U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #18, 00-03-06
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
808
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, March 6, 2000
Briefer: James B. Foley
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 Horn of Africa Briefing and Mozambique Scheduled Tuesday, March 7
Led by USAID Administrator Brady Anderson and Assistant
Administrator Hugh Parmer
1 Statement on the Democratic Republic of the Congo
1,2-3 Secretary Albright will Meet with Korean Foreign Minister Lee in
Washington on March 13
1 Press Briefing on Forced and Slave Labor Talks on Wednesday, March
8, 3:00 p.m. by Deputy Treasury Secretary Eizenstat and His German
Counterpart, Count Lambsdorff, Loy Henderson Conference Room
SUDAN
2 Special Envoy Harry Johnston Scheduled to Meet with President
Bashir / Sudanese Bombing of an International Relief Office
SLAVE LABOR TALKS
2-3 Allocation of the Capped 10 Billion Deutchmark Settlement Amount
CHINA
4-6 Taiwan Election / China Threatens War Against Taiwan if it Moves
Towards Independence / US Supports Cross-Strait Dialogue and One
China Policy / Taiwan Security Enhancement Act
MOZAMBIQUE
6-8 US Flood Relief Efforts
RUSSIA
9 Russian Membership in NATO
MEPP
10-11 Israeli Withdrawal from Lebanon / Syria and Israeli Talks
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #18
MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2000, 1:10 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department in this
sparsely populated briefing room. I assume we have a quorum such that we
can begin the briefing. The dean or the -- what is your title, Charlie?
QUESTION: President.
MR. FOLEY: President of the State Department Press Corps. Do we have a
quorum? What's that -- commandant?
QUESTION: Subcommandant.
MR. FOLEY: Do we have a quorum, Mr. Wolfson?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. FOLEY: All right, we shall begin. A few announcements. First, we're
going to have a briefing tomorrow on the situation in the Horn of Africa,
what AID is doing to assess the potential famine and drought in the region,
how the US will respond if that occurs. It will be led by USAID Administrator
Brady Anderson and Assistant Administer Hugh Parmer. They are also going to
be taking questions that you may have about the latest status of our
relief efforts vis-a-vis the flood situation in Mozambique.
We have a statement to post on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which
you can get after the briefing.
Let me also note that Secretary Albright will be meeting with Korean
Foreign Minister Lee in Washington on March 13th. This will be Foreign
Minister Lee's first trip to the US since being named to his position in
January. Secretary Albright and Foreign Minister Lee will consult on North
Korea policy coordination, other matters of bilateral concern, and discuss
their close cooperation on a range of international matters such as the
June 25 through 27 Community of Democracies Meeting in Warsaw.
We will also have a special briefing on Forced and Slave Labor Talks --
which will take place here in the Department on Tuesday and Wednesday --
and this briefing will occur at the close -- correct me if I'm wrong - at a
3:00 p.m. joint press conference by Deputy Treasury Secretary Eizenstat and
his German counterpart, Count Lambsdorff, here in the Loy Henderson
Conference Room.
QUESTION: On Wednesday?
MR. FOLEY: On Wednesday, right, at the conclusion of the talks.
With that, let me go to your questions.
QUESTION: On Sudan, this is Harry Johnston's third day there.
MR. FOLEY: Right.
QUESTION: Do you have an update? And, plus, any comment on the Sudanese
bombing of an international relief office?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, on your latter question, Secretary Albright
issued a very strong statement Friday evening condemning the bombing.
QUESTION: This is a new one, I believe.
MR. FOLEY: I have not seen such a report. But as the Secretary's
statement made clear, we believe that the government of Sudan has a
responsibility to refrain from all aerial bombardment of civilian targets
and so the Secretary was very clear in expressing her dismay and condemnation
over the bombing that took place on March 1.
This was to be raised by Special Envoy Johnston in his meetings in Sudan.
He is scheduled to meet with President Bashir today. It's obviously too
early for me to give you a readout of that. I don't know if that meeting
has taken place yet. We might be able to say something about his three days
of meetings in Sudan following the end of his visit, perhaps as early as
tomorrow or on Wednesday.
But I have not seen that report. If it is true, we certainly condemn
further aerial bombardment of civilian targets in Sudan by the government
of Sudan forces.
