Browse through our Interesting Nodes on Human Rights Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923)
HR-Net - Hellenic Resources Network Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Friday, 29 March 2024
 
News
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  Announcements
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Hosted
  Mirrored
  Interesting Nodes
Documents
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  Constitutions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Other
Services
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts
  Tools
  F.A.Q.
 

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #7, 00-02-01

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>


699

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Tuesday, February 1, 2000

Briefer: James B. Foley

GERMANY
1	Briefing by Deputy Secretary of Treasury Eizenstat on German
	 Foundation Initiative Regarding Compensation for Forced and Slave
	 Labor  
AUSTRIA
1-6	European Union Position on Freedom Party/ Role in New
	 Government/Haider Remarks 
SYRIA
4-5	Syrian Press Report Questioning Holocaust/Secretary Albright
	 Condemns Press Report 
CYPRUS
6-7	Geneva Talks on Cyprus
CUBA
7-8	US Interests Section/Non-Immigrant Visa Processing
IRAN
8-9	World Bank Loan/US View
VENEZUELA
9	Reported Criticism of Assistant Secretary Romero's Remarks
IRAQ
9-10	Reported Iraqi Rebuilding of Weapons Sites/Iraqi WMD Capability
NORTH KOREA
11-12	North Korea's Placement on "Terrorism List"
11	Status of High Level Visit
TERRORISM
12	Criteria for Removal of Country from "Terrorism List"
CHINA/TAIWAN
12	Taiwan Security Enhancement Act
MONTENEGRO CROATIA/SERBIA
12-13	Visit of Montenegrin Prime Minister/Secretary's Visit to
	 Croatia/Serbian Opposition Meeting 
KENYA
13-14	Kenyan Air Crash/Americans On Board
CHINA
14	Reported Mistreatment of US Businessman

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #7

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2000 1:30 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department's noon briefing. I apologize for the very tardy start of the briefing today. I'm prepared to answer any and all questions you have about the Super Bowl on Sunday and other topics of interest.

You've probably seen our Notice to the Press that Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Stu Eizenstat is going to be giving an on-the-record briefing at 3:30 today at the close of this plenary meeting on the German Foundation Initiative concerning compensation for forced and slave labor, and so I will certainly direct any questions you may have to him two hours from now.

There was an erroneous press story about US policy, vis-a-vis the Caspian that I have a statement on that I will release as well.

With that, I will go to your super-dooper Super Bowl questions.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the EU position concerning Austria and Mr. Haider?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we take note of the EU position that was announced by the European Union. I can speak to our policy on the matter which is, first of all, that the United States is concerned about the possibility of the Freedom Party entering the government in Austria. In that connection, Secretary Albright spoke with Foreign Minister Schuessel earlier today from Moscow where she is currently visiting.

As of now, Austria has not formed a new government; however, if the Freedom Party were to enter the Austrian Government, this would affect our relations and we would consider what steps to take in that event. Again, this is hypothetical at this point because Austria has not yet formed a new government. This is a matter, though, that we consider seriously. It's something that concerns us and, therefore, we're continuing to keep the situation closely under review.

QUESTION: As a precedent, though, is this not a slippery slope when the United States begins to indirectly involve itself in the internal politics of a democracy?

MR. FOLEY: I think, first of all, I have to say that the whole question is, in some sense, hypothetical because there is no Austrian government yet, or at least there isn't one that's been formed out of the last elections. They are still in negotiations. So in some fundamental sense, it's a hypothetical question.

As a philosophical matter, though, I think that the increasingly large community of democracies have an interest in the health of democracies and, therefore, it's not I think in any way out of place for democracies to wish for the continued observance of democratic principles around the world. I think that goes without saying.

We're talking, though, as I said, about a hypothetical situation. We're concerned about the possibility that the Freedom Party may enter the government, but that has not happened to date and we are simply reviewing and following the situation in the meantime.

QUESTION: Could you just tell us, what exactly has the Freedom Party done to arouse your concerns and can it do anything now to allay your concerns or is it a lost cause as far as the State Department is concerned?

MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, we've been trying to make clear all along to Mr. Haider and the Freedom Party our concern and our strong opposition to any statements or actions that can be interpreted as expressing sympathy for the former Nazi regime or as explaining away the Holocaust. There have been concerns about words and statements made in this regard in the past that continue to concern us.

QUESTION: You didn't answer the second part. Is there anything the Freedom Party can do to allay your concerns, or is it a lost cause as far you're concerned?

MR. FOLEY: I think that is hard to answer because certain statements have been made that are very disturbing, that do or can be interpreted as expressing sympathy for the Nazi regime and as explaining away the Holocaust. These are simply unacceptable in a democratic context in the world in which we live, and it's hard to explain away those statements, if you will. They have been made.

But I, again, do not want to speak categorically about things that haven't happened. The Austrian Government has not yet been formed. We've certainly expressed our concern about the possibility that the Freedom Party may enter the new government.

QUESTION: You know, you talk about how the growing community of democracies has an interest in democracy. Well, I don't think I'm mistaken; didn't this party win a large share of votes? I mean, what could be more democratic than a party that has won -- than a party that's won a large percentage of votes having a role in government?

MR. FOLEY: I think it's fair to say that what constitutes a democracy, a healthy democracy, are a number of elements. You're absolutely right, free and fair elections are a critical component to democracy around the world.

QUESTION: But it's bad if a party that you don't like happens to win?

MR. FOLEY: Let me answer the question, if you will. But what makes a democracy is more than simply a clean and free and fair election. We've seen evidence in the past, I believe, around the world of governments that were elected democratically or with plurality not acting democratically or not acting in conformity with democratic principles and with respect for human rights and things of this nature. And so I don't think, in answer to your question, that elections themselves are the be-all and the end-all. They are certainly an indispensable component of that which defines democracy. I don't deny that for one moment, but they're not the be-all and the end-all.

QUESTION: What's important to the US?

MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry, Matt wasn't finished.

QUESTION: Just two other brief things. Can you tell us a little bit more about what the Secretary said to the Foreign Minister?

MR. FOLEY: No, I'm not going to get into her conversation.

QUESTION: All right. If you can't do that then, can you tell us why it is that your statement that you put out just now is significantly less strong than the one that was put out at the White House earlier?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I believe that what the White House said earlier took note of what the EU had decided, the action that the EU had taken. We will make our own decisions. We're not a member of the EU; therefore, we are not in a position to participate in EU decision-making. and nor do we wish to be. We will take our own decisions based on our own national interest.

QUESTION: But you think that -- so this government is speaking as one government and you don't have a significantly different opinion on this than the White House does?

MR. FOLEY: I certainly do not see any difference of position.

QUESTION: You don't see any difference --

MR. FOLEY: Well, I believe the White House is briefing now even as we speak.

QUESTION: I'm talking about what you know of the statement this morning.

MR. FOLEY: Yes, but as I said, that statement, as I understand it, took note of the EU action. I have indicated, I think if you look at my words, that if the Freedom Party does enter the government, that it will have an impact on our relations. I don't think that in any way contradicts what was said earlier.

QUESTION: In other contexts you all have said, not in this issue but in other contexts, you all have said that it's more important to you to see what a government or particular leader does rather than what they say. And I wonder, what do you care if a politician said certain things? In the end, people are allowed to say what they want. As long as the government behaves itself according to democratic principles, do you all really have an objection?

MR. FOLEY: Well, this may be a <I>non sequitur</I>, but we don't think people should yell "fire" in a movie house if there isn't a fire. The fact is that some very disturbing statements have been made that call into question the Holocaust, that express sympathy for the former Nazi regime. You can't imagine statements that could be more profoundly disturbing given the horrors of the Holocaust and what happened in Europe more than 50 years ago. These are of great concern to the community of nations, and in particular to the community of democracies.

In terms of what people do, I think we have been stressing all along our concern, our opposition to any statements of this nature, and to urge people not to repeat such statements. But you're talking about a hypothetical situation. The Austrian Government has not yet been formed, and we'll be prepared to answer questions of the nature you're making now when future events play out.

