighting the fact that we do have this rewards program and it's been translated into different languages and is being shown around the world. I don't know if that's what you're referring to.

QUESTION: I'm assuming that everything you've said up to this date means that the US will, at the UN, oppose this new Sudanese request for an investigation into the --

MR. FOLEY: I don't expect our position on that has changed any bit since last year.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- why the State Department refused on Friday to issue passport validations for congressional aides and to other Americans to visit Iraq for a fact-finding mission?

MR. FOLEY: Yes. This is not a new issue. We've had a travel warning in effect concerning Iraq for a long time. I can't seem to find it; I had a copy with me. But in any case, you need your passport validated by the State Department in order to travel to Iraq if you're an American citizen. Our policy has not been to provide such validation. It's based on our concerns about the situation in Iraq -- security concerns. I can't go into, for legal reasons, the details of the application and our decision; but it was a fairly routine decision.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- you have validated so many passports for journalists and for NGOs to go to Iraq?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, well, you probably can check with our consular information sheet. The one I have is dated June 25, 1997, but it goes back -- I think -- almost to the time of the aftermath of the Gulf War in 1991, in which we note that without the requisite validation, use of a US passport for travel to, in or through Iraq may be a legal violation.

An exemption to the above restriction is granted to Americans residing in Iraq -- as of February 8, 1991, who continue to reside there and to American professional reporters or journalists on assignment there. So we've had that exemption for journalists from the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War.

As far as humanitarian workers, I'm sure that we have provided the necessary validation for Americans who are in the humanitarian field or in the arms inspection field. But as a general matter though, we certainly discourage travel to Iraq. Anybody who's paid attention to the ongoing challenges to the no-fly zone since December will know that, in our view, it remains a dangerous place for Americans to be.

QUESTION: You said it might be a violation. Does this mean that the State Department might persecute congressional aides if they proceed and go to Iraq?

MR. FOLEY: Persecute or prosecute did you say?

QUESTION: Prosecute -- take them to court.

MR. FOLEY: Neither; we neither persecute nor prosecute. That's a matter for the Justice Department to prosecute -- not persecute.

QUESTION: You said may be a legal violation. Surely there's no doubt about such a thing; either it is or it isn't.

MR. FOLEY: I think I was reading from our consular information sheet, which I will refer you to.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- imprecise for a government department to say it may be a violation.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I can bring your comment to the attention of our consular --

QUESTION: Because I understand that the consular affairs people have been telling members of the delegation --

MR. FOLEY: No, they constituted a violation, may be punishable. That's how it reads.

QUESTION: A constitutional violation --

MR. FOLEY: I can make this available to you after the briefing.

QUESTION: -- and may be punishable?

MR. FOLEY: And may be subject to punishment --

QUESTION: Why is the consular affairs bureau telling members of the delegation today that, in fact, it would not be a violation?

MR. FOLEY: What would not be a violation?

QUESTION: Entry.

MR. FOLEY: Without a validation and without a passport?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. FOLEY: I know nothing about that.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- undergo any legal action.

MR. FOLEY: Well, again, echoing my answer to the previous question -- law enforcement is a matter for the Justice Department, not the State Department.

QUESTION: Kind of a different version of this, but are you confident that that specifically is what happened to these five? Because the version I heard is that they weren't told they can't go; they were advised -- particularly after the last bombing -- security is touchy there and they chose not to go unless they had the approval of the US Government.

MR. FOLEY: Well, you may know more about it --

QUESTION: No, that was Friday, though. Something may have happened.

MR. FOLEY: -- about an exchange that occurred than I do. Our job, though, is to, if asked, provide advise to Americans traveling around the world. We have this travel warning for Americans not to travel to Iraq.

Secondly, our job is to validate or not validate passports of Americans who want to travel to Iraq. If they choose not to do so --

QUESTION: But Voices of the Wilderness in Chicago -- she's gone there about 12 times the last few years. You don't stop people from going; you just don't think it's wise.

MR. FOLEY: We don't think it's wise, and we choose to exercise responsibly our responsibility to validate or not validate passports of Americans who go there. In terms of those who may travel without having the necessary validation, that's a matter for the Justice Department.

QUESTION: On this same point, a couple of things. The briefings at the State Department -- these people were told that there was a danger of escalation. Can you tell us whether or not the danger was what they called "friendly fire;" or was it danger from Iraqis? How did you see this danger when you briefed them?

