U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #25, 00-03-28
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
719
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Tuesday, March 28, 2000
Briefer: James B. Foley
ANNOUNCEMENTS: U.S. Regrets Imprisonment of Turkish Human Rights
Activist, Akin Birdal / Conclusion of
Israeli-Palestinian Talks at Bolling AFB / April 6
Resumption of Birdal / Conclusion of
Israeli-Palestinian Talks at Bolling AFB / April 6
Resumption of Bolling Talks
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
1 U.S. Assessment of Israel / Palestine Talks at Bolling Air Force Base
3 Secretary Albright's Meeting with Israeli / Palestinian Parties
3-4 U.S. Role in the Bolling Peace Talks
4 U.S. policy on UNSC Resolution 425
DEPARTMENT
3 Secretary Albright's Travel to New Orleans
GREECE
4,8 Reported Oasis for Drug Trafficking, Prostitution / Marc Grossman's
Meeting with Athens Mayor
SERBIA (KOSOVO)
4,7 US disappointed by Failure of Ethnic-Albanian Militia to Live up to
Their Commitments
DEPARTMENT
5-6 Secretary Albright's Foreign Policy Leadership
CHINA/TAIWAN
7 China Missile Defense System / U.S. Commitment to Taiwan Relations
Act / US Assessment of PRC Military Capabilities
CUBA
7-8 Elian Gonzalez
NORTH KOREA
8 US Expects High Level Visit to Take Place
SAUDI ARABIA
8-9 Amnesty International Human Rights Report / US Position on a UNCHR
Resolution
LIBYA
9-10 U.S. Consular Officials Return from Libya
UNITED STATES
10-11 U.S Training of International Police Officers
CYPRUS
11 U.S. Favors EU Efforts to Offer Accession Prospected to Republic of
Cyprus
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #25
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2000, 1:05 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department. I have a few announcements to
make. First, the United States deeply regrets that Akin Birdal, former
chairman of the Human Rights Association, a noted Turkish human rights non-
governmental organization, has been returned to prison to serve the
remainder of his sentence. We had welcomed the decision by Turkish
authorities to release Mr. Birdal from prison on medical grounds last
September, and we are disappointed that Turkish authorities have now
declined to extend that release.
Mr. Birdal was convicted in 1997 on charges of "inciting hatred and enmity,
" for a speech in which he called for a settlement of the Kurdish question,
and linked human rights violations to the lack of a settlement. He was
wounded seriously in a murder attempt in 1998, while awaiting appeal.
Mr. Birdal is a well-known, responsible voice for peaceful change and
reconciliation in Turkey. All of Turkey's citizens should be able fully to
exercise their right to peaceful freedom of expression, as recognized by
international human rights instruments. Putting him back in jail, we
believe, is inconsistent with this principle.
Secondly, today Israeli and Palestinian delegations concluded more than a
week of talks at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington. The discussions,
which focused primarily on permanent status issues, were designed to work
toward a framework agreement as soon as possible, so that all issues could
be resolved in a comprehensive agreement by September 13th of this
year.
The issues on the table are difficult issues, and there are remaining gaps,
but we believe the discussions at Bolling have been serious and intensive.
They also discussed the third phase of further redeployments during these
meetings. Both delegations are now returning home for consultations. They
have agreed to resume their talks on April 6th in Washington, and these
talks will again be held at Bolling Air Force Base.
For its part, the United States is committed to continuing to help Israelis
and Palestinians reach an agreement on all permanent status issues by
September 13th. Indeed, the US believes that it is essential to resolve the
Israel-Palestinian issue, in order to achieve a comprehensive peace.
QUESTION: Omitted from your characterization of the Israeli-Palestinian
talks was the word "progress." Do we take it that there was none?
MR. FOLEY: I think that the word "progress" is not necessarily relevant
to the kinds of discussions that took place here this week. As Mr. Rubin
indicated at the start of those talks, these were conceived of - and indeed
were, in fact - a kind of brainstorming session, in which the parties were
exchanging ideas with each other, and attempting to achieve a better
understanding of each other's needs and requirements. This, in our view --
this kind of discussion -- was a necessary predicate to the phase
to come, in terms of getting down to brass tacks, making concrete
proposals, working on texts and working hard to achieve resolution of all
the permanent status issues.