QUESTION: Can we go back on the Slave Labor talks?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Can you tell us anything else about, you know, what is
expected? I understand that this is -- at least Count Lambsdorff is saying
that he thinks this is going to be the final meeting and that everything
will be settled.
MR. FOLEY: Well, our view is that we don't think it is useful to set
artificial deadlines. Deputy Secretary Eizenstat has expressed the hope
that negotiators will be able to work out an agreed allocation formula at
this session. In other words, the primary focus of the session will indeed
be allocation of the capped 10 billion deutschmark fund that the foundation
will have, and they're considering the various broad categories of
recipients to include slave laborers, forced laborers and other personal
injury cases, Banking-Aryanization-Insurance, the Future Fund and
administrative costs. Participants may also raise other issues.
Again, we don't think it's useful to set artificial deadlines, but Deputy
Secretary of the Treasury Eizenstat has expressed the hope that negotiators
will be able to work out an agreed allocation formula at this session.
Completion of other details, we think, will take additional time and we do
not expect that this will be the last negotiating session.
But let me state for the record our fundamental goal in these talks is to
see payments begin as soon as possible, before the end of this year
certainly, given the advanced age of the recipients of the allocations that
will come out of this fund.
QUESTION: On another thing that you mentioned at the beginning, the
meeting with the South Korean Foreign Minister on the 13th. I guess that's
going to be taking place shortly after or maybe even still during the talks
in New York?
MR. FOLEY: Right.
QUESTION: Is there anything more you can tell us about how you expect --
what you expect out of the New York talks that, I guess, begin informally
tomorrow and then formally on Wednesday?
MR. FOLEY: We had a rather extensive briefing on that subject in this
room on Friday. I won't go over all of that ground, but we see these talks
in New York as the final session necessary to lay the groundwork for the
anticipated high-level visit by a senior North Korean official to occur
roughly one month from now. Both the meeting this week in New York between
Mr. Kartman and the Korean Vice Foreign Minister, and even more so the high-
level visit to take place about a month from now, we see as a critical
milestone in the path towards normalizing relations that we have set out
with the North Koreans in the context of the work that former Defense
Secretary Perry has been engaged in.
And so I don't have more detail to offer you than what was provided on
Friday on that subject.
QUESTION: Does the State Department have any (inaudible) to the various
belligerent statements coming out of Beijing in the last few days over the
Taiwanese elections?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we've seen quite a number of remarks that have come out
of Beijing in the context of the National People's Congress, which is
currently meeting in Beijing. Several senior Chinese officials, including
President Jiang Zemin and Premier Zhu have spoken on the Taiwan issue. I
would note, in the first instance, that these comments take place just in
advance of the Taiwan elections, which are scheduled for about two weeks
from now, and probably can be interpreted in that context.
We have spoken to the Chinese at senior levels to say that we believe the
comments that focus on the possible use of force are counterproductive and
unhelpful to the peaceful resolution of differences across the Taiwan
Strait. As far as the United States is concerned, we have a clear and long-
standing and unvarying position on Cross-Strait relations, emphasizing
especially the need for a peaceful resolution of differences between the
PRC and Taiwan. We consistently have supported Cross-Strait dialogue
as the best way to resolve those differences, and we will continue to
adhere to our One China policy.
QUESTION: You spoke about having spoken to Chinese senior levels. Okay.
Can you tell us if the latest such senior contact with the Chinese was on
this specific issue?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have specifics to offer you in terms of who has spoken
to whom, but it has been at senior levels. We've had senior level visitors
in Beijing recently. But I think the point that we've continued to
emphasize is our commitment to and insistence on the peaceful resolution of
differences across the Taiwan Strait. I think you've seen a cacophony of
comments coming out of Beijing lately, including Vice Premier Qian Qichen's
comments -- I believe about a week ago -- indicating that, from his
perspective, China's latest pronouncements on Taiwan do not vary from long-
standing Chinese positions.
And he, at the same time, noted China's commitment to peaceful resolution
in principle of the Taiwan issue. But, again, we have been troubled by some
of the new formulations coming out of Beijing on this score. We believe
they are counterproductive, unhelpful. We continue to emphasize our
commitment to a One China policy, our commitment to a peaceful resolution
of Cross-Strait relations and differences, and to advocate Cross-Strait
dialogue as the best means of achieving such a peaceful resolution.