QUESTION: You said statements have been made that call into question the Holocaust. Can you refer us to any such statements? I mean, all the material that I've seen on this, which has been investigated in depth, has not produced any such statements.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have a transcript of previous statements before me. My understanding is that some statements were very disturbing and were open to such interpretation.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- you stick to that?

MR. FOLEY: That's my understanding, yes.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, then, let's just say a non-hypothetical situation where you have --

MR. FOLEY: Calling into question or -- I didn't say that. The words I used were "explaining away the Holocaust."

QUESTION: You have a non-hypothetical situation. You have in Syria a government mouthpiece newspaper calling the Holocaust a myth, and yet the US isn't saying that it's going to pull its ambassador out or may follow what the EU does there. I realize the Secretary condemned this already today, but it seems to me here you are trying to promote a peace process between Israel and the Syrians and you have the Syrians basically saying exactly what you said Haider has said.

MR. FOLEY: There are a couple things wrong with what you said. First of all, indeed, the Secretary has resolutely condemned the report in the Syrian media organ questioning the Holocaust. There's no doubt about that.

Secondly, you leapt to various possible diplomatic responses on our part in the event that something hypothetical should happen in Austria, and I have been very clear that this is not something I'm going to spell out now. I said it would have an impact. I didn't say what kind of an impact.

QUESTION: It was spelled out a little more clearly from the White House this morning, and you said that you're not going to contradict that. So, okay, so that's number two. And then can you say why it is that the US is still pushing away and trying to bring Syria to the table with Israel when the government in power there has, in fact, called into question -- a sitting government has called into question the Holocaust?

MR. FOLEY: As I said, Secretary Albright was categorical today in condemning that press report. In terms of your separate question about why the United States could possibly see an interest in promoting peace in the Middle East, I think that hardly bears answering. If you'd like, I will spell out how the US sees its strategic interest is advanced by the realization of peace in the Middle East. I think the people of Israel are very committed to achieving peace with security in the Middle East, and that is what is a goal that many administrations have had and one that we're pursuing very vigorously at the moment.

QUESTION: In your internal discussions on policy towards Austria, I wonder, can you tell us how much weight you're giving to the possibility that the threat of boycotts and so on will, in fact, be counter-productive and will drive the Austrians into a more xenophobic frame of mind than they are in at the moment?

MR. FOLEY: I think it's hard to answer your question because the international community really doesn't have an alternative to expressing its concern in this instance, when you have a party that raises deep concerns about its democratic orientation and respect for human rights. The international community can hardly be expected to remain silent. Indeed you, Jonathan and your colleagues here, would be demanding that we speak out on this issue if you in any way sensed or suspected that we were deliberately refraining from commenting on such a disturbing development. So it is simply a fact that when things of this nature come up, we have an obligation to state our principled views.

QUESTION: One more on the statements themselves made by Mr. Haider. Although it hasn't received much press coverage in this country, from what I have seen coming from the reporting in Austria, he has apologized and withdrawn the most extreme of those, including an implied support for the Nazi labor policy, for example. And does this not take some of the sting out of it?

MR. FOLEY: Again, you're asking or reformulating questions that have, in some sense, earlier been asked. As I've stated, we have for some time been calling on Mr. Haider and his party to make clear their opposition to any such statements that have been made previously, to refrain from making them, and to conduct themselves in accordance with modern democratic norms. But we remain very concerned about the things that have been said and, given that, concerned about the possibility that that party may join a modern democratic Austria in forming a government.

QUESTION: What has changed since -- on the same matter, what has changed since last Thursday? Mr. Rubin took basically a wait-and-see position. And would you consider the Freedom Party being an undemocratic party?

MR. FOLEY: On the second one, I wouldn't be in a position to answer that or to make that judgment. On the first one, I think you should all follow my words very carefully. I have not spelled out what specifically we might do in the event of a hypothetical event, and we're not in a position to do that now. We have stated our concern and restated it because, as you indicated, we have done so previously.

Other questions on this?