Yesterday, I noted that the talks had been productive. You can quibble with
the word "productive," and suggest "progress" in its place. We believe that
these talks were successful in achieving a real exchange of ideas, and a
greater and deeper understanding of the needs and requirements by each side
of the other side; and that is the critical predicate, as I indicated, to
achieving the concrete negotiating progress that we're going to need,
in a very accelerated fashion, in the course of the next six months.
QUESTION: Can you tell us whether the next session will also be a
brainstorming session, or will it be a more conventional negotiating
session, in which we can then start talking about progress or lack of
progress?
MR. FOLEY: Well, in order to approach the phase of drafting -- if you
will -- successfully, it is necessary for each side - at least it is ideal,
from our perspective, for each side - to, in advance of that exercise, to
have listened carefully to the other side, to have heard their views,
achieved a deeper understanding of their perspectives and requirements,
before formulating one's concrete negotiating positions. So we have had a
successful session of idea exchange and brainstorming.
I am not in a position to predict whether they will be entering a different
mode when they return on April 6, or whether they will still be in the mode
of exchanging ideas. That is speculative at this point. What is important,
though, is that the time table is a narrow one. We're talking about the
attempt to achieve a framework agreement as soon as possible, and
resolution of all outstanding permanent status issues between now and
September 13th, so there is not a lot of time to get to that phase
that you're talking about.
QUESTION: Just simply because of that, isn't it kind of unfortunate, then,
that you can't say that there was any progress made, given the time, given
the narrow -
MR. FOLEY: I was quibbling with George over the word "progress." If you
want to use "progress," I won't dispute it. I used the word "productive"
yesterday. We think each side made progress in understanding better the
other side's requirements and needs and perspectives, and that that is
necessary for a successful effort to negotiate text and achieve agreement
on the outstanding and very difficult issues.
So we believe it was a very positive session. The atmosphere was extraordinarily
collegial, and this too is a necessary predicate to success in these talks:
the fact that these negotiators have gotten to know each other so well,
have gotten to understand each other and, indeed, sympathize with each
other.
And Secretary Albright met with the parties together yesterday, both to
underscore her strong commitment to the success of these talks, but also to
elicit from them their perspective on how they were going. And her view, as
a result of that meeting was that, as I indicated, they are getting along
very well. They are creating the kind of atmosphere, the kind of collegial
atmosphere, that is necessary to achieving progress and ultimately success
in the talks, and she urged them to continue in that vein in the subsequent
round.
QUESTION: Jim, do you have any kind of color on how they're getting along
better? I mean, did they go to Pizza Hut together? Did they go bowling, did
they--
MR. FOLEY: Well, they did, I believe, socialize together, but I don't
want to trivialize the sessions they had, because the main focus was on the
hard work and on the issues which they discussed, and the ideas which they
exchanged. They also happened, though, to take advantage of the amount of
time they spent together to socialize together as well. I don't have the
kind of specific color that you're looking for. I don't know whether pizza
was actually consumed. I think it was, but I'd have to check that
for you.
QUESTION: Do you have anything for us on a possible Secretary Albright
visit to New Orleans?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, we've announced that. She's leaving this afternoon. I can
refer you to the announcement on March 21st. We can get that for you in the
afternoon.
QUESTION: At the beginning of these talks, you said that you didn't
expect the US side to present any ideas. Can you say whether, in fact, they
did not, and whether in the next round perhaps they might be drafting
something in advance?
MR. FOLEY: Let me make it clear. We didn't expect them to be tabling text
either in this first round, nor did we anticipate that the US would be
tabling ideas or draft text.
QUESTION: A little informal but, you know, for right now.
MR. FOLEY: We are tailoring our role in a way to suit both the needs of
the process and the desires of the parties, and thus far it's been our
judgment that it's been neither appropriate nor necessary for the United
States to advance ideas of its own. That may come at a later stage, if it's
necessary, and if it's desired by the parties.
But the focus is on them. They're dealing with other. Mostly - overwhelmingly
- they met with each other. Occasionally, either Dennis Ross or Aaron
Miller did sit down with them separately, I think a couple of times
together, with both delegations as well. But they were dealing with each
other, as they should, and we did not believe it was appropriate or
necessary for us to insert American ideas at this stage.
QUESTION: Jim, that was a very nice turn of phrase: "tailoring our role
in a way to suit..." I thought that was -
MR. FOLEY: Thank you. I was an English major. Thank you.