QUESTION: If I may follow please, Jim, apparently the latest of threats
against Taiwan has come from General Zhang Wannian, the military leader of
China that says if there is any move towards independence on the part of
Taiwan, there will be war. I would ask this question: The US Department of
Defense says China hasn't got the wherewithal, hasn't got the sea lift
capabilities to invade Taiwan. I would ask you, is China acting like a
paper tiger or perhaps a paper dragon in this situation before elections in
Taiwan?
MR. FOLEY: Well, you'd have to ask the Chinese themselves as to their
motivation in making these statements and these comments. The General's
remarks we've seen, along with those of other senior officials I mentioned
a minute ago. It probably is not accidental that these comments are being
made, as I indicated a few minutes ago, in the context of the run-up to the
elections on Taiwan in two weeks time. So there may be a certain amount of
posturing involved.
At the same time, we cannot in any way dismiss the fact that threats
continue to be made, and we believe they are very counterproductive, that
they are at variance with the fundamental requirement of the situation
which is a peaceful resolution via a Cross-Strait dialogue. And so we
continue to urge the authorities in Beijing to adhere to the principle of
peaceful resolution of the differences between them and Taiwan.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up. China has built up quite a missile force
against Taiwan. If China were to begin to use those missiles, how -- well,
I know this is a what-if, but can you make any comment about how the US
would react?
MR. FOLEY: Well, obviously you're raising a very sensitive matter. It's
not the first time you or your colleagues have raised such an issue. We're
not in the habit of laying out contingency plans in a public setting. I
think that what you should refer to is the Taiwan Relations Act, which
states it is the policy of the United States to declare that peace and
stability in the area are in the political, security and economic interests
of the United States and are matters of international concern. We
have stated on numerous occasions that according to the Taiwan Relations
Act, we would consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by
other than peaceful means as a threat to the peace and security of the
Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the US.
QUESTION: Don't you think that, given you've called these "new formulations"
and you said that you can't dismiss that these threats are being made and
the Administration has been against the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act --
which is sort of making its way through the legislative process now --
don't you think that these new threats and these sorts of new formulations
work against your argument against the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act?
Doesn't this make it harder for the Administration to argue against
enhancing Taiwan's security?
MR. FOLEY: I can't accept the premise of your question. Just because
something has a certain title, in this case the Taiwan Security Enhancement
Act, does not mean that that's what it does. We believe, on the contrary,
that it will complicate matters across the Taiwan Strait, not add to
Taiwan's security.
The fundamental test is how well we've been able to meet Taiwan's
legitimate defense requirements over the years, and this Administration has
a very solid record in that respect. I know Mr. Rubin has laid out for you
in detail some of the defensive weapon systems that have been sold to
Taiwan over the last few years. We believe that the Taiwan Relations Act is
working very well, the Administration is adhering to it, and that the Act
itself is very clear. Let me quote from it. The US makes available arms of
a defensive character "in such quantity as may be necessary to enable
Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability." In other
words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We believe it's working well and
that we're implementing it very well.
QUESTION: I have a China question. Just a very quick one. Do you expect
this -- you drew a link with the elections in Taiwan. Do you expect that
this cacophony will, in fact, subside after the elections?
MR. FOLEY: Well, certainly differences between the PRC and Taiwan will
continue until they are resolved. We think it is, obviously, fundamental
that they be resolved peacefully. That goes without saying. But the vehicle
towards resolution we believe is the Cross-Strait dialogue, which has been
in abeyance for too long. So we would hope to see movement towards
restarting that dialogue, but it's impossible to predict when that can
happen.
QUESTION: A different area on China. Have you been notified by the
Chinese authorities of the arrest of a group of Americans in Beijing --
Falun Gong types? There are reports from --
MR. FOLEY: I've seen the wire reports to that effect. I've checked with
the China Desk here in the Department. I don't have word yet as to whether
we've been able to confirm those arrests. Certainly, the Embassy will be
following up on those reports.
If, indeed, American citizens have been arrested in China, they will enjoy
the full assistance that our consular authorities always provide to
Americans in difficulty overseas. I can't confirm it, though, but maybe
we'll be able to do that later today or tomorrow.