QUESTION: Yes. I would like to get back to this question of what the Freedom Party can do, because it seems to me that you don't really want to disenfranchise 30 percent of the Austrian population. There must be -- is there not some way in which they can allay your concerns, and what might they do to do this?

MR. FOLEY: Well, again that's a pretty hypothetical question. We're dealing with concerns based on statements that have been made, and those concerns have not been allayed. It's hard to say hypothetically what it would take for the international community to believe that there was absolutely no basis to any of these concerns any longer. I think you can't state that prospectively; it's something that would have to be judged over time.

QUESTION: How much of an influence did it have that the European community came out and voiced such a strong criticism against the possible involvement of the Freedom Party?

MR. FOLEY: Well, as I indicated, we took note of what the EU has announced, and we are in contact with our EU friends and partners as indeed we are in contact with our Austrian friends. But we speak for ourselves and we will make our own decisions in light of our own national interest, depending on how events may unfold.

QUESTION: Secretary General Kofi Annan, in general, he said that he's expecting some solution before the end of the Cyprus crisis and he --

MR. FOLEY: He's expecting what, I'm sorry?

QUESTION: He's expecting to solve the problem before at the end of the this year, and he said that at least they can reach some kind of framework in the agreement. Do you have anything to say on that?

MR. FOLEY: We certainly want to share Secretary General Annan's optimism and, indeed, the United States is doing everything it can to support the Secretary General and his representative. We have sent some senior US diplomats to these talks in Geneva, including Special Presidential Emissary for Cyprus Moses. But I think you must be aware because this happened in New York during the previous round, the United Nations and the parties have agreed not to engage in a public discussion of the substance of the talks, and we support that understanding. So beyond embracing Secretary General Annan's hope that the long-standing Cyprus conflict can be resolved, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the particulars of the talks.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the US Interests Section in Havana discontinuing the issuance of nonimmigrant visas to this country?

MR. FOLEY: Well, that's not quite the premise, that we have discontinued. That is not actually what has happened, but let me tell you where we stand. Despite an earlier verbal understanding between the US Interests Section in Havana and the government of Cuba regarding our Interests Section's implementation of a new system for receiving and processing nonimmigrant visa applications, the Cuban Government at the last minute rescinded its approval of this new system. So that's actually what the blockage has been.

Let me just back up and explain to you why we made the change that we did. And we did so, as I said, having discussed this with the Cuban Government and having had a verbal understanding with them about going forward.

Under the old system, in order to enter the Interests Section to apply for a nonimmigrant visa, the applicant was required by the Cuban Government to present an application letter from the US Interests Section; in other words, one that we, our Interests Section, had to mail out to prospective applicants.

However, we found that the system as a whole was very inefficient. It led to a long waiting period for nonimmigrant visa applicants and, also, these appointment letters and application forms were subject to sale and counterfeiting. The Interests Section, therefore, after advising the Cuban Government of its intentions and providing for a transition period, has stopped processing nonimmigrant visas under the old, and we believe flawed, system of invitation letters.

Now, in terms of what's happening today, the Interests Section has been unable to adjudicate nonimmigrant visas since yesterday, Monday, January 31<SUP>st</SUP>. Normally, the Interests Section processes between 150 and 200 nonimmigrant visa applications per day. Our Interests Section sincerely regrets the inconvenience to visa applicants and stands ready to resume nonimmigrant visa interviews once the Cuban Government permits implementation of the new, more efficient and, we believe, customer- oriented system.

QUESTION: Has the Cuban Government given any reason for going back on their word?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of what the position of the Cuban Government is. I believe we're going to be having meetings with them, perhaps later today, to try to clarify the situation. We believe that it may be based, in fact, on a misunderstanding on their part and we certainly hope that it will be possible to clear it up.

QUESTION: What is the new system?

MR. FOLEY: It's essentially a drop box system in which an applicant would come sort of the day before an interview and drop off the passport and collect the nonimmigrant visa application form -- there may be other papers that they pick up as well -- and, therefore, it eliminates the need for all this correspondence by mail back and forth, which we said was inefficient, led to counterfeiting, duplication, people showing up who weren't the right people to apply; whereas, this system is pretty fail-safe and will, in fact, be much more customer friendly and reduce delays and lines and things of that nature.

