U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #88, 00-08-29
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
921
U.S. Department of State
Press Briefing
TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2000
Briefer: PHILIP REEKER, DEPUTY SPOKESMAN
CUBA
1-5 Cuba's Senior Parliamentarian Denied Chance to Attend Parliamentary
Session
PHILIPPINES
5-7 American Seized in the Philippines / Safety Level of Philippines
for US Citizens
LIBYA
6 Libyans Willingness to Mediate in Case to Secure Mr. Schilling's
Release
RUSSIA
8-12 Edmond Pope Update / Charges Against Mr. Pope / President Clinton's
Discussions With President Putin / Secretary Albright's
Discussions With Foreign Minister Ivanov / Treatment Of American
Citizens in Russia / Ambassador Sherman's Talks With Russians
LIBERIA
11-12 Jesse Jackson’s Offer to go to Liberia in Response to the Four
Journalists Who Were Jailed on Charges of Espionage
PEACE PROCESS
12-14 President Clinton's Meeting in Cairo With President Mubarak /
Prospects of Three-Way Summit in New York / Effort to Get
Palestinians To Back Down on September 13 Deadline / Ambassador
Ross' Meetings in the Region / Statement of Jerusalem Committee of
the Organization of the Islamic Conference
ISRAEL
14-16 Israeli Defense Ministry Officials Visit to Department of State to
Discuss Arms Exporting Agreement / Expectations of the Visit /
Sale of Military Technology
PERU
16-18 Civilian Trial for Amcit Lori Berenson / Concerns About Peruvian
Democracy
SOUTH AFRICA
17 Explosion in Cape Town Near the US Consulate
MEXICO
18 Mexican Judge's Sentence of Human Rights Activist
UN
19 Senior State Department Official's Plan to Give Foreign Media the
US Objectives For Millennium Summit
GREECE
19 Signing of Protocol of Cooperation Against Terrorism in Greece
CYPRUS
19 Talks Taking Place in New York City on September 12
HUMAN RIGHTS
20-21 Release Date For Annual Report on Religious Freedom / Military Aid
to Colombia
GERMANY
21 Arrest of Neo-Nazi in West Virginia
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #88
TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2000, 1:42 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. REEKER: Hi, everybody. Welcome back to the State Department on this
fine Tuesday afternoon.
I would just like to take an opportunity to welcome a number of our
colleagues from embassies around the world, our Foreign Service National
employees from a number of embassies who are focused on information and
press work. We are very happy to have them here to watch this process, and
I am sure all of our journalist friends will be on their best behavior for
our international guests so that they can see what I have to go through
every day. Maybe I should have worn my flats.
I don't have any announcements so, Barry, please.
QUESTION: Could you tell us please why Cuba's senior parliamentarian is
being denied a chance to attend a parliamentary session that begins
tomorrow in New York? I mean, I know the authority under a proclamation,
and I know the proclamation is being cited, but what is really behind it?
Just yesterday, we heard from the US, you know, complained about arbitrary
actions taken by Cuba. Why has the US decided now to keep this man from
going to a meeting in New York?
MR. REEKER: Let me start out by pointing out and reminding everybody
that Section 222(f) of the Immigration Act clearly states that visa records
are confidential. So I don't want to get into specifics of individual
visas in terms of applications, granting of visas or denials.
In terms of the meetings that you are describing, those would be meetings
in New York of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. That organization is hosting
this meeting, not the United Nations; and we, the United States, are under
no obligation or requirement under the UN Headquarters Agreement to issue
visas to individuals attending Inter-Parliamentary Union events.
Our decisions, in terms of issuing or not issuing visas, are based on the
Presidential Proclamation of 1985, which I think you alluded to, Barry,
which gives us authority to deny entry of Cuban Government officials if
such entry will be contrary to the interests of the United States.
I will note that we have authorized the issuance of visas to some Cuban
officials who applied to travel to this Inter-Parliamentary Union event and
just reiterate, I think, as you did for me, that these actions are in fact
consistent with Secretary Albright's January 1999 policy that we would,
among other actions, streamline visa issuance for qualified persons other
than senior Cuban Government officials.
QUESTION: I understand your - the proclamation gives you authority. I
was just hoping that we could get some explanation why the attendance by
the top parliamentarian is inimical to US interest, but the attendance by
two of his deputies is okay. It does smack of arbitrary, the kind of
arbitrary behavior you are accusing - you and the Secretary were accusing
Cuba of yesterday.
MR. REEKER: I think, once again, if you listen to what I said just a
moment ago, as the Secretary outlined in January 1999, our policy is that
we would, among certain other actions, streamline the visa issuance for
qualified persons other than senior Cuban Government officials. So
obviously the decisions that were made, in terms of issuing visas for this
independent event, this meeting taking place in New York, were made within
the lines of the Presidential Proclamation going back to 1985 and within
the lines of the Secretary's policy on that.
QUESTION: So can I just get this straight?
MR. REEKER: Yes.
QUESTION: You are not allowed to say if you reject a visa for someone,
but you can say if you've given a visa to someone?
MR. REEKER: Generally, Matt, Section 222(f) of the Immigration Act says
that visa records are confidential, so we try not to discuss --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - authorized?
MR. REEKER: Right. And I didn't go into specific names or otherwise.
QUESTION: Well, then let's try it this way. Has a very senior - has the
most senior lawmaker in Cuba been denied a visa to travel to the United
States?