QUESTION: A different subject?
MR. FOLEY: Sure.
QUESTION: There has been a groundswell of criticism that the US did not
respond in as timely a fashion as it could to the problems in Mozambique.
Do you believe that this government responded adequately?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, I do. And, of course, Mr. Anderson and Parmer will be
able to give you more information about not only the current status of our
relief efforts but the relief efforts that have occurred over the last
several weeks. Simply looking back a little bit, to answer your question, a
USAID assessment team arrived in Mozambique shortly after our Ambassador
there declared a disaster on February 7th. Initial assessments showed
that regional search and rescue teams could handle the search and rescue
needs. It was not until February 25th, that a second surge of water caused
rivers to overflow and caused a much greater disaster than had been
initially anticipated.
At that point, USAID activated its 24-hour operations center and began
mobilizing a disaster assistance response team. AID contracted locally and
quickly to hire three local helicopters and six fixed-wing airplanes, which
began flying on March 2nd and were engaged in the efforts that you saw in
the last days to rescue people from the rising waters.
I think we're moving into a different phase of relief activity now. My
information is that, in the last week, more than 12,000 people were rescued
from roofs and trees and utility poles by a number of nations, especially
South African defense forces, and that there are approximately 600 -- a
little more -- people remain marooned. The focus of relief activity is
going to be shifting now in coming days to providing food and medicine to
people who are displaced by the floods.
Just to review a little bit about what we're doing. the United States is
indeed actively engaged in rescue and relief operations. USAID, as I
indicated, has now contracted 11 civilian helicopters and small aircraft to
support rescue and delivery efforts. We have also deployed a 14-member boat
rescue operation from Metro Dade, Florida, which began rescue and delivery
operations today. Also, a 5-member Coast Guard team of water rescue
specialists will arrive shortly to help coordinate overall boat rescue
and delivery efforts.
As you know, on March 1st, President Clinton authorized the Department of
Defense to deploy a joint task force and search and rescue assets to
support the flood response in Southern Africa. He subsequently authorized a
drawdown of 37.6 million in defense articles and services to support
military humanitarian assistance efforts in the region. And to date, as far
as AID assistance is concerned, I believe that total has now reached a
level of $12,600,000 of assistance.
Going back to the DOD package, though, it includes an estimated six heavy-
lift helicopters and small boats to conduct search and rescue operations,
six C-130 aircraft to deliver relief supplies and command and control
elements. I believe over the weekend, it was worked out that DOD will
establish its base of operation in, I believe it's called Hoedspruit in
South Africa and at various locations in Mozambique.
Three US military aircraft arrived in Hoedspruit over the weekend and more
aircraft are scheduled to arrive in the region today. My information is
that the helicopters will start to arrive tomorrow and begin operations as
soon as possible. Also, one military aircraft arrived in Mozambique on
March 1st delivering plastic sheeting to shelter 10,000 families, 6,000 5-
gallon water containers, 6,000 blankets, 30,000 pounds of high-energy
biscuits. A second aircraft delivered 140 large tents and about 4,600
blankets to South Africa on March 3rd.
Again, to get back to your question, we deployed civilian and military
personnel to Mozambique and South Africa when the flooding began, and we
provided funding through the World Food Program for regional air operations
to support assessments and delivery of relief supplies. So some of what you
saw on TV in the last week was funded by the United States.
But, again, during the week of February 22nd, the flood needs appeared to
be subsiding and several donors began deploying assets elsewhere, although
our experts did remain in the region. You had a cyclone that suddenly
passed through the region the weekend of February 27 and, as neighboring
countries released their dams, water poured into Mozambique causing major
flooding and leaving tens of thousands of people in need of rescue.
As the extent of the new needs emerged, we quickly deployed additional
funding to those in the region who were best placed locally to respond
quickly, and then at that time were developing our robust package of
military assistance that the President approved on March 1st. But it is a
fact that we are very far from the region, and to get our assets from our
bases in Europe to Southern Africa is a major undertaking and we've
deployed them as quickly as possible. But in the meantime, we were
providing a lot of funding so that people who were more easily on the scene
were able to engage in relief activities very quickly.
