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