MR. REEKER: Under the policies which I outlined earlier, the United
States and the Department of State determined not to issue visas to some
people that had applied. I am not going to get into specifics of those who
applied, those who were denied visas, those who were granted visas for
travel, in trying to keep with the policy of confidentiality of visa
records under the Immigration Act.
QUESTION: Your reading of the law means that you can say that some Cuban
officials have been granted visas, but it does not allow you to say that
some have not, then; is that it?
MR. REEKER: I just said some have not been granted visas.
QUESTION: How many were denied?
MR. REEKER: I'm not going to get into specifics, and that's how we're
going to try to keep within the confidentiality of visa records.
QUESTION: But for the record, it's not law, is it?
MR. REEKER: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: It's not a law; it's an executive action.
MR. REEKER: Section 222(f) of the Immigration Act, that is a law that
makes visa records confidential.
QUESTION: I didn't mean that. I meant the action was taken under a
Presidential Proclamation.
MR. REEKER: Right, and in keeping with the Secretary's policy from
January '99.
QUESTION: That's what I meant.
MR. REEKER: Yes.
QUESTION: Is it not a contradiction of US policy to give these kind of
ideas with the Cubans when in this forum, for example, you are promoting
Cuba to participate with other countries, democratic countries, to give
them the idea how to --
MR. REEKER: Stop right there, because this is not something that we're
promoting. This is an independent event organized by something called The
Inter-Parliamentary Union. It's not a US event. It's not a UN event.
It's an independent event.
QUESTION: But you don't see that as an opportunity for other countries
to pressure Cuba in terms of helping their democratic process?
MR. REEKER: I think we make our points about Cuba and how they should
open their minds and their processes to democracy often from this podium.
Certainly our policy on Cuba is very clear, and I think a number of other
countries from around the world continue to make that point as well.
QUESTION: Phil, in New York, maybe the head, or at least one of the
senior people of these union, called this a disappointing action by the
United States. Also, the matter of the United States not paying its dues
to this union was brought up. Is that accurate? Is the US behind in its
dues?
MR. REEKER: The Inter-Parliamentary Union is not an organization to
which the executive branch of government has a connection. I would refer
you perhaps to folks on the Hill if you want something. It's not an
organization that we --
QUESTION: I'm lost. Maybe dues is the wrong word, and obviously I don't
have a lot of background on the subject. Just what was said up there today
plainly was that they were encouraging the United States to make up its
dues or its shortfall in contributions.
MR. REEKER: I'd be happy to try to get you somebody that may know
somebody about the Inter-Parliamentary Union but, again, it's an independent
organization. It's not the UN and it's not something to which the
Department of State or the US executive branch is involved.
QUESTION: I know, but I'm also sure you're not trying to diminish the
importance of this meeting.
MR. REEKER: Not at all.
QUESTION: There were 141 governments there; by latest count, 155
parliamentary leaders; and Cuba is the host next year. So the timing is
somewhat strange.
MR. REEKER: Thank you for those comments.
QUESTION: Maybe I missed something here. You said that you have the
authority to deny entry to people if it's contrary to the US interest. Can
you just say in general terms why this is contrary? I mean, all during the
'80s you would say Arafat couldn't have a visa because he hasn't renounced
terrorism and that's the reason.
MR. REEKER: Look. A determination was made. Each visa request, each
visa application, is taken individually and on its merits, and a determination
was made not to issue visas to some people and to issue visas to other
people.
QUESTION: I understand that. But what I'm asking you is what is
contrary to the US interest in the case? Not specific to a person, but in
general.
MR. REEKER: I'm just not in a position to describe our deliberations on
a specific visa case, but again to point out that our actions and the way
we review these are very consistent with what the Secretary instituted in
January 1999 in terms of our policy that we would try to streamline visa
issuance for qualified persons other than senior Cuban Government
officials.
QUESTION: You said that some were denied. Could you say how many?
MR. REEKER: I don't have specific numbers, no.
QUESTION: Can I ask you, even though it's not a UN event per se, does a
visa carry restrictions on travel and, in fact, participation in other - in
other words, would a visa - is a visa to attend this meeting, this kind of
conference, does it carry with it restrictions on other activities and
travel?
MR. REEKER: Each visa is issued individually, but I would remind you
that a visa provides the person permission to apply for entry to the United
States. Their entry and limitations on their travel are then determined by
the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the time of entry to the
United States at the port of entry.
QUESTION: If you can't tell us how many visas were denied, can you tell
us how many visas were applied for?
MR. REEKER: I don't believe I even have that. I checked and was told
that we authorized the issuance of visas to some Cuban officials who
applied for travel to attend this meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,
and that's all I have.
QUESTION: Different subject?
MR. REEKER: Different subject. Are we done with Cuba?
QUESTION: Can you tell us what you know about the American who has been
seized in the Philippines?
MR. REEKER: Yes. We understand that an emissary of the Filipino
secretary who has been the Philippine's chief negotiator for the release of
other hostages held by a faction of the Abu Sayyaf group on Jolo Island has
reported that he has seen Jeffrey Schilling on Jolo Island in the hands of
another faction of the Abu Sayyaf group. So the United States strongly
condemns this latest kidnapping and we call for the immediate safe and
unconditional release of this hostage and the other hostages still held
captive as well on the Island of Jolo.
Our Embassy became aware of this situation early this morning local time in
the Philippines when there was a radio report that reported or discussed
the kidnapping of an American citizen. Our Embassy consular and security
officials immediately were in touch with Filipino authorities in Manila,
and our Embassy continues to work very closely and intensely with the
appropriate authorities in the Philippines to try to determine all the
facts in terms of this case, and we're taking the appropriate action,
including sending several Embassy officials to Zamboanga on the Island of
Mindanao where they can meet with the local Filipino authorities to discuss
this. Obviously there are Privacy Act considerations in terms of the
individual who has been reported kidnapped and the family there. We are
trying to be in touch with the family as well.