QUESTION: And can you tell me please, when and if you could review for me,
please, when a disaster happens, the US doesn't unilaterally go in and do
things, is that correct; the country involved must request aid? Do you know
when Mozambique first began requesting aid?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm sure we were in immediate contact through our
Ambassador and our Embassy with the government. As I indicated, I believe
from the get-go we began to take action based on the reporting of our
Embassy and the stated needs of the Mozambique Government.
If you're referring to the question of where to base our major military
package which is going in, I know Jamie Rubin was asked that question on
Friday, and modalities for the deployment of US military forces to South
Africa were worked out and South Africa gave permission on March 4th for US
forces to deploy to South Africa for such operations. And we certainly
thank the government of South Africa and its military for the excellent
cooperation we are receiving.
QUESTION: You don't have a longer answer to that, do you.
MR. FOLEY: You ask, you shall receive. .(Laughter).
QUESTION: On that score, I know this sounds a bit like a "damned if you
do, damned if you don't," but on BBC last night there was a report from the
scene that said that other relief agencies are watching with apprehension
as the Americans approach because, as the correspondent said, the Americans
have a tendency to demand to run things their own way or something
like that. Can you tell us how the various relief efforts are being
coordinated, if at all?
MR. FOLEY: I think I'd leave that question -- first of all, the idea that
we're going to act in ways that tend to undermine the humanitarian purpose
is completely baseless and unfounded. We've already for several weeks, as I
said, been doing all that we could to facilitate rescue operations, and
you'll see an increasing American role now as this task force is deployed.
But, obviously, there is an enormous amount of coordination that takes
place with the host government, with regional governments, with non-
governmental organizations and international organizations. I'm sure that
Mr. Anderson will be able to provide particulars on coordination when
he briefs here tomorrow.
QUESTION: Do you have any thoughts on the comments this weekend by Acting
President Putin about Russia possibly -- now he could see a time when
Russia would join NATO and whether they are preparing an induction ceremony
in Brussels right now?
MR. FOLEY: Well, obviously, you are asking the question with a grin on
your face, literally, and the way you formulate the question matches the
look on your face. I think it's fair to say that Acting President Putin was
not launching a trial balloon. You can ask the Russians for an authoritative
answer. He was merely responding to a question. His answer was one that we
find positive in the sense that it indicates that there is a renewed
willingness in Moscow to improve relations with NATO, to begin to work
again with the alliance in the spirit of the agreements that were
reached between NATO and Russia a couple years ago.
So we welcome Acting President Putin's determination to establish good
relations with the West and we see his statement in that light. I think he
also made clear that the question of membership in NATO is not currently on
Russia's agenda. The United States is certainly prepared to work with
Russia and our allies in pursuing closer cooperation. We think that this
relationship between NATO and Russia is, obviously, a cornerstone to
security in the wider Europe, and we want to see that develop.
The fact of the matter is that those relationships have been in some kind
of a freeze for the last year, though there has been a recent thaw, a
welcome thaw, and that was demonstrated when Secretary General Robertson
was in Moscow recently. We think we need to focus on the joint NATO-Russia
agenda and breathe new life into it. One essential step is to resume
substantive consultations in the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council on a
broad range of security issues. Until now, Russia has been limiting
discussions there to KFOR and Kosovo issues only. Acting President Putin
told Secretary General Robertson in Moscow last month that Russia
was ready to return to a broader agenda, and this is now being worked
on with the Russians.
We look forward to a PJC, Permanent Joint Council, ministerial with Russia
when NATO ministers meet this coming May. We see a number of areas where
NATO and Russia could move quickly to demonstrate renewed cooperation on a
practical level. So in other words, your question has to do with some very
theoretical construct. But we have an agreement between NATO and Russia.
We'd like to see it implemented. Many of these sorts of practical areas for
work include science, air traffic safety, civil emergency preparedness,
and officer retraining, beyond which, as I indicated, we'd like to
see the broader security dialogue take shape in a way that it was intended
to when the original framework agreement was reached between Russia and
NATO.
QUESTION: Has anything happened over the weekend on attempts to convene a
meeting of the Lebanese Monitoring Group or indeed to get Syrian-Israeli
peace talks back on track? And also, how does the United States feel about
the prospect of Israel withdrawing from South Lebanon without an agreement?