So it's a streamlining of the system but, again, it's not been possible for us to go forward with processing these applications since yesterday. But we do hope that it is the result of a misunderstanding and that we'll be able, as soon as possible, to resume what we think will be a more prompt and efficient and friendly service to Cuban applicants.

QUESTION: Was there any concern that because the old system was using the Cuban postal service that these people might be subject to some kind of persecution if their application letter was intercepted and read?

MR. FOLEY: Well, you know, you have to draw distinctions here between different kinds of visas and different reasons for traveling to the United States. I think it's obvious, though, that the Cuban Government would be able to know who was applying for US nonimmigrant visas simply because they have to come into the US Interests Section. I don't think that is the nature of the problem. Again, we don't quite understand what the problem is, and we do hope that it's a misunderstanding.

QUESTION: Where will this meeting be? Later today, is it?

MR. FOLEY: In Havana, yes. I can't totally confirm there will be a meeting, but we understand that there could be contact today.

QUESTION: The World Bank is considering making the first loans to Iran in some 5-6 years. I wondered whether the State Department had given the World Bank any assurances that they wouldn't seek to block such loans, and what US policy towards such loans would be.

MR. FOLEY: I will have to take the question. I have not heard about this issue.

QUESTION: We warned your bureaus well in advance on this matter.

MR. FOLEY: I see. Today?

QUESTION: Yesterday.

MR. FOLEY: I see. It may -- look, I don't know what the problem was. We obviously have a systems breakdown somewhere in terms of those whom you alerted. But sometimes when we don't brief on a given day, it's helpful to renew the point the day of the briefing.

QUESTION: You should have a drop box system.

MR. FOLEY: A monitored one.

QUESTION: Another one then?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: The Venezuelans are very upset about some remarks attributed to Assistant Secretary Romero --

MR. FOLEY: I have not heard this one either.

QUESTION: On Iraq, <I>The New York Times </I>carries a story --

MR. FOLEY: Excuse me, let's take note though of the potential question for Jonathan, so we can look into it for him.

QUESTION: </I>The New York Times</I> carries a story today quoting American officials expressing some apprehension that the Iraqis have been industriously rebuilding some of the weapons installations which were destroyed by allied actions earlier on. One, have you in fact made such a discovery and, two, are you disturbed by it?

MR. FOLEY: Yes to both, although it's not really news. I think Mr. Rubin has from this podium indicated in the last few months that we did see activity at some sites of concern to us. And in fact, we do believe that Iraq is in the process of rebuilding the sites that were destroyed in December of 1998. We are certainly concerned by activity at the sites known to be capable of producing weapons of mass destruction and long-range ballistic missiles. We are equally concerned about Iraq's long established practice of procurement activity that can include dual-use items with weapons of mass destruction applications.

It is a fact that in the absence of UN inspectors on the ground carrying out the Security Council mandate which was recently reaffirmed in Resolution 1284, that in the absence of those inspections, that uncertainties about the significance of these activities will persist. Indeed, as time passes, our concerns will increase.

We obviously will continue to make the Iraqi capabilities in this regard a high priority of the US intelligence community, but it also underscores the importance, in our view, of having inspectors return to Iraq to do a credible and effective job under Resolution 1284 of examining and rooting out any Iraqi capabilities in this regard.

QUESTION: Have you shared the intelligence with other members of the Security Council?

MR. FOLEY: I don't understand your question.

QUESTION: Well, you detected the rebuilding of --

MR. FOLEY: Let me explain my answer because -- my confusion here, because I mean there are different issues about what we are following. One is whether they are rebuilding in areas that were attacked a year ago, the other is a more sensitive question about Iraqi capabilities themselves in the area of weapons of mass destruction. But in terms of their rebuilding at these sites, as I said, we have stated this publicly for many months now, I believe.

QUESTION: About the weapons capabilities, are you sharing what information you have with the Security Council, specific information?