QUESTION: Any -- (inaudible) - his condition?
MR. REEKER: I don't have any details of his condition. As I said, we
have sent officials to work with the Philippines to look into this. Now, I
think yesterday I made very clear our position on hostages. The United
States does not makes deals with terrorists, and this organization, the Abu
Sayyaf group, is an organization which is listed in our Patterns of Global
Terrorism as one of the radical Islamic separatist groups operating in the
southern Philippines.
QUESTION: On that point, the Libyans have now - whose actions in
securing the release of the six hostages the other day, you have said you
disagree with it and this Department has said it disagrees with, have
offered, or said that they are willing to mediate in this case to secure
Mr. Schilling's release. I'm wondering, is such assistance or such
mediation welcome by the United States?
MR. REEKER: I have seen those same reports, and I would just refer you
to what I said yesterday and what I said just now; that, as we have said
before, the US Government wants to see an end to this ordeal and the
release of all the hostages immediately and unconditionally. We support
efforts by negotiators to find a quick resolution. We are extremely
concerned about the safety of all the hostages, and obviously look forward
to their release. But, again, as far as paying ransom is concerned, US
policy is very clear: We do not make deals with terrorists; we will not pay
ransom; we will not change policies; we will not release prisoners or make
any other concessions that reward hostage-taking.
QUESTION: Right. But, okay, how about if the Libyans said that they're
willing to mediate and they promise not to pay any ransom in this
case.
MR. REEKER: Well, again --
QUESTION: I'm trying to find out if you're willing to accept the help of
Libya in any form short of what you just said.
MR. REEKER: I think it's premature to make any specific statements on
any requests or offers or issues specifically involving the case because
we're trying to determine all the facts. We have seen these reports
involving Libya's apparently positive role in other Filipino hostage
situations.
And as I said, we support efforts by negotiators, whomever they may be, to
find a quick resolution to this case. We are extremely concerned about the
safety of this individual reported to be kidnapped, and all of the hostages,
and look forward to their release.
QUESTION: In light of this kidnapping, how concerned is the State
Department about the safety level of the Philippines for US citizens?
MR. REEKER: Well, I think all of you will be aware that we have a Public
Announcement in place as part of our consular information system which
highlights some of the issues and specifically tells American citizens to
avoid travel to the southern and western areas of the Island of Mindanao.
And I can provide you copies of that, or you can find it on our website.
I think this highlights the dangers that we outlined and have showed in
those announcements for American citizens, and certainly the tragic
kidnappings that have been taking place over a period of months and have
been highlighted in the press make people quite aware of that.
QUESTION: Do you know when that last Public Announcement was updated?
MR. REEKER: I believe June 8th was the most recent update of that. And
obviously given the current situation, they may be updating it to include
information on this specific incident that does involve reportedly an
American citizen.
QUESTION: So can you tell us nothing more about this gentleman and why
he was there and why he was traveling to the Philippines? And also, can
you rule out whether he was working for the US Government?
MR. REEKER: In terms of your last question, it is longstanding US policy
not to comment on such questions in terms of employment. But more
generally, we have seen his name reported and, at this point, we are
operating on the presumption that this individual, an American citizen, has
been kidnapped. But in terms of providing more information about that
individual, we are just not in a position to do so given the Privacy Act
considerations. Obviously that individual is not in a position to do
Privacy Act waivers, but we are trying to be in touch with his family, with
the next of kin, and it would just be inappropriate at this point to give
any information about the individual.
QUESTION: There has been some confusion about the circumstances under
which he came to be in their control. There have been reports that he was
looking for these people, and there are also reports that he was snatched.
Do you all have any information?
MR. REEKER: I have seen all those reports, and I don't have anything
more specific on why he was in the area, other than to point out the
warnings that we have in terms of our Public Announcement. Those are the
kind of facts that I think our Embassy team, working with the Filipino
authorities, will be trying to establish as they continue to look at
this.
QUESTION: Have they talked to his wife?
MR. REEKER: I am not aware of the particulars of whether the individual
even has a wife. I do believe there are parents involved as well that the
Embassy and the State Department have tried to be in contact with in our
usual consular response to notify next of kin.
QUESTION: I have one more. Are you aware of any demands being made by
the rebels in order to secure his release?
MR. REEKER: I have seen a number of reports to that effect, including
the initial media report that brought this to our attention, which was
monitored by our press staff at the Embassy in the Philippines and what
then had our Embassy officials responding immediately and working closely
with the Filipino officials. But I am not in the position to outline or
confirm any specifics from that organization or what they have reported to
be demanding.
QUESTION: Can you give a readout on Ed Pope? What's the latest?
MR. REEKER: Are we done with the Philippines and the situation there?
Okay.
I think most of you are aware that Mrs. Pope, the wife of Edmund Pope, the
United States citizen who is currently in jail in Lefortovo Prison in
Moscow, that Mrs. Pope spent an hour and a half today with her husband this
morning, in the prison there in Moscow. She was accompanied by two of our
consular officers from the American Embassy in Moscow.
Mrs. Pope and her husband and the consular officers discussed his health,
the status of his legal case and other personal matters. As we had noted,
Congressman Peterson, who has been very helpful in this case, is in Moscow
accompanying Mrs. Pope. Congressman Peterson was denied permission to join
the visit with Mr. Pope at the prison.