QUESTION: The Associated Press with an unusual report appeared yesterday
in Washington Times that represents Greece as an oasis for drug dealers,
prostitution, traffic with illegal immigrants and guns, and the list is
going on. Since the story contradicts the speech which had been delivered
by President Clinton in Athens on November 20th, which represented Greece
as exactly the opposite, as a model of values in the Balkans, could you
please comment?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, I agree with the President.
QUESTION: There is a report today that, in frustration at the lack of
progress in the Geneva meeting, the United States is considering or may be
about to come out fully in support of unilateral Israeli withdrawal from
South Lebanon, which so far you haven't been willing to do, I think. What
is your position on withdrawal from South Lebanon? Is it a wise thing? Is
it a good thing to do without agreement with Syria?
MR. FOLEY: Prime Minister Barak himself has made it clear that, from
Israel's perspective, it would be preferable to effect a withdrawal from
Lebanon in the context of a negotiated agreement between Israel and Syria,
and Israel and Lebanon: that that would be the most desired way of
effecting a withdrawal. And it is our position that, indeed, a negotiated
solution is the right - the best way to proceed, and that is why we are
going to continue our efforts with the Israelis and the Syrians, to help
them clarify positions and narrow differences, and that effort will be
ongoing.
QUESTION: In the absence of a negotiated solution, would you fully
support a unilateral withdrawal without -
MR. FOLEY: Well, this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the
first time this question was asked. It was asked in this briefing room
several weeks ago, when I was at the podium. And I made clear that the
United States voted for Security Council Resolution 425, if I'm not
incorrect with the number; that we support the concept of Israeli
withdrawal from Lebanon, and we would, of course, prefer to see that
accomplished in the context of a negotiated settlement. But, nevertheless,
we continue to support Resolution 425, which calls for an Israeli
withdrawal from Lebanon.
QUESTION: Kosovo?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, sure.
QUESTION: I know that the Secretary has said that only a few extremists,
ethnic Albanian extremists, have been causing problems there but, according
to press reports, that is not necessarily true, and that numbers of ethnic
Albanians undergoing military training around Dubrosin continues to
increase.
MR. FOLEY: Training around where?
QUESTION: Dubrosin, D-u-b-r-o-s-i-n. And that it seems like the
liberation army of - again, I'll spell it - P-r-e-s-e-v-o - is not fully
under the control of its own nominal leaders.
Can you comment on that, please?
MR. FOLEY: Yes. I think you're referring to an article that appeared in a
Washington newspaper today.
QUESTION: Correct.
MR. FOLEY: That greatly disappoints us. The news in that article
concerning the failure of the parties to live up to the commitments they
made on March 23rd, commitments they freely undertook and that we welcomed
as an initial positive step: We are, indeed, disappointed in the failure of
these parties to live up to these commitments.
We continue to stress to the Albanian leadership in Kosovo that we are
serious about the messages of zero tolerance for violence and extremism.
And KFOR, as you know, has in fact backed up these messages with appropriate
concrete action, and remains capable of doing so as necessary in the
future.
We continue to call on all parties to act responsibly, and to refrain from
any actions that might provoke violence and instability in the region.
QUESTION: Speaking of Washington newspapers for a second, what's the
reaction this morning in this building to this rather critical, highly
critical, article about the Secretary and her role? And is there any
disappointment in the fact that the newspaper that printed this story,
indeed the same reporter, was actually given last week a copy of the
Secretary's speech on Iran before she did it, and has now written an
article as unflattering as this one?
MR. FOLEY: That is as malicious a question, Matt Lee, as I've heard you
ask in some time, and it bespeaks a certain amount of jealousy, if I may
say so.
QUESTION: Not just mine. I think I speak for the entire room here.
MR. FOLEY: I don't know how many you're speaking for, but let me answer
the question about the article and not about your sense of personal
injustice.
I can only speak for myself. I haven't discussed it with the Secretary. She
has bigger and more important things to do than to worry about the day's
passing articles. I can give you my own assessment. I'm reaching the end of
my time here at the podium this week, and I've been at this for three years,
and I've seen these kinds of stories every three or six months, and I've
seen them in previous administrations. I think many of you might agree that
it's about the easiest kind of journalism, to gather some anonymous
quotes and build a storyline around those quotes. And I think previous
Secretaries of State have been subjected to similar stories, that don't
tend to be positive stories, and so I think it comes with the territory.
