1 U.S. Contributes $33 Million Toward Refugee Emergencies Worldwide
1-2 We are still awaiting response as to whether the Palestinians
accept the President's ideas as a basis for further negotiations/
Contact With Palestinians
3-5 Support From Leaders in Area & President Putin/ Secretary
Albright's Telephone Conversations With her Counterparts/ Prime
Minister Barak's Decision not to Travel to Sharm al-Sheikh/
Incentives Given by the United States/Who Committed Terrorist
Attacks
6-8 Israelis have said that they would accept the President's proposals
if the Palestinians do the same/ Ultimately, we are still awaiting
responses from both sides/ Prime Minister Barak's Decision/
Parameters About Refugees
8-9 The President is not going to North Korea/We are not aware of
anybody traveling to North Korea
9-12 Editorial Criticizing the State Department and American
administration for not doing enough for American children that were
kidnapped/ The depth of our efforts was not accurately depicted
13 Arrest of American Citizen in Jerusalem for Vandalizing the Western
Wall
13-15 Visit of Defense Minister Sergeyev to Iran/ Russian-Iranian
Military Cooperation
15-17 Threat Levels Abroad/ Embassy Rangoon will be closed to the public
on Friday/ The American Embassy Kathmandu urges American citizens
to exercise extreme caution/ Travel Warning for Indonesia
17 The Press Office is open tomorrow for normal business hours/
Availability of Press Duty Officer
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB # 130
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2000 1:15 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. REEKER: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome back to the State
Department this Thursday. This will be our final regular press briefing for
this year, 2000. I suppose this is the final briefing for the millennium,
depending on how you count it, but I won't get into that discussion.
Following the briefing there is a written statement that I am putting out
discussing our contribution of $33 million towards refugee emergencies
worldwide. There are several places in the world of great concern to us
right now, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, the Middle
East, Serbia, the North Caucasus and Afghanistan, and President Clinton
authorized the use of $33 million in US emergency assistance funds to meet
some unexpected needs for refugees there.
And that would be my only announcement. I will be happy to take the
questions, and since there is no one from the Associated Press, I would be
happy to defer to our esteemed colleague from Reuters or whoever wants to
begin.
QUESTION: Is there anything you can add to what the President just said
about the Middle East in terms of -- I assume you're still waiting for a
response from the Palestinians, considering you -- describing the reply
that they sent yesterday to be something of a non-response to the ideas
suggested?
MR. REEKER: Yes, obviously one of the reasons that I delayed coming out
was to make sure everyone had an opportunity to hear the President's
remarks. And generally I found the President to be very definitive on these
issues, and so we will leave you to review those remarks.
But as the President indicated -- and I can reiterate from here -- we are
still awaiting a definitive response to the question in terms of an
indication whether the Palestinians accept the President's ideas as a basis
for further negotiations. And that is where we stand at this point.
QUESTION: But are you getting impatient at all, or is this something that
you didn't really -- I mean, people have been bandying about Wednesday as a
deadline, but I take it that really wasn't a formal deadline.
MR. REEKER: Well, I never heard anybody discussing specifically deadlines
other than in media reports. The Israelis have said publicly that they
would accept the President's proposals as a basis for further negotiations
if the Palestinians did. So really, as the President said, we are waiting
for a definitive response from them on that, and we will see then where we
can move forward.
QUESTION: But obviously time is of the essence here. You would prefer
that response sooner rather than later, yes?
MR. REEKER: Well, I think that is what the President indicated. Everybody
is aware of a variety of deadlines, as it were, and so we need to wait for
a definitive response from them on that issue and then we will see where we
can move ahead.
QUESTION: Well, has anyone like Dennis or someone like that been in touch
with the Palestinians and told them to get the lead out on this?
MR. REEKER: I am not aware of any particular phone calls. I know there
has been regular contact with the parties. As you know, we had a letter
from the Palestinians that we received through our consulate yesterday.
That letter raised some questions and concerns about the core issues but
failed to indicate if the Palestinians accept the President's ideas, as the
President discussed, in terms of the parameters for further negotiations
and discussions. So that is what we are waiting for. I am sure those in the
region have also seen the President's comments, and we will just stand by
that.
QUESTION: So is there any effort being made to respond to the questions
that the Palestinians raised?
MR. REEKER: I think in terms of the process, the Palestinians' letter
raised questions and concerns about some of the core issues. The President
said just a few moments ago that they know what the parameters are, and
that is what we need the answer to. He said that there is no point in
talking further unless both sides agree to accept the parameters.
And as the President also indicated, he has listened for eight years now to
the issues. We are dealing with the most difficult of all issues on this
most difficult issue, and there needs to be a basic framework to move
ahead. And as the President also said, it is not going to get any easier.