And I will just reiterate once again that Russia's treatment of Mr. Pope
since his arrest raises serious concerns about the safety and security of
American business travelers in Russia, and about our ability to protect the
health and welfare of American citizens who may be traveling or living in
Russia. And as we have noted, we are continuing to examine the implications
of Russian actions very closely.
I will reiterate once again that we have seen absolutely no evidence that
Mr. Pope violated any Russian laws, and we are both disturbed and concerned
that he remains in custody. To the best of my knowledge, no trial date has
been set, and we believe, once again, that the Russian Government should
release Mr. Pope and allow him to return home.
QUESTION: Can I follow up?
MR. REEKER: Sure, follow up.
QUESTION: Can you see, perhaps, how the Russians might view this,
perhaps what he was doing there? Apparently he was trying to buy some
hardware or technology which may be perfectly legal and declassified but,
in the Russian view, that could fall into a gray area? And second, are you
at all in a position to ever resolve this, or is it completely dependent on
what the Russians will do?
MR. REEKER: The charges that were brought against Mr. Pope on April 13th
were charges of violation of Section 276 of the Russian Criminal Code,
which deals with espionage. To date, the Russian Government has not
provided us with any details about the basis of these charges. And once
again, as we have said repeatedly, we have seen no evidence that Mr. Pope
has violated any Russian laws, and that we are both disturbed and concerned
that he remains in custody. They have had plenty of time to review this
case, and our feeling is that the Russian Government should release Mr.
Pope and allow him to return home now.
QUESTION: In this particular case, Phil, can you say on the record that
he was not working for the US Government?
MR. REEKER: Again, we have a position of not --
QUESTION: But you said he was a business travel. Was it not US
business?
MR. REEKER: Again, as I say, we make it a policy, as you know very well,
that we don't discuss those things. However, we are not aware that Mr.
Pope has violated any laws, to our knowledge. No evidence exists that he
has violated Russian laws, and we believe he should be released.
Further on this subject?
QUESTION: You said that you were examining the implications of this.
Can you expand on that a little bit? What do you mean?
MR. REEKER: Well, it is something we had discussed here while you were
away, and at some length. It is the responsibility of the Russian
Government to provide for the care and well being of US citizens who are
under detention in Russia. We hold them to that responsibility, and it is
certainly our obligation to try to see that that responsibility is carried
out.
So we need to carefully look at the implications of what they have done in
terms of medical care, which has, in our view, not been provided to Mr.
Pope. I would add that we understand that the medical examination was
performed yesterday, in which a blood sample was taken. That would be in
line with what they promised to do in terms of performing additional
medical tests after their prison doctor had met with our embassy doctor.
That was August 15th.
Obviously all of our information about Mr. Pope's health is secondhand
because the Russians have refused to allow our embassy doctor access. We
continue to insist that the Embassy doctor and an English-speaking
specialist be allowed to see Mr. Pope. We have asked to see results of the
tests that were carried out yesterday as soon as possible.
And again, it is our right to act to ensure that the protections that the
Russian Government is required to give are carried out. Again, it is their
responsibility to protect the welfare of detained American citizens. And
as I indicated, we have seen no evidence that he has violated any laws
there, and we are disturbed and very concerned that he remains in
custody.
Still on this?
QUESTION: Still on this, yes. In the past several weeks when we brought
this up, you have said that the President has taken this up with Mr. Putin,
that Secretary Albright has spoken with Mr. Ivanov. Has there been any
recent, last few days, conversation at those kinds of levels?
MR. REEKER: I don't have any specific additional readouts on that. You
are correct, and we have talked about it here a number of times that the
President raised this with Russian President Putin. The Secretary has
raised this on several occasions with her counterpart, Foreign Minister
Ivanov. They will continue to do so. Obviously this is being raised and
pressed at the highest levels, and we will continue to keep it on the
agenda for those types of meetings and conversations.
Still on Mr. Pope?
QUESTION: I think there was an implication earlier on that maybe the US
would be less of a booster for Americans to invest in Russia. Your
statement said something, not only that you have some thoughts about how
Americans are treated, but I thought you were implying that American
businesspeople might be advised to be careful before they --
MR. REEKER: I think obviously people have to take - make their own
decisions in terms of travel to Russia or any country. As I said, it is
the Russian Government's responsibility to see to the care and well being
of an American citizen or any country's citizen that is being held in
Russia.
Their treatment of Mr. Pope to date, since his arrest, certainly raises
some serious concerns about the safety and security of American business
travelers in Russia and about our ability to protect the health and welfare
of American citizens that are traveling there or living there. And we have
to continue to look at the implications of that, and that is what we are
doing, watching that very closely.
QUESTION: Well, so are you saying that US business travelers should,
when considering going to Russia, should kind of think twice about going
over there?
MR. REEKER: That is not exactly what I said, Matt. It is something we
have been --
QUESTION: I am trying to squeeze some nugget out of what you said.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: You're specifically mentioning business travelers; you're not
saying it raises the question of all people?
MR. REEKER: Actually, I did indicate that. I said, if we go back to
what I said - and I'm happy to check the transcript - that the treatment of
Mr. Pope since his arrest by the Russian Government raises serious concerns
about the safety and security of American business travelers in Russia and
about our ability to protect the health and welfare of American citizens -
if that suits you better - all American citizens traveling or residing in
Russia.
QUESTION: At this point, though, a formal - some kind of statement,
public announcement, the kind of thing that you released yesterday on
Lebanon, for example, you're not at that point yet?