MR. FOLEY: Okay, that's three questions. I should have called on Terri, I
think. How many did you have?
QUESTION: I had at least two of those.
MR. FOLEY: Okay, it's pointless to regret my decision then. On your last
question, I think you saw the statement that Mr. Reeker put out in Prague
over the weekend and I can summarize it for you. AFP is very much on top of
all these things.
QUESTION: Thanks for that plug.
MR. FOLEY: We noted that Israel has made clear for quite some time that
it is committed to withdrawing its forces from South Lebanon by the middle
of this year. So in other words, we don't interpret the cabinet decision as
necessarily new. This is in line, in keeping with Prime Minister Barak's
stated intent to withdraw Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon by the
middle of the year. So this intent was reaffirmed by the cabinet vote.
But in answer to your question, the Israeli cabinet also made clear that
Israel would prefer to effect or undertake this withdrawal as part of a
negotiated settlement with Lebanon and Syria.
As far as the United States is concerned, we believe that the needs of all
the parties are best addressed through negotiations. Therefore, we would
like to see, obviously, negotiations resume, and that's what we're working
on. This leads to your first question for which I don't have a specific
answer. At least in terms of the Monitoring Group, I can confirm that our
efforts and that of the other co-chair, France, continue with capitals with
the aim of reconvening the Monitoring Group, which is, in our view,
the critical forum for addressing tensions and reducing tensions in
Southern Lebanon. I don't have an announcement to make about the reconvening
of the Group, but we and France remain hard at work in capitals to achieve
that purpose.
QUESTION: Has there been any progress over the weekend in trying to
convene Syria and Israeli talks?
MR. FOLEY: I see. I was just going to answer two out of three. I thought
I would get a good grade on that basis. We're still at work on the issue.
Obviously, if we had a breakthrough, we'd be announcing a breakthrough.
That doesn't mean, though, our efforts are not continuing. They are, but
we're not there yet.
QUESTION: That was more or less the answer to my question, but I have a
follow-up on it.
MR. FOLEY: But you had several though, you said to me.
QUESTION: Not anymore, not anymore. You did well. You said that the US
believes that the needs of both sides would best be met through dialogue.
Does that indicate that there are some negatives or some drawbacks to
Israel coming out with this announcement without the context of talks going
on?
MR. FOLEY: What I said was the following: Israel has declared its intent.
Now the cabinet has affirmed the Prime Minister's commitment to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon by this summer. I didn't say anything about
dialogue. I talked about negotiations in the sense of a negotiated
settlement would be the best way of addressing the needs of all the parties
including Israel, including Lebanon, including Syria. That certainly is the
ideal. That's what we're working hard on, trying to revive the Israeli-
Syrian track. So we would hope that such a withdrawal would be possible
for it to be effected within the context of a negotiated settlement.
QUESTION: There are those who say that withdrawing from Lebanon
unilaterally outside of the context of a negotiated settlement could create
increasingly negative results for all the sides, various scenarios are put
out there. Would the US counsel Israel not to withdraw unilaterally? Would
you state your opposition to it?
MR. FOLEY: First of all, I've been very clear that we would like to see a
negotiated settlement, number one. That's what we're working hard on on all
the tracks, Israel-Syria, eventually Israel-Lebanon, and on an ongoing
basis, the Israel-Palestinian track. That is our aim, our over-arching
goal. An ambitious and difficult agenda for the Year 2000 and we're hard at
work on it on all fronts. So our number one goal is a negotiated settlement,
comprehensive settlement overall.
Secondly, we believe that an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in the context
of such a settlement, particularly between Israel and Syria and Israel and
Lebanon, would be the best outcome. But if you ask whether, as you did, we
would oppose Israel's withdrawal, let me state for the record that we voted
for UN Security Council Resolution 425, which calls on Israel to withdraw
from Lebanon. We stand by that vote, and so the answer to your question is
no.
QUESTION: Is Dennis [Ross] going back to the region this week?
MR. FOLEY: I would say within the next day, roughly, he will be returning
to the region, yes.
QUESTION: Which region would this be, the Israel-Palestinian region or -
QUESTION: Antarctica. (Laughter).
QUESTION: -- the Israel-Syrian region?