MR. FOLEY: First of all, you're referencing a conversation I know nothing about. You've been briefed by somebody who claims that something was said in a private meeting. I can't comment on that.

The fact of the matter is that the Iraqis have continued to challenge the no-fly zone repeatedly since December, and coalition aircraft have responded in kind to protect aircraft and to enforce the no-fly zone. Therefore, it has been a dangerous place to be in Iraq over the last eight or nine months.

QUESTION: Okay, how do you answer those members of the delegation who say that the denial of passport validation was based on the fact that the State Department doesn't want them to see the truth about circumstances in Iraq?

MR. FOLEY: You put that in such draconian terms. No, the decision was made on the basis of safety considerations.

QUESTION: Do you know that validation was denied, as a fact in this case?

MR. FOLEY: I'm informed that it was, yes.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- anything a neutral observer would see in Iraq would contradict the way you all describe the situation there?

MR. FOLEY: I think you have to be more specific.

QUESTION: Humanitarian and open press and democracy and so forth. Or would it possibly help your case?

MR. FOLEY: You'd have to be very specific, Sid. If you're asking the question of whether someone would go to Iraq and find things different from how we see things in Iraq, I can't answer that. You have to say something specific.

QUESTION: Change the subject? I want to ask if you knew anything about former Secretary Perry meeting with the South Korean Unification Minister? Precisely where this meeting is -- is it in San Francisco or is it --

MR. FOLEY: It's in California; I don't know if I have specifically where it is, but let me give that to you. Dr. Perry will meet with South Korean Unification Minister Lim in Northern California on August 27. He's traveling privately -- Minister Lim -- and will meet with former Secretary Perry on the 27<SUP>th</SUP>. There are no plans, I'm told, for media coverage, and I don't have any further details at this point about their meeting.

QUESTION: Change subject -- Colombia, on the tortures in Colombia?

MR. FOLEY: The what situation?

QUESTION: The torture situation in Colombia. Ambassador Pickering last week said he expected some answers from President Pastrana in terms of a plan.

MR. FOLEY: Could you repeat that, please; I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Ambassador Pickering last week said in his briefing that he expected within a few days an answer from President Pastrana on a plan that the US could back. Is there any news on that?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't know about the specific timing -- whether we expected something from him in a few days or not. The fact of the matter is this is a Colombian matter and the Colombians themselves are going to put together a comprehensive strategy to deal with the challenge. We will help in any way that we can and in any way that we're asked to help.

We have been discussing the problems in Colombia on a continuing basis with the Colombian Government for more than a year. Just recently, this dialogue intensified and the Colombian Government has asked us for assistance in developing a comprehensive strategy to deal with the major problems confronting Colombia, including but not limited to narcotics trafficking.

Any strategy that emerges from this process will be a strategy developed and approved by the government of Colombia. I would expect, though, following Under Secretary Pickering's trip and what he announced, that we will be in contact with a meeting with Colombian officials and that we'll be in a position at some point down the road to talk publicly about the fruits of those discussions. But there's nothing to report at this point.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that? Can you tell the status of the request by the Colombian Government of $500 million in military aid for the next two years, additional to the $289 million?

MR. FOLEY: Right, well, Colombia's needs are critical and we are certainly exploring every avenue to provide assistance. As I mentioned, Colombia is working on this comprehensive strategy to address the inter-related problems confronting it. We're going to be studying that strategy closely with an eye toward providing assistance where we can. But it certainly is premature to discuss specific amounts at this point. We're considering a wide gamut of possible areas of assistance. But any assistance package we do come up with will be heavily weighted towards counter-narcotics.

QUESTION: Are you satisfied with the way President Pastrana is dealing with the FARC, in terms of giving them control of -- (inaudible) -- by the way he is planning them to meet them in the future? Is the US satisfied with that strategy?

MR. FOLEY: Well, he's facing a formidable challenge in Colombia in the form of the insurgency, in the form of the narcotics and narco-trafficking threat. There is a very obvious inter-relationship between those threats. He is committed to working on both fronts -- the peace and security front and the counter-narcotics front -- simultaneously, and is working on a comprehensive strategy as I indicated. We intend fully to cooperate and support that strategy when it is finalized.

Our view is that the FARC has demonstrated little goodwill in recent months, has demonstrated little willingness to reciprocate the government's offer and willingness to negotiate. So we are not of the view, at the moment, that the FARC has demonstrated a real commitment to a peaceful settlement of the problem. But we certainly understand the nature of the challenge and the difficulties that the Colombian Government is facing at the moment. That's why we want to work with them as they develop this counter-narcotics strategy.