MR. REEKER: You know, I would be happy to refer to our Consular
Information Sheet on Russia and see where it stands now, but in terms of
something specific, I don't have that. Obviously we have to examine the
implications of Russian actions as this case is prolonged.
Are we done with this?
QUESTION: Do you have anything on Wendy Sherman's talks with the
Russians today?
MR. REEKER: I don't. Ambassador Sherman should be in Moscow today. I
won't have a readout of those. She's there through tomorrow. Perhaps once
she's done with those talks - and then as you will recall, Ambassador
Sherman will move on for trilateral talks with the Japanese and Koreans to
be held in Seoul.
QUESTION: Another Pope for a second?
MR. REEKER: Yes.
QUESTION: Congressman Peterson, was he carrying any sort of message or
anything?
MR. REEKER: You would have to ask Congressman Peterson that.
QUESTION: He wasn't going with any word from the Administration?
MR. REEKER: No. I mean, we have worked very closely with Congressman
Peterson in terms of strongly supporting his travel, which he's doing
obviously in support of his constituents, including Mr. and Mrs. Pope, so
we're very supportive of that. We are in regular contact with his office
and with other congressional contacts who have expressed concern about this
case. To my knowledge, there is no particular US Government funding for
his travel. He is there as a representative of this American citizen who
is one of his constituents, and obviously so is Mrs. Pope.
QUESTION: I keep thinking about just last week these four journalists
who were jailed in Liberia on charges of spying and they were - you know,
Jesse Jackson was saying he'd go over. Is there anything being contemplated
along those lines?
MR. REEKER: Well, I think as I indicated, this has been raised at the
highest levels. We have been talking about this for weeks now in terms of
the Embassy being very involved and whenever possible making consular
visits, pushing continuously for access for our Embassy physician who could
actually make an evaluation of Mr. Pope's medical case. The Ambassador
clearly involved. Clearly we've been involved here in Washington too in
terms of contacts with Russian representatives at their embassy here.
And as we just discussed, the President has discussed this with the Russian
president and made our concerns very clear, and Secretary Albright has
raised this with Minister Ivanov. So I don't quite see the connection with
Liberia. We've been very involved and keeping very close track of this
case for quite some time, since Mr. Pope was arrested in April.
QUESTION: New topic?
MR. REEKER: New topic. Last chance on Russia?
QUESTION: "Time is short," quoth the President with regard to the 13th
of September deadline, and Mr. Ross says to keep an eye on settling the
matter. What is the State Department currently doing? Can you tell us
about Mr. Ross and his work?
MR. REEKER: Well, let's just recap where we stand on the Middle East a
little bit. As you know, the President arrived in Cairo early this morning
to meet with President Mubarak to discuss the Middle East peace process and
determine how best to move forward. The President met with President
Mubarak during his refueling stop in Cairo after learning that he,
President Mubarak, won't be coming to the Millennium Summit at the United
Nations in New York next week.
I think most of you would have seen comments by Ambassador Dennis Ross, who
said in Cairo that the main purpose of the two presidents' meeting was to
compare assessments on the kinds of contact both we and the Egyptians have
had with the two parties, to compare notes and bring each other up to date,
and to consult on how best we can help the parties to move towards an
agreement. It was described as a very good meeting and, as President
Clinton said, we and all the parties understand that we need Egypt's
involvement and leadership and support to move forward towards a real peace
in the region.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: How would you assess the prospects of a three-way summit in
New York next week?
MR. REEKER: I don't have any specifics on the individual meetings that
the President or the Secretary will have in terms of the Millennium Summit
next week and the UN General Assembly in the following weeks. As we have
talked about, clearly the Camp David summit produced significant progress
on all of the core issues, and the Israelis and the Palestinians have
resumed their own direct discussions since the conclusion of Camp David.
And just to reiterate what President Clinton has said, we are ready to
support the process in any way possible. If the parties are ready to make
the tough decision, we're ready to bring them together. But I don't have
anything on set meetings or specifics.
QUESTION: Do you have any news or specifics about the lobbying effort to
get the Palestinians to back down on their September 13th deadline?
MR. REEKER: I think everything I pointed out was very clear.
QUESTION: It certainly was. However, the Israelis are saying that Mr.
Ross will be compiling - they call it a catalog, I guess it's a summary of
Camp David, putting things on paper. And as you said, there was great
progress there until, of course, the thing collapsed. (Laughter.) I'm
sorry - no, I mean, they were making great headway and then it fell apart.
(Laughter.) That wasn't intended to be funny.
MR. REEKER: You certainly broke up the hall here.
QUESTION: I don't know why. You made progress and then you stumbled
over Jerusalem and the refugees. But what is the point of the catalog,
which is what I'm driving at? What are you attempting to do?
MR. REEKER: I'm not aware of a catalog. I've seen various press
reports. What I can say about Ambassador Ross - and I think this will come
as no surprise - that he is continuing his meetings in the region. We do
hope that he is getting some vacation time in while he is there. He has,
over the past ten days, met with Israeli Prime Minister Barak, with
Egyptian Foreign Minister Moussa and with Chairman Arafat. Obviously he
was in Egypt for the presidents' meeting this morning there. And he
continues to meet with negotiators from both sides, and he'll continue to
do so through the end of his trip.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - to be to meet with Barak and a report on the
Mubarak-Clinton meeting. Do you happen to know if that has happened
yet?