My view is that Secretary Albright is a leader who has aimed high for the
United States in the world. She set the bar high, in terms of calling for
strong American engagement and leadership in the world, and I believe that,
in terms of the concrete assessment of her concrete accomplishments, that
will be left to historians. We can talk about some of those issues. I think
she has been extraordinarily bold in staking out positions for the United
States as the lone remaining superpower: in the Balkans; in Bosnia, when
she was at the UN; in Kosovo, in the last few years; in leadership
on arms control, and on human rights, and NATO enlargement and democracy
promotion around the world - and I think she will be judged very positively
by historians. And it's hard to take seriously, I think, the day-to-day
assessment that you get in the newspapers.
I do think, though, that if I may say so, that the story was weak,
especially on the aspect of the Secretary's domestic engagement. I believe
that she has redefined the job of Secretary of State, and I think her
(successors) will find that she blazed a trail in this regard in terms of
reaching out to the American public and making the case for how important
America's continued leadership in the world is. This not an easy job. It is
an uphill struggle.
I think there is no doubt that the United States has the military
capabilities, the economic power, the social cohesion, the political
strength necessary to lead in the world, but it is a question as to whether
we will continue to have the interest, and the will, in terms of doing so.
And Secretary Albright recognizes that this is a question mark in the post
Cold War era, and so she has made it "Job One" to make that case to the
American people.
And it is a fact that our resources are not as abundant as we believe they
need to be to maintain our leadership in the world, and it is an uphill
battle dealing with Congress on this issue. The fact that the media
increasingly tends to treat foreign policy superficially -- when it treats
it at all -- I think makes the job all the more difficult. And so she has
determined to make it her Number One job priority to struggle against those
trends that have to do with American history, American geography.
And I think she's reversed the trend of downward spending on our foreign
policy priorities. It's not as high as we would like it to be, but she has,
I think, laid the groundwork for her successors to build on in that regard.
And I think any Secretary of State will find that if he or she is able to
help the President lead America in the world, that you have to start with
the American people to build the case. And in that respect, I think, as I
said, that her contributions have been second to none.
QUESTION: I wanted to go back to Kosovo for a second. You said you were
disappointed about the lack of action on the part of this militia. I was
wondering, is there any evidence at all that these guys have done anything
to demobilize and live up to the agreements that they made?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we've seen this report of the declarations that seemed
to renege on the commitments that were made previously. I'd have to check
the record to see whether we have concrete evidence that these militia
members are continuing to wear uniforms and conduct training. We certainly
know what they've said, which is disturbing, but I'd have to check that for
you. Maybe tomorrow I can get that for you.
But, clearly, words are important, and they made verbal commitments on
March 23rd that we welcomed, that we regarded as significant. And to the
extent that they're backtracking, we are disappointed and are prepared, as
I indicated or implied, to make concrete our warning of zero tolerance for
violence and extremism.
QUESTION: The Times today, the Washington Times, there was a piece about
a new buildup of missile defense systems along the coast of China. Is China
now getting enough of an edge, militarily, so that the US might consider
selling to Taiwan some of these advanced weapons systems that Taiwan has
been asking for?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, under the Taiwan Relations Act we have a
commitment to provide Taiwan with its legitimate defense requirements, and
I think the record - especially of this administration - has been
extraordinarily strong in that regard. I think the Congressional Research
Service has done a study in that regard, that amply demonstrates that we've
met our commitments under existing law.
In terms of the assessment, though, of the PRC's own military capabilities,
I would refer you to the Pentagon. I did speak with the Pentagon this
morning, and was told that this is obviously something we can't comment
about in terms of intelligence, the specific report you said.
But in terms of the overall assessment, we believe that the Chinese, since
the time of Deng Xiaoping, who labeled military readiness as one of his
four pillars of goals, has been proceeding in a slow but steady process. We
have not seen a fundamental shift in the balance of power in that region,
but I would have to refer you to the Pentagon for a specific assessment.
What I can say, though, is that we monitor the situation in the Taiwan
Strait very closely, and we continue to uphold our One China Policy,
insisting that there be a peaceful resolution of cross-strait differences
and, of course, we continue to urge both sides to engage in dialogue.