QUESTION: Ambassador Pickering in The Post today reported that the request by the Colombians and Pastrana's plan have to be in by September in order to get the money. Is that --

MR. FOLEY: I'm not going to comment on the specifics or timing of it. As I indicated, we're going to be in very close dialogue with the Colombians in the coming days and weeks.

QUESTION: On Colombia there's a very disturbing piece in The Washington Post this morning, where Barry McCaffrey is quoted as saying that "Colombia is a disaster and I don't see any other way around it". McCaffrey also wrote a letter to Madeleine Albright saying that unless the government of Colombia succeeds in establishing a security presence in the coca-growing regions, Colombian coca cultivation will continue to expand and the guerrilla movement will continue to strengthen. I would just ask you, if you could, to comment on these alleged -- and I presume they are correct -- quotes from Barry McCaffrey?

MR. FOLEY: I'd first like to comment that The Washington Post owes you because you are giving them free publicity. No, I think I've answered the question, Bill. This is a very serious problem. I think there's no difference between the view of General McCaffrey and the view of the State Department on the urgency of the problem facing the Colombians.

QUESTION: Then how can the United States rise to the occasion of curtailing the heroin and cocaine increased importation into the US when Howard Air Force Base is going off-line and out of service and when President Chavez of Venezuela will not allow flights into Venezuela in pursuit of drug smugglers?

MR. FOLEY: I think the issue is not what facilities and assets the United States has available, because the tools we have at our disposal are great and we're confident that we can do all that we can on our part to combat the narcotics trafficking scourge in the hemisphere. But many of the government in the hemisphere are facing very, very difficult problems at home. It's our job to work with them, and we fully intend to do that in the case of the Colombian Government.

QUESTION: Jim, I can maybe, perhaps take away some of that free publicity for The Washington Post. Presumably you read this story very closely. Did you notice --

MR. FOLEY: No.

QUESTION: Did you notice anything -- you didn't?

MR. FOLEY: I skimmed it.

QUESTION: Okay, well maybe you can tell us if you thought that there was any actual news in that that could not have been reported last week, ten days ago, right after Pickering and Romero made their two very highly publicized briefings?

MR. FOLEY: I'll leave it to the press to comment on the press.

QUESTION: Not to give any more publicity, but the idea that -- any more on the Administration's thinking about cutting off money already ear-marked for Colombia if the government there makes any more concessions towards these factions?

MR. FOLEY: Well, the idea that we're going to try to micro-manage the Colombian Government's counter-insurgency strategy is wrong. That I can say. We're in a dialogue with them, but those are decisions for the government of Colombia to make.

QUESTION: Under Secretary Pickering mentioned about, at the Foreign Press Center, that the United States and Cuba are in negotiations to form a bilateral anti-narcotics program. He said that they'll probably reached an accord on that. There is some stories saying that the Cuban Government has set the presence of members of the Coast Guard and the Customs at the intersection of the United States and Havana. Do you have any information or details of an accord or the situation of the negotiations?

MR. FOLEY: I believe that Mr. Rubin spoke to this last Thursday and I'm not aware that there have been any new developments. I will check and see if there have been any new developments.

What he said on Thursday, I believe, is that we did receive a response from the Cuban Government on proposals that we made in June regarding counter-narcotics cooperation and we're studying them. No final decisions have been made.

QUESTION: On Lockerbie -- the victims' families are in town today being briefed by the Justice Department in private meetings, but many of the victims have complained to members of the press outside of the hotel about the process of being kept informed and also that the suspects being offered couldn't have planned the incident over Lockerbie alone, and that they want some significantly broader number of suspects or higher level suspects and have actually accused, in some cases, the US Government of accepting these suspects as -- if you will -- throwaways in order to move towards a quick resolution of the situation and possibly even normalizing relations with Libya. How do you respond to that?

MR. FOLEY: That's a lot of questions and premises rolled into one question, so I'll do my best at addressing all of them. First, I can't speak to the views of every family member of the victims of the Pan Am 103 bombing. But as a general rule, though, the State Department has maintained very close contact and remain in regular contact with the families for all these many years, including in the last years.

We worked very hard to try to put pressure on Qadhafi to render the suspects in the case to face justice in The Netherlands. There were many skeptics who believe that Qadhafi would never take that step; that he would never risk allowing a free trial outside of Libyan control to go forward. I have to say, in all modesty, that we are proud, as is the government of the United Kingdom, of our dogged efforts over the years to keep up the pressure and to produce this result where we're going to have a real trial.