MR. REEKER: I don't have a further readout after the presidents' --
QUESTION: But you have nothing on the - obviously you're thousands of
miles away, but you have nothing on the notion of putting things on paper,
which didn't work too well in Shepherdstown, as I remember?
MR. REEKER: I wouldn't try to speculate on what kind of notes Ambassador
Ross keeps or what his way of meeting with and discussing these issues with
the negotiators would --
QUESTION: No, it sounded like more formal than that. It sounded like
the US, as the mediator, was trying to get - intended to put on paper the
areas of progress and hoping to build from there.
MR. REEKER: As I said, there was a lot of progress at Camp David. I
think we've talked that through. We're all quite aware of where things
stand and, as the President said, we are ready to support the process in
any way we can when the parties are ready to make the tough decisions.
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to the resolutions adopted by the
Jerusalem Committee meeting in Agadir, Morocco which calls for the Muslim
word but is Jerusalem?
MR. REEKER: No. I saw those statements, and let me say that the
statement of the Jerusalem Committee of the Organization of the Islamic
Conference reflects the members' understanding of the sensitivity of the
negotiations currently underway between the parties. We appreciate
attempts to make a constructive and positive contribution to the success of
these negotiations and, as I said earlier, we certainly continue to support
this process and the resolution of all permanent status issues through
direct negotiations between the parties.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - has been the process overall?
MR. REEKER: Well, we hope that all countries will encourage both sides
to build upon the successes, the progress that was made at Camp David, and
to make the difficult decisions that are necessary to achieve a real
comprehensive peace.
QUESTION: There had been some concern expressed in this building that
what the Jerusalem Committee - well, some hope expressed by this building
that the Jerusalem Committee would not do anything that might make it more
difficult to talk about the negotiations over the city. Is it your view
that this, what they have come up with, does in fact fulfill the hope of -
that hope?
MR. REEKER: Again, I don't know if I can characterize it in the way you
want me to, but we do appreciate the attempts to make constructive and
positive contributions to the success of the negotiations.
QUESTION: But that stops short of saying whether this was a positive
contribution. Was this an attempt that failed, or is this an attempt that -
-
MR. REEKER: I think, again, I'm not trying to categorize as failure or
success somebody else's meeting. What I'm saying is their statement - we
were not a part of that meeting, obviously - the statement of the Jerusalem
Committee reflects certainly the members' understanding of the sensitivity
of the negotiations. I think that obviously reflects some of what you were
saying and what we discussed before. And we appreciate attempts to make a
constructive and positive contribution. And, again, we hope - we will
continue to hope that all countries will encourage both sides to build upon
Camp David and the successes and progress that we all saw there and to make
those difficult decisions now so that they can achieve a real comprehensive
peace.
QUESTION: But you're not prepared to say that this was a positive
contribution to the process?
MR. REEKER: I think I outlined exactly our reflections on the OIC
meeting in Jerusalem. Anything further on that?
QUESTION: It is not on this, but it is on Israel. I guess on Thursday,
I understand, that the senior Israeli Defense Ministry officials will be
coming to this building to talk about what they hope will be wrapping up an
arms exporting agreement. Can you give any kind of expectation, if you
think that is going to be done before the Barak-Clinton meeting? Can you
talk about it at all?
MR. REEKER: Yes. In anticipation of your presence here, I checked into
that. Upcoming talks between the US and Israel is part of our continuing
discussions that we began earlier this month in response to the President's
announcement after the Camp David summit that we will: (1) conduct a
comprehensive review to improve our strategic relationship with Israel; to
conclude a Memorandum of Understanding regarding our bilateral assistance;
and consider assistance to upgrade Israel's security in view of its
withdrawal from Lebanon.
I think we talked about earlier the three days of discussions that were
held earlier this month which were intensive, constructive, beneficial.
But, at the time, we said that more work needs to be done and we had
planned to have additional discussions. The present discussions are a
continuation of that work that we began in early August, and that is what
will be taking place with the group you described.
QUESTION: Will you be talking at all about technology transfer and the
question of whether, if Israel builds its own military technology, who it
can sell them to? There has been talk about a list of four countries:
China, Russia, India and Pakistan.
MR. REEKER: Well, in terms of questions about Israel's - any proposed
arms sales or transfers, I would have to refer you to the Israeli
Government, obviously. I think our talks will focus on the subjects that I
listed. We are not engaged in any discussions with Israel regarding US
arms sales to any country.
QUESTION: We are not engaged regarding US arms sales?
MR. REEKER: Right. Just to clarify, he was asking about arms sales
generally so I was making a point that we are not engaged in any discussion
about that. We do take into consideration the effect on Israel's
qualitative military edge when making our decisions about arms sales to
other countries. But US arms sales policy is not a subject of these
discussions at all.
QUESTION: How about Israeli arms sales policy?
MR. REEKER: I think, in broadly discussing the issues that we outlined -
that the President outlined - in terms of a comprehensive review of our
strategic relationship with Israel, and a Memorandum of Understanding
regarding our bilateral assistance is what we will be talking about there.
I don't have anything more specific beyond that.
QUESTION: Also, you said that the present talks? This is right; they
begin Thursday?
MR. REEKER: Yes, exactly. Present, as in this is the set of talks.
QUESTION: And they're how long?
MR. REEKER: I don't know. I don't have a specific set of --
QUESTION: But they are not open-ended days?
MR. REEKER: No. We had three days of discussions last time. I would
anticipate a similar session beginning later this week.
More on this?
QUESTION: No. This is Peru and Berenson.
MR. REEKER: Anything else on this? Middle East? Israel? I know that
you are not asking about Israel, Mr. Lambros, so, Barry, please.