MR. FOLEY: I couldn't answer that question. Obviously, intelligence information is very sensitive. We don't talk about it in a public forum. I won't be in a position to do that here. Whether we're able to share it with friends and allies is something I couldn't discuss. I don't actually know the current answer.

QUESTION: As part of Mr. Rubin's answers in the past when asked this sort of question was that the US didn't believe that Iraq had reconstituted its WMD, and I wonder if that's still the case?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, but let me add, though, that's something that we watch extraordinarily closely and is really a matter of the highest concern. When you look at the range of foreign policy challenges we face, you've got to put that at the very top, especially when you consider a number of factors, including past use of chemical weapons by Iraq; the massive chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs unearthed or uncovered by UNSCOM during its years of activity; and, indeed, the continuing cleanup activity, improvements at some of the sites that are capable of producing such weapons.

We see no reason for giving Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt. We have to remain extraordinarily vigilant on this, and we will. Of course, our preferred way of dealing with this problem is to get the inspectors back and doing their job. This is the law of the land internationally. It has been so for many years, but it was significantly reaffirmed by the Security Council in December.

We now have a chairman agreed for UNMOVIC and Chairman Blix will now be in the process of putting together an inspection team. We do not have Iraqi agreement yet to cooperate, but the other significant part of the Security Council resolution in December was to reaffirm the validity and the force of sanctions for as long as Iraq is not deemed to have met the terms of Resolution 1284.

QUESTION: Jim, two questions on North Korea. First of all, there have been reports that North Korea has asked that it be taken off the US's list of terrorist states. Do you see any circumstances or conditions under which that might happen? And then, also, do we have any word yet on who the DPRK may be sending in March as a high-level delegate?

MR. FOLEY: In terms of your second question, no, we don't have that answer yet. But as you may know, the two sides agreed to meet again toward the end of this month, February, to finalize preparations for the high- level visit, which will occur about a month after that. So we may know as we get closer to the visit who the official will be. I can't predict when that will be communicated to us, but we will be having another meeting with the North Koreans at the end of this month.

In terms of the terrorism issue, the United States is ready to resume the dialogue with the DPRK on the steps it would need to take to be removed from the terrorism list, and this is not a matter that is a precondition for the high-level visit but we are prepared to sit down, as we have in the past, with the DPRK to discuss the issue itself and its particulars and the steps that would need to be taken in order for them to be removed from the list.

QUESTION: This isn't under discussion in Berlin now, for example?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that we have agreed on a meeting in this regard, but it's something certainly we're prepared to discuss with them.

QUESTION: On the terrorism list, you may not have this answer at your fingertips but it seems to me that to be removed from the terrorism list not only do you have to have good behavior but the nature of the regime has to change. And if you could -- obviously, the nature of the North Korean regime hasn't changed. Is it possible for them to be removed when, in effect, the same dynasty has been in power for over 50 years?

MR. FOLEY: George, I'm not aware of that particular criterion attached to removing nations from the list. I certainly can confirm the fact that we look principally for actions -- and I'm not talking here about North Korea but as a general principle, that we look for the cessation and the credible forswearance of support for terrorism. And that's what's most important, that there not be any reason to merit being on the list.

In terms of another criterion of the nature you raise, I've not heard that. I'd be glad to look into it.

QUESTION: On counter-terrorism, do you have anything on seemingly stronger statements out of Pakistan now about it not allowing -- taking stronger measures toward making sure that acts of terrorism don't occur on its territory?

MR. FOLEY: I want to be careful. What statements that indicate --

QUESTION: That they will do everything possible not to allow acts of terrorism to take place on Pakistan territory?

MR. FOLEY: I see.

QUESTION: Or anything you might have there.

MR. FOLEY: I've not seen those statements. Certainly that would be encouraging, but I've not seen those statements.

QUESTION: On a historical note, is there, in fact, any case of a country being removed from the state sponsors list?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I've been here a few years only and I'm not aware of any having been removed from the list during my tenure here, but I'd have to take the question and look at the historical record.

QUESTION: The House is slated to debate a bill that would allow direct military contact between the US and Taiwan. Does State have any reaction to that? They're set to vote on it today or tomorrow, I believe.