The second point I'd make is that the views of the family members who all experienced this horrible, unspeakable tragedy are varied. I think you'll find a range of opinion among them. I think everyone among them agrees that this has been a difficult case. But I think that many of the family members recognize that we have made progress in this area.

Our view, to answer the fundamental question about who's on trial in The Netherlands, those indicted in Western courts are on trial there at the moment. Our view is that that trial must go forward and it must produce whatever evidence is relevant to the case, to finding out what happened and how it happened and who was involved.

So we trust that this trial will be a free trial, a fair trial and that we cannot predict what's going to come out of that trial. So our view at the moment is to let the trial go forward -- I believe it starts in February -- before drawing any kind of categorical judgments of the kind you're reporting.

QUESTION: So you would say to the victims that, say, essentially, the US Government has -- even though you're proud of your work, as you say, hasn't worked hard enough and hasn't kept the victims informed enough; you would say what?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I would say I respectfully disagree on both points. On the question of keeping family members informed enough, I think you might find family members who think we haven't. You probably would find family members who think we've been in very close and regular contact. I know there are Department officials who are specifically charged with maintaining that contact. We have regular meetings with them as well. But that's a subjective assessment.

In terms of fighting hard enough to reach justice in the case of Pan Am 103, this is not just this Administration that's worked hard at this. It goes back to the Reagan and then the Bush Administrations. This is a national priority. An unspeakable act of terrorism occurred and hundreds of people were killed. We have not rested; we worked very hard to get -- and this is not easy, as all of you in this room know -- to get international consensus; to get the Security Council to agree to impose sanctions on a member state. This was achieved with great difficulty, but it was achieved. And then we held out and the sanctions were maintained and at the end of the day, the Libyan regime decided to cooperate and to provide the suspects for a free trial in a neutral setting, but under a Scottish court.

So we are satisfied with those results to date, but I would fully agree that this story is not over.

QUESTION: One last follow-up. Even though the views are varied that some of the victims' families are saying that the trial must go forward, as you're saying, are being offered up for a quick resolution towards the issue of normalization with Libya. What about that?

MR. FOLEY: It's interesting you mentioned that, because that rumor has been coming up a bit in this room over the last few weeks. Some of your colleagues have been asking about rumors that we're thinking about or prepared to normalize relations with Libya. I and Mr. Rubin have been very categorical that that's not true.

QUESTION: Can I ask about East Timor?

QUESTION: Will the US do anything to push for a family role in the trial? And on that, can you give us any specifics about what promises they might get this afternoon from the US Government?

MR. FOLEY: Well, they're meeting at the Department of Justice. The Justice Department is hosting a briefing for Pan Am 103 family members today and tomorrow in which the Scottish prosecutors are present. They're going to be describing the evidence. The Department of Justice is, I'm told, making a presentation on the assistance it's going to provide to the families in the course of the trial.

The State Department will be present and participating at that meeting, but it's a Department of Justice event. I'd have to refer you to them on those details, if they can provide them.

QUESTION: A congressional delegation has been in East Timor over the weekend. Leader Senator Tom Harkin is clearly worried by what's going on. He says he's going to recommend to the President that he recommends to the Security Council that they get some peacekeeping forces down here in a hurry. Now, is the State Department satisfied with the level of security and preparations for the post-ballot period there?

MR. FOLEY: I think that's asking a lot -- to ask whether we're satisfied because we've been --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. FOLEY: I'm not criticizing you; I'm going to give an honest answer. We have been concerned very much about the security situation in East Timor these past months. That concern continues to this day and it continues to the period beyond the vote, which is a great concern, because we want the vote to be a free and fair vote, an honest reflection of the will of the people of East Timor. But we want that vote then to be followed up by a period of peaceful implementation of the results of that vote. So, as I said, we share the concerns expressed by Senator Harkin and others about continued violence and intimidation on the part of the pro-integration militias and the campaign before next Monday's autonomy vote and, as I said, the possibility of increased violence after the vote.

We are regularly raising this concern, as does the UN, with key officials. We are encouraged by the successful registration of voters for the consultation, and we do expect that conditions will permit the consultation to proceed on August 30 despite the violent incidents that have continued during the campaign. But we very much call on all sides to look beyond the vote and to do all possible to ensure that the stability of East Timor is preserved regardless of the outcome.