QUESTION: On the case of Elian Gonzalez, can you tell us if you have
anything new out of this bureau? His - the people - his relatives are
seeking not to sign agreements to turn him over, were they to fail in a
court case. What options does this government have?
MR. FOLEY: Well, that is really a question for the Justice Department.
The Department of Justice is in touch with the attorneys for the family in
Miami to find a fair, prompt and orderly solution to resolve the issue, And
the Justice Department can speak to your questions about the legal
proceedings.
QUESTION: The North Korean ambassador to China says the high-level
meeting may not take place, because North Korea resents being on the
terrorism list. Do you have anything on that and, if not, do you have
anything in general about where the high-level visit stands?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have any news to report in that regard.
Nevertheless, as you know, Ambassador Kartman met with his North Korean
counterpart in New York a few weeks ago, and it was agreed that they were
going to continue to pursue the high-level visit, which we do expect will
take place, and that further talks in the New York channel were expected in
advance of the high-level visit.
We do not have, to my understanding, reason to believe that the North
Koreans have changed their position in regard to a high-level visit. It is
something that we still expect will happen.
QUESTION: Mr. Foley, could you please once again repeat your answer to
the AP story against Greece?
MR. FOLEY: I said I agreed with the President.
QUESTION: OK, and one more question. Today, a meeting is taking place
here at the State Department between the Mayor of Athens, Mr. Dimitri
Avramopoulos, and Under Secretary Marc Grossman.
MR. FOLEY: Assistant Secretary Grossman.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. FOLEY: I would be glad to check. I don't know if the meeting has
taken place yet but I will try to get some information about the meeting
afterwards.
QUESTION: Amnesty International has put out a report very critical of the
judicial system in Saudi Arabia, and one of their criticisms is of Western
countries which, basically, keep quiet about Saudi Arabia. I know you put
out your annual report.
But is there - do you know of any plans to - what is the US position on the
possibility of a resolution at the Commission in Geneva on Saudi Arabia,
given that its record is particularly appalling?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think you anticipated part of my answer, when you
referred to our annual human rights report, because we issued it about a
month ago. And the report was very clear that the US Government report
states that the Saudi Government rejects internationally accepted
definitions on human rights, infringes on privacy rights and restricts
other basic rights. And our report - and a previous report also - spoke
about the lack of religious freedom and tolerance in Saudi Arabia. So we've
been very clear in our reporting on the situation there -- on the human
rights situation there.
I think you have heard us say, any number of times in any number of
circumstances, that we do not have a straight-jacketed approach to foreign
policy; we make judgments on the basis of given circumstances, and a
definition of what will advance our values and our interests in given
circumstances. We don't believe that pursuing these issues at the UNCHR at
this time would be the most effective means to encourage progress on human
rights in Saudi Arabia.
I think our Human Rights Report is clear. It is something that we have
dialogue with Saudi officials about, and if your question has to do with
what, in concrete terms, one can do to improve human rights practices
around the world, we have to make a judgment in each case as to what is
best - most likely to advance that cause.
QUESTION: You said that you don't believe that pursuing this at the UNCHR
would be productive or something like that. Why not?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as I said, we have to make a judgment in each case. We
face different circumstances with different countries around the world. In
some cases, we promote resolutions, in some cases we sponsor or cosponsor
or support others. And in other cases - it depends on the circumstances -
we engage in diplomatic efforts bilaterally. And I think our Human Rights
Report speaks fairly frankly to our assessment of the human rights
question in Saudi Arabia.
QUESTION: Does that mean, Jim, that the US agrees with the conclusions in
the Amnesty report?
MR. FOLEY: You would have to be more specific.
QUESTION: I don't know how much more specific I can get.
MR. FOLEY: I have not read the report. Which conclusion are you talking
about?
QUESTION: The conclusion that there are appalling violations of human
rights -
MR. FOLEY: I have just quoted from our human rights report, or at least a
gist of the overall findings. I refer you to the report for all of the
specifics.
QUESTION: Can you give us a readout on the four officials' trip to Libya?
I don't think we've spoken with you since that. We're all interested.
MR. FOLEY: Yes. Officials from the Department's Bureau of Consular
Affairs, accompanied by officers from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security,
returned yesterday afternoon from their visit to Libya over the weekend.