We will do what they want. The President and Secretary Albright have both
pledged, as we have discussed, to do whatever they can through their time
in office, through January 20th, to help this process, but this is the
parties' process and so we need to wait for a response to see if there is a
basis then to move ahead.
QUESTION: So if were well done or well -- what was that line from
Macbeth? That you want it done quickly, basically, yes?
MR. REEKER: Listen, I think I will just let what the President said
stand. We are belaboring a point here, Matt.
QUESTION: No, I know. But you just hinted at some kind of impatience,
though, saying that the President has listened to these issues for eight
years.
MR. REEKER: That is what the President said.
QUESTION: Yeah, exactly. So you want them to answer now. You wanted their
answer yesterday, right?
MR. REEKER: We are waiting for their answer.
QUESTION: Phil, in view of the fact that you have spent eight years on it,
it seems like it's a little late in the game to get huffy and say, "If you
don't want to talk to us, we won't pay attention to you."
MR. REEKER: I don't think I have indicated any particular huffiness here,
Norm. I don't think the President did either. I think you all have
statements from President Clinton, and that is really what I am referring
you to to tell you where we stand on this in terms of updates. So I'm not
trying to write your own stories for you, but I think there is plenty for
you to use to write those stories.
QUESTION: What kind of support did the President get from the leaders in
the area -- President Mubarak, King Fahd, King Abdallah? What kind of
specific -- did they say that they will try to sway Arafat to accept the
deals?
MR. REEKER: The President has spoken with President Mubarak, with King
Abdallah of Jordan, with King Fahd and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi
Arabia, as well as with President Putin of Russia, to discuss the current
situation there. All have expressed support for the President's efforts and
have pledged to do what they can to move the process forward.
Secretary Albright has also been very much involved in this in terms of
telephone conversations with her counterparts, including Russian Foreign
Minister Ivanov, Mr. Solana from the European Union, and a variety of other
foreign ministers in the region and in other interested countries.
QUESTION: Over the weekend?
MR. REEKER: That has been from the weekend and this week. She has been
very much involved.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- the cancellation of the summit in Sharm el
Sheikh that was planned for today?
MR. REEKER: Well, I think again Prime Minister Barak decided not to
travel to Sharm el Sheikh, and you can let Prime Minister Barak give you
his reasons for why he didn't travel there. The President mentioned that
the bus bombing incident certainly made it difficult for him to travel,
given that he had to deal with that.
The issue is not an issue of who has met with whom; the issue is our focus
remaining on the Bolling peace talks and receiving the definitive responses
that we are waiting for from the parties.
We certainly appreciate Egypt's continued efforts and constructive efforts
in the process. As I mentioned, President Clinton has spoken with President
Mubarak. We are hopeful that President Mubarak's efforts can assist us in
moving forward, so we will continue to wait and see where we go.
QUESTION: If I may get some clarification about the sweeteners of the
deal for the Israelis and the Palestinians, what kind of incentive did the
United States give?
MR. REEKER: As you know, we have not been discussing the details of the
discussions or specific proposals, and I am not about to begin doing that
now.
QUESTION: Mubarak's participation seems to be fairly clear. What are
either of the Abdallahs or Fahd doing to help you out in this?
MR. REEKER: Well, I would refer you to them for what they are doing. As I
indicated, the President has spoken with them, the Secretary has spoken
with her counterparts in those countries, and they have been supportive
certainly of our efforts on this process and have pledged to do what they
can to move the process forward. In terms of their individual diplomacy, I
would have to let them speak for themselves.
QUESTION: The last time that Crown Prince Abdullah appeared in public, he
was raising funds to treat Palestinian victims of the Intifada, which he
spoke rather scathingly about the way they got them.
MR. REEKER: Well, what I can tell you, Norm, is what I just said: that
President Clinton spoke by telephone with those leaders from the region,
and all have expressed support for the President's efforts and have pledged
to do what they can to move the process forward. I think I have described
where we are right now on this process, and I don't think there is
particularly much I can add to that.
QUESTION: On the Secretary's phone calls, she has been doing this while
she has been on holiday; is that what you were saying?
MR. REEKER: Right, exactly.
QUESTION: Do you know if she has talked to anyone today?
MR. REEKER: I don't have an exact readout of when specific calls were
made, but she is making them continually. So I just am not in a position to
tell you which ones today.
QUESTION: Can you --
MR. REEKER: I would be happy to check further if we can get --
QUESTION: But can you just find out when she did speak with Ivanov and
Solana?
MR. REEKER: I think some of those have been numerous times since we last
reported on this last week.
QUESTION: I'm sorry. If I understand correctly, you say these Arab
leaders support the President's efforts. I think you used that phrase.