QUESTION: What about Peru and Greece? (Laughter.) Berenson. Is the US
obliged to - as people close to the family suggest - is the US obliged to
try to get her freed, even though her situation has been eased a bit?
MR. REEKER: Well, let's talk about the case of Lori Berenson. I think
as I told some of you last night when news first emerged on this, that we
are very pleased with the decision of the military court in Peru to
transfer from the military court system to civilian court system her case.
Since Ms. Berenson's conviction nearly five years ago, we have maintained
that the trial proceedings against her did not meet due process standards,
and so we very much welcome the court's decision there.
My understanding is that the case has been transferred to the National
Prosecutor's Office, and that they will determine the appropriate next
steps and, in the meantime, Ms. Berenson remains in prison in Peru. We had
serious concerns, which we have reported on in our Human Rights Report for
Peru, about the openness and fairness of trial proceedings in the military
court and, in fact, in cases related to terrorism in the civilian
courts.
And you will recall, Barry, that with the Organization of American States
and a number of our partners throughout the hemisphere, we continue over a
long period now to press the Government of Peru to undertake serious
reforms and ensure democratization and transparency in a number of Peruvian
institutions, including the courts.
So this action by the military court is a welcome first step. We hope
there will be a just and expeditious resolution of this matter, and we are
going to continue to engage the Government of Peru regarding just
that.
QUESTION: If you believe the suggestion of the family and people close
with them, is that the US has an obligation to try to get her liberated.
Is that correct? A legal obligation? I know you are looking for a better
system and more justice --
MR. REEKER: In terms of the development that we have seen today, and
obviously we - as I just said, we welcome that as a first step.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. REEKER: And we hope that there is expeditious resolution of the
matter overall. We take no position on her guilt or innocence. But we
have maintained since the trial back in 1996 that the proceedings did not
meet due process standards. And we will continue to express our concerns
regarding this matter to the government, as well as our hope, as I have
just said, for a just and expeditious resolution to this.
So we welcome today's development in terms of the legal matter, but our
concerns about Peruvian democracy remain unchanged. And as I indicated
with the OAS and other partners in the region, we will continue to press on
those.
QUESTION: Because the civilian court is seen as a much more open and
transparent body, do you think that the State Department will send -- or
the Embassy will send -- some representatives to view the trial, because
it's --
MR. REEKER: I know our consular officials always try to attend trials.
I don't know the specifics. Obviously we don't have a readout yet on what
the next steps are. It has simply been transferred to the prosecutor's
office, and they will determine the next steps. So it would be obviously
premature to speculate on what the next steps would be.
QUESTION: So in such cases where there is an American on trial in a
foreign country, will there be representatives to ensure that she has a
just and fair trial, and if they see that she's not, what are the proper
steps to take?
MR. REEKER: Well, my understanding is that Ms. Berenson has legal
representation in Peru, and obviously her legal representation is exactly
that. We would certainly monitor this trial, just as we monitored the
other one and highlighted our concerns in terms of the serious shortcomings
in terms of due process and international standards in that case.
But right now this first step has been taken and the case has been
transferred to the prosecutor's office, and they need to determine the
appropriate next steps. She remains in prison, and I am not aware of any
specific plans for what the next step will be.
Anything further on this? Peru? Berenson?
QUESTION: Should I take it from what you just said that you have no
information on when the trial is likely, or could start, or whether she is
going to be transferred to Lima?
MR. REEKER: My understanding, again, is that Ms. Berenson remains in
prison in Peru, where she has been, and that the case has been transferred
from the military court system to the civilian court system, but that the
step for doing that was to transfer the case to the prosecutor's office,
and that they need to determine the next steps. So I am not aware of the
next step. But as I said, we see this as a first step, which we are
pleased with, but we want to see what is going to happen next.
QUESTION: Do you have an update on an explosion in Cape Town near the US
Consulate?
MR. REEKER: Yes.
QUESTION: Any Americans injured, or what do you think it is from, et
cetera, et cetera?
MR. REEKER: No, I don't believe there were any Americans involved or
injured in that. We are aware of a bombing. We have been in touch with
our consulate in Cape Town. We are following developments there, just as
all of you are. I think the details will have to come from the police and
South African authorities there in Cape Town, who are conducting, as I
understand it, an investigation.
The car bomb, as it appears to be -- the blast occurred a couple of blocks
away from the American Consulate in Cape Town, South Africa. But we have
absolutely no reason to believe that this was directed against the US
Consulate, and so I just don't want to speculate about targets or reasons.
It is obviously something that the local police there are handling. And
for details, we would have to refer to them.
QUESTION: Can I ask another Peruvian question?
MR. REEKER: Sure.
QUESTION: One face-saving scenario is Berenson getting a guilty verdict
in a civilian court with a sentence of the time already served or a
suspended sentence. Is that something the State Department would be
content with?
MR. REEKER: I just can't speculate on what the next steps are. I have
described for you our pleasure with this decision by the military court.
It is something that we have been pushing for nearly five years in terms of
maintaining that the trial proceedings didn't meet due process standards.
And as I said, the case has been transferred to the prosecutor's office,
and they have to determine appropriate next steps.
We are going to monitor this extremely closely, as we have all this time.
But I think that is really as far as we can go until there is something
more to actually comment on.
QUESTION: Phil, yesterday, a Mexican judge gave a sentence of seven and
ten years to a human rights activist, one of those who receive international
- (inaudible) - because he -- (inaudible) -- favor of the Mexicans. Do you
have any reaction to those?