MR. FOLEY: I think you're referring to the so-called Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, and the Administration strongly opposes this act because it would seriously diminish Taiwan's security and undermine overall US objectives of stability in Asia. The President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto it, but we will in the meantime be working hard to persuade the Congress not to enact it into law. We believe that the Taiwan Relations Act, which does provide an effective framework for addressing Taiwan's security, is working very well and that it is not necessary to amend or to augment it.

QUESTION: This week there seems to be an up-tick in an anti-Milosevic activity. The Prime Minister of Montenegro is here. He picked up some money yesterday from AID and he's going to be meeting, I believe, with the Secretary on Thursday. She herself was in Croatia where you guys have said that you --

MR. FOLEY: She's going there. She's not there yet.

QUESTION: Well, she's going to go there tomorrow -- as a template for what could happen in Serbia, some Serb opposition leaders are showing up here in the next couple of days, I guess to attend the prayer breakfast but also have meetings here. Is there some kind of renewed urgency in this building about getting rid of Milosevic?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't know if you could call it renewed urgency. That would indicate that there had been some flagging in the sense of importance, and that is not the case. We think that Serbia is the missing piece in Southeastern Europe, in a democratic Southeastern Europe, in a Southeastern Europe that is able to join the rest of Europe, and in its progress towards greater prosperity, better governance and respect for human rights and peaceful relations that the people of Serbia have been horribly served by the leadership, so-called, of Milosevic.

And so this is obviously a high priority of the international community to see that the people of Serbia be able to enjoy the fruits of democracy. But in terms of the gradation of our interest in and commitment to that kind of a change, there has been no fluctuation on our part.

QUESTION: In the recent Turkish security forces, they captured the members of the Turkish Hizballah terror organizations, and also they found dozens of their victims of this organization. Do you have anything on the subject? If you don't --

MR. FOLEY: I don't.

QUESTION: And also, some sources they said that US and Turkish security forces, they worked together because of their connection with Usama bin Laden in this extreme religious party.

MR. FOLEY: Could you repeat? I didn't understand the last part of what you said?

QUESTION: The said that some of the US officials and the US security officials, they contact with the Turkish officials to find out any connection with this terror organization with the Usama bin Laden group?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have any particular information on that, nor would I be in any kind of position to talk about our counter-terrorism cooperation with any government around the world.

Anything else?

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the Americans who died in the Kenya crash?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I do. We are aware of three US citizens among the passengers on board Kenya Air Flight 431. We extend our condolences to the families and friends of all the victims of this tragedy. We have been in touch with the families of two of the US citizen victims and are making efforts to communicate with the family of the third US citizen victim to offer our assistance. The US Embassy in Abidjan is continuing to monitor the recovery efforts.

And that's about all I have on that, Betsy.

QUESTION: Can you release any names?

MR. FOLEY: I can't. I'm sorry, I can't. Out of deference to the families and their right to privacy, we're not able to provide the names of the deceased. I think when they are ready to make that information public, then we can perhaps confirm it, but we don't want to be the first to do that.

QUESTION: Have authorities been asked -- has the US been asked to help in any recovery operation or in any way with --

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not aware of that. Certainly you'd want to talk to the NTSB. They would know that, first and foremost. I believe that indeed the NTSB almost always does offer assistance in terms of investigation of the causes of such accidents. Whether there have been requests though about help and recovery efforts, I would have to look into but also urge you to talk to the NTSB.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on this American businessman who was beaten up quite badly in China?

MR. FOLEY: I have not seen that. I have not seen that report.

Julie, have you heard that?

QUESTION: I think it's a couple of days ago actually.

MR. FOLEY: I'd be glad to look into it. I mean, if there's been an American mistreated, certainly that is something our Embassy is likely on top of and looking into. But I don't have that piece of information with me, but I can get it later perhaps.

Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:15 P.M.)


U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
Back to Top
Copyright © 1995-2023 HR-Net (Hellenic Resources Network). An HRI Project.
All Rights Reserved.

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.01b run on Wednesday, 2 February 2000 - 3:19:14 UTC