MR. FOLEY: I asked the same question. (Laughter.) The Israeli-Palestinian
region, as it were. That's your formulation, not mine.
QUESTION: Do you have anything about the Turkish helicopter deal because
of the US -- several US companies?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have anything with me. I'll check to see if I have
anything after the briefing.
QUESTION: Just a quick one on the Middle East. Is there some sort of a
meeting here at the Department today about Israeli export controls and
Israeli non-proliferation?
MR. FOLEY: I'd have to check. Obviously, you've been dialing around the
building more than I have this morning.
QUESTION: Who's in charge today in this building? Is it Talbott? And is
he Acting Secretary?
MR. FOLEY: That has unhelpful historical echoes, the way you formulated
it.
QUESTION: Yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to -
MR. FOLEY: The Acting Secretary is Strobe Talbott.
QUESTION: Did he have any meetings today?
MR. FOLEY: I would certainly hope so and would expect so.
QUESTION: I mean with foreign visitors, especially perhaps someone -- a
Prince from Qatar.
MR. FOLEY: He's a hard-working guy, I can tell you that.
QUESTION: I know that. But, once again, it said he had no public
appointments and I have suspicions that he actually did have some
appointments. And I once again renew my -
MR. FOLEY: There's a difference between public appointments and his
typical hard-working day.
QUESTION: Well, when the Secretary of State has meetings that are closed
the press, they are still announced. And I think that when someone is the
Acting Secretary of State -- I mean, I've asked this before especially when
he's met heads of state. And I don't think it was a head of state today and
I may be wrong but, anyway, I renew my -
QUESTION: The Prince of Qatar, you're saying?
QUESTION: I think so because this guy is from -
MR. FOLEY: Okay, I take your point. It's a legitimate one and we will be
in touch with his office to bring his public schedule to your attention.
Did you have a particular item, though, of a meeting that you'd like me to
follow up on?
QUESTION: Well, was there a meeting with this guy in this building? I
know he's meeting with the --
MR. FOLEY: With which guy, Matt?
QUESTION: With the Prince from Qatar because he is meeting at the
Pentagon with Secretary Cohen.
MR. FOLEY: Well, we'll look into that for you.
QUESTION: Matt's question was that he wanted to ask about the egg
incident. It was Matt's question, he forgot.(Laughter). Do you have
anything -- can you give us a readout --
MR. FOLEY: We must be at the end of the briefing. That's how I would
conclude --
QUESTION: Do you have a readout on this at all?
MR. FOLEY: A readout? A readout on eggs?
QUESTION: An analysis of the two egg throwings?
QUESTION: I remember my question.
MR. FOLEY: Matt.
QUESTION: No, I think you better answer Terri's first.
MR. FOLEY: Okay. Well, of course, I don't have firsthand knowledge. I
think Mr. Reeker is with the Secretary's party and is talking to your
colleagues and can shed more light on it. I read that the Czech authorities
had detained two self-described anarchists, which was reassuring. I,
therefore, knew I could rule out Matt Lee, who I guess was not on the trip,
and Barry Schweid, who I understand broke off in Lisbon. But I have no
information beyond what Mr. Reeker presented.
The Secretary had another really wonderful day in the Czech Republic, very
warmly received. There were a couple, as I said, anarchists at the back of
a crowd of students who were greeting her, who apparently pelted her
security detail especially. And those guys, they may have yolk on them, but
they're not yellow. They're proud to stand by the Secretary, and that's
what they did. I wouldn't read anything into it, though. I think the
students who were with her apologized for the behavior of these two
individuals.
QUESTION: North Korea and US have a meeting in New York. How is it
going?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I did at the beginning of the briefing talk about that.
So if you check the transcript afterwards, you'll --
QUESTION: They have another meeting in this coming May for high-level
meeting.
MR. FOLEY: You're talking about the high-level visit?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I talked about that. That's expected to take place about
a month from now.
QUESTION: I remember what my question was, and it really wasn't the egg
question. I'm just wondering if there's anything more to report about
consultations with other countries about a possible resolution condemning
Russia for its actions in Chechnya at the UN in Geneva?
MR. FOLEY: I believe that Mr. Koh, in response to a question, made some
response to that question. I'm not aware of anything concrete on it, but
I'd be glad to look into it for you. Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:50 p.m.)
|