MR. REEKER: I don't. I'm afraid I am not even aware of the case, so it
is one that if you want to give us the details, I can try to have the Human
Rights Bureau look into, or the Western Hemisphere Affairs Bureau.
QUESTION: And quickly, a Senior State Department was supposed to give to
the foreign media the agenda - the objectives - of the US about the
Millennium Summit in New York. Do you have - it was canceled. Do you have
any --
MR. REEKER: No, I believe there were some scheduling problems, and we
still hope to have, at the Foreign Press Center, what we call a "scene-
setter" in terms of talking about US objectives, and some of the things. I
think, with the President traveling obviously, they just may not have had
the staff - the people that were preparing for that. So watch the schedule
at the Foreign Press Center. And we will also try to have other briefings
in anticipation of next week's Millennium Summit, and the UN General
Assembly generally.
QUESTION: The Greek Minister of Public Order, Mikhail Khrisokhoidhis,
will be in town next week to sign with your government the well-known
Protocol of Cooperation against terrorism in Greece. Do you have anything
on that, or any comment?
MR. REEKER: I don't have anything on that. And so I will turn to my
colleagues, who can see me in the camera in the European Bureau, to look
into that, and also in our Counter-Terrorism Office, and we will look into
it.
QUESTION: The Cyprus Talks will take place finally in New York City
September 12th due to the point that the Turkish Cypriot Leader again is
undermining the whole process, and the Greek side already protested today
to the UNFICYP.
MR. REEKER: A slight editorial comment. (Laughter.) I don't --
QUESTION: You should be aware of what is going on. Nobody knows.
MR. REEKER: I don't have anything specific. I would refer you to the
United Nations for details on the Cyprus Talks. We have always agreed that
we won't comment on those talks, and I don't have any details on when the
talks were resuming, or what the status of those talks is.
QUESTION: When would you plan to release your annual report on
religion?
MR. REEKER: Our Annual Report on Religious Freedom I expect to be
released on Tuesday. But we will certainly put out a notice to the press
to allow you ample time for that. It is an annual report that has a
specific time frame in terms of reporting to Congress, and then obviously
making available public copies of that.
QUESTION: After the -- (inaudible) --
MR. REEKER: That is the date that we are looking at. I just don't have
any specific details for you. We will certainly get back to you on that
and expect to provide you with copies and a full briefing on that.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the concerns voiced yesterday by
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, in the Washington Office of
Latin America, about the fact that the human rights of conditions have been
waived - actually the conditions imposed by Congress, in connection with
the military aid being sent to Colombia? This is seen as a green light
being given to the government to continue its --
MR. REEKER: First, I think we addressed it in great deal when the
announcements were made last week, but let me just say that the challenges
faced by Colombia are a matter of national security interest to the United
States. We have certainly discussed that at great length.
Our assistance package is crucial to maintaining our counter-drug efforts
there, and to helping the Colombian Government and people to preserve
Colombia's democracy. Moreover, the United States has important interest
in promoting economic reform, protection of US citizens, hemispheric
stability, all of which are addressed by our support for Colombia, and by
our financial support through Plan Colombia.
Human rights, as we have made very clear here, is a central issue in our
bilateral relations with Colombia, and we are going to continue to engage
with the Colombians - with the Government of Colombia on the concrete
measures that that government should take to meet the certification
conditions, and to improve its human rights performance.
We continue to press the Government of Colombia to achieve tangible results
in these areas, and we are going to carry out a continuing series of
consultations with the nongovernmental organization community regarding
human rights and humanitarian issues in Colombia. I think we have always
seen such discussions, which we have had on an ongoing basis for a long
time, as a very positive exchange of ideas which truly help to advance our
mutual desire to assist Colombia in improving its human rights environment.
As a number of people noted last week, we feel that the government of
President Pastrana is making a very good faith effort to pursue that, and
we are going to continue to work very closely with them on that.
QUESTION: You said you are going to continue to consult with the groups
like she mentioned. They - yesterday, in the press conference - gave us a
document that was given to the State Department, and they are very
disappointed with the answer they get to that report.
MR. REEKER: That is their right to be but, as I just told you now, our
position hasn't changed on that. We take human rights as a central issue
in our bilateral relationship with Colombia, and we are going to continue
to make that a major focus of our relationship and indeed our aid and
support for Colombia.
QUESTION: They give the name of five specific generals that are working
now in Colombia that they have concerns about their relations with human
rights' abusers, like the paramilitaries. Have you given any advice to the
Pastrana government about the activities of these five generals?
MR. REEKER: I am not aware of the list. I am not aware of specific
individuals. That is obviously part of the reason for our dialogue with
these organizations, and why we find it extremely useful. And it is
something that we have done, not just on Colombia, but on many, many
countries, and many, many issues, particularly in terms of human rights.
So those dialogues are useful; the information they can provide us is
useful. It is the kind of thing we follow up on, but I just don't have the
specifics on it. What I can tell you is that we take this very seriously.
This is a central issue in our bilateral relationship with Colombia. It
obviously will be a major factor in our relationship as we continue to
support Colombia with our assistance package, and the counter-narcotics
efforts, and all of these issues which are really an important matter of
national security interest to the United States.
QUESTION: Did this building - are you aware of this building having any
involvement in the arrest the other day, or yesterday, of this German neo-
nazi in West Virginia?
MR. REEKER: I am not. I saw the report and photograph in some of the
local papers, but I am not aware of that. I think you would want to talk
to the Justice Department or law enforcement agencies.
Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:40 P.M.)
|