During the visit, they met with diplomats from Western missions in Tripoli -
in other words, Western diplomats. They met with American expatriates, with
a consular official from the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Libyan
police officials. The purpose of the trip was to assess local conditions,
to verify the accuracy of information provided in our Consular Information
Program documents, and to determine whether travel to Libya by American
citizens continues to put them in "imminent danger," which, as you know, is
the operative statute governing whether the Secretary determines that
American passports can or cannot be used for travel to a given country.
Their assessment will be key to our consideration of the appropriateness of
the restriction on the use of US passports for travel to Libya. They have
just returned. They are going to be drawing up their trip report. They are
going to be conferring with colleagues in the Department, and eventually
drawing up a recommendation to the Secretary. We are not there yet. As I
said, they just returned.
QUESTION: Did they have any initial impressions?
MR. FOLEY: I am not going to report initial impressions. I haven't spoken
with them, but as I indicated, I think as a matter of practicality, what
they will do is prepare their report, prepare their recommendations and
make them to the Secretary before I'm prepared to talk about it on an
interim basis with the press.
QUESTION: Did they at least come any closer to finding out how many
Americans are in Libya?
MR. FOLEY: Again, Jonathan, I am not going to report to you their interim
findings. When we are in a position to do so, I will be glad to do so, yes -
although I will not be in a position to do so, since I won't be here.
QUESTION: This is a detailed question. I will give you as much detail, so
you can give me a detailed answer, hopefully.
Last month, the Secretary presented the Clinton administration's policy on
strengthening criminal justice systems and supporting peace operations. And
the opening page said, "The phenomenon of nonexistent, inept or partisan
police forces is not unique to peace operations." On page 12, under
Executive Authority, it said, "This authority may include the right to use
detention and deadly force."
Now, as you know, there have been a great many civil disruptions in New
York as a result of irresponsible - or you can use the word "reckless" -
police actions against unarmed, innocent civilians, in the case against Mr.
Diallo in front of his own home, and most recently, the case of Mr.
Dorismond, and not to mention the torture and sodomization of Abner Molina
by police officers. There are even instances where battered women
required protection and, when the police become involved, the police
collude with the husbands perpetrating the violence, overtly or covertly
encouraging the batterers and an escalation of violence against women.
MR. FOLEY: Do you have a question?
QUESTION: Yeah. The question is, since there are charges of racism and
sexism and the United States, at least as a result of the Clinton
administration's directive, will be training police forces internationally,
how much confidence remains in our ability to train international police
keepers, when we are not even able to provide American citizens with police
who are protecting innocent, unarmed civilians?
MR. FOLEY: You make a lot of judgments about specific actions and events
in a local - in a locality in the United States that reflect your views,
and the views, maybe, of other citizens. I cannot -
QUESTION: I am just quoting the Times, USA Today.
MR. FOLEY: I cannot speak to that assessment. I am a Spokesman for the
State Department. I can talk about our foreign policy and our policies, and
your question did relate to foreign policy, in the sense that you asked
about our training of police officials overseas. It is a serious issue.
We believe that, indeed, the American assistance, as well as that of other
democratic nations to countries in development, countries that are
transitioning to a freer democratic system, is critical to providing a
stable foundation for the rule of law and democracy, and I think our record
is an excellent one in that regard.
QUESTION: I just want to make one more comment. Mrs. Clinton herself -
MR. FOLEY: You know, this is not really a place for comment. I think
sometimes comments emerge, but it is something that really, I think, is
appropriate elsewhere. You can ask me questions; I can try to answer
them.
QUESTION: How competent are we to train an - and how much confidence will
we have from foreign countries, if this is the way we are --
MR. FOLEY: I think it is not only a question that we have the competence
to help train police officers around the world, especially in these
countries in transition, but our police officers themselves are very much
in demand around the world, in the context of peacekeeping operations in
Bosnia, in Kosovo, where there is a crying need for Western - including
American - police officers, some of whom are retired, some of whom are on
leave, who give their time and energy for humanitarian causes around the
world, and we salute them for that.
QUESTION: On Cyprus, the European Union yesterday began substantive
membership talks with six countries, including the Republic of Cyprus. How
does this new development affect your efforts for the coming talks in New
York City to find a solution to the Cyprus problem?
MR. FOLEY: Well, Mr. Lambros, I won't surprise you by restating our
position, which is one in favor of the EU's effort to expand and to offer
the accession prospected to the Republic of Cyprus.
Thank you very much.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:41 P.M.)
|