QUESTION: And to follow up, is there any interest, though, in the UN revisiting the security arrangements for that post-ballot period there's a ratification of any result?

MR. FOLEY: Well you're talking about just a few days; we've got seven days before the vote takes place. There are --

QUESTION: I'm asking very specifically what Senator Harkin is talking about.

MR. FOLEY: There are 280 civilian police and 50 military liaison officers currently authorized as part of the UN mission in East Timor. The Secretary General has recommended that the civilian police be increased to 460 and the military liaison officers to 300 until November 30. We expect the Security Council to vote on these recommendations on August 27.

As a practical matter, to answer your specific question, we don't believe that the dispatch of armed UN peace-keepers before August 30 is possible at this point. Moreover, in a more fundamental sense, we believe this is the responsibility of the government of Indonesia and we don't want to take that responsibility away from them. The UN is obviously there as the eyes and ears of the world and as a sign to the people of East Timor and the authorities that the world community is seized of this matter and is hopeful that the vote takes place peacefully and the results are respected.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on Ambassador Gelbard's plans to visit the Balkans later this week? And would this be a swan song mission for him?

MR. FOLEY: I have not heard about that. I'll have to take the question.

QUESTION: Can we go back to Iraq real quick? There are reports that there's a sports committee that wants to bring the Iraqi soccer team here. Can you comment on that? And can you comment on -- it seems to be an increase in sports teams trying to, I guess, recruit or give the same types of gestures to other rogue governments that the US has sanctions or something against. I mean previous -- like Cuba and baseball and the Iranians and wrestling and --

MR. FOLEY: Well, I would hesitate to give a general answer the way you formulate the question -- grouping together different countries, different policies, different circumstances.

It's a fact that the United States has echoed President Khatemi's call for greater people-to-people exchanges between the US and Iran. That is a matter of policy, and Secretary Albright has stated that.

In terms of Iraq, I'm going to have to take that question; I've not heard that report. I'd also have to check whether during the -- I don't know if the Iraqi team qualified for the soccer or football matches in the Olympics in '96, but I'm sure we would have facilitated their travel here if that had been the case. So I've not heard that report but I'd be glad to look into it for you.

QUESTION: It's on the sports page today.

MR. FOLEY: Unfortunately I've had to read the international news pages, although not in precise detail.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. FOLEY: I had to skim the international pages. I save that for lunch.

QUESTION: Back to the Perry's meeting. Can you tell us what's the subject of the meeting of Perry and --

MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have more details about that meeting; but obviously he remains seized of the whole issue of North Korea and he is preparing still his policy review. Undoubtedly, it's in that capacity that he'll be talking to the Unification Minister.

QUESTION: And also -- this is a related issue -- what's the status of the missile talks with North Korea?

MR. FOLEY: I'd have to check that for you. I've just gotten back; I've been absent some time so I don't know where that stands. I'll get that answer for you.

QUESTION: I was just going to ask if there were any talks with the North Koreans planned in the next few weeks since their more open expressions of wanting to work with the West rather than fire missiles.

MR. FOLEY: Well, we are encouraging talks in that regard. I think you know that one of the key aims of the Perry and Sherman visit to North Korea in May was to establish working relationships with senior officials who report directly to leader Kim Jung Il. The mission itself succeeded in doing that but it was believed that there would be continuing value and high-level dialogue that was begun in Pyongyang. Dr. Perry conveyed an invitation to his main interlocutor to visit at a convenient time. No visit has been scheduled yet but I think there have been news reports to that effect, which are incorrect. But we do hope that that can take place.

QUESTION: Do you have any response to Chinese comments casting doubt on the strength of the US defense commitment to the defense of Taiwan which is also reflected among certain US --

MR. FOLEY: I've not seen that. But we stand -- this Administration, as previous Administrations, stands by the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act. We have demonstrated that in the past.

QUESTION: Stuart Eizenstat is in Bonn this week talking with the Germans about the proposed Holocaust fund. I'm wondering if you have any comments on this in terms of when there might be an agreement on this?

MR. FOLEY: Of course he's now an official of the Treasury Department but I'd be glad to look into it for you. I think Mr. Lambsdorff was quoted -- I saw in the press -- as expressing optimism that those talks can be successful. I think Mr. Rubin, last week, talked about our hope that some kind of general agreement could be reached this week in these talks in Germany. But I don't know that they started today. Certainly, they're going to be taking place throughout this week. It might be best to wait a few more days to see how those negotiations go before commenting on them.

Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:55 P.M.)

[end of document]

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