MR. REEKER: They have all expressed support for the President's efforts
and have pledged to do what they can to move the process forward.
QUESTION: So would I be correct in inferring that you are not claiming
that they support the framework, as you described it today; they support
his efforts to get a framework?
MR. REEKER: I can't speak for those individuals, Barry. What I can tell
you is in terms of the phone calls the President had with these leaders. I
was not a part of those phone calls. Normally we don't discuss necessarily
specifics of the President's conversations with other foreign leaders. But,
in general, they all expressed support for the President's effort.
I think we have discussed at great length the efforts we made, the
willingness we have to do whatever we can to support the peace process, to
move this forward. There is a historic opportunity now. As the President
said, it is not going to get easier. We would like to see this move forward
in everyone's interest, and that is what we are waiting to do.
QUESTION: On those two incidents, does the US have any idea who committed
the attacks at this point?
MR. REEKER: Well, first of all, let me reiterate again that we strongly
condemn these terrorist attacks that took place today, and in fact condemn
all violence in the region. The President said that himself. Certainly the
incidents remind us of the alternative to peace and remind us that there
are those who seek to destroy the peace process through acts of terror. And
it is very much time for all those who believe in peace to stand together
to stop this violence and to work against the terrorists.
I don't want to speculate at this point on who was behind the terrorist
incident. We have to make sure all the facts are established. But obviously
any violence of this kind is tragic, and we strongly condemn it. So we
continue to make clear that the Palestinian Authority has obligations to
carry out its commitments, particularly the fight against terrorism, to
apprehend and prosecute and punish those involved in terrorist acts. There
is no excuse, no justification, for any other course of action or for this
kind of violence.
And I will note in anticipation of some questions that our consular
officials are still contacting local hospitals, but at this point our
understanding is that no Americans were involved in these tragic incidents.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- is reporting this morning that 40 questions were
posed to Clinton by Barak and 24 by Arafat concerning the plan. My question
would be: Is there someone here who is dealing with those questions and
responding to them on a planning level, or is it just --
MR. REEKER: Again, Gene, I think the fundamental point is what the
President raised: that there is no point in talking more further unless
both sides have agreed to accept the parameters of this. So what we are
waiting for is the response, definitive response that they accept these
parameters and can move forward, and then we can talk about additional
things. So I just don't have specifics on who may be looking at that. We
are waiting for the responses, and that is the bottom line.
QUESTION: A clear indication that they -- of parameters are the things
that they are questioning.
MR. REEKER: The President was very clear in saying both sides know what
we are talking about; they need to respond as to whether they want to move
forward.
QUESTION: But you feel that you've gotten a definitive response from the
Israelis?
MR. REEKER: Well, as I said, the Israelis have said publicly that they
would accept the President's proposals as a basis for further negotiation
if the Palestinians do the same.
QUESTION: Does that satisfy --
MR. REEKER: So, ultimately, we are still awaiting definitive responses
from both sides. Clearly the Palestinians need to make some indication so
that then both sides can give us their definitive response.
QUESTION: I don't want to --
MR. REEKER: You don't want to belabor the point?
QUESTION: Well, I mean, what are you looking for? Are you looking for a
letter that specifically says, "Yes, we agree"?
MR. REEKER: I think we can take a response in a number of ways. I think
we will know the correct response when we get it. It is a question of
definitively we accept these parameters; we want to move ahead. And then we
can talk about the next steps.
QUESTION: But so, to your mind, the Israelis have not yet either
responded definitively?
MR. REEKER: I can't make it any clearer, Matt. They have said publicly
that they would accept these proposals if the Palestinians did. The
Palestinians have not said that. And so, ultimately, we are awaiting
definitive responses from both sides.
QUESTION: Would you expect the Israelis to say we accept the proposals
even if the Palestinians don't accept them? I mean, how could they be more
definitive than to say count us in if the other guy is in as well? I mean,
why --
MR. REEKER: I don't see what the question is.
QUESTION: No, I don't see why the Administration is making it seem as if
there were two -- the two parties are both equally unresponsive.
MR. REEKER: I don't think I did, Barry. I think I was extremely --
QUESTION: Well, I mean --
MR. REEKER: The Israelis have said publicly --
QUESTION: They've said we'll go with it.
MR. REEKER: -- we'll go with this if the other side goes with this.
QUESTION: Well, what do you want them to say?
MR. REEKER: So I think we're looking --
QUESTION: If Germany and France go with it? I mean, they've said we'll go
with it.
MR. REEKER: Correct, Barry. So we're looking for an indication from
the
Palestinians --
QUESTION: I know.
MR. REEKER: -- that they also want to deal with this.
QUESTION: It's the evenhanded approach to all this that baffles me. One
says no -- one says yes and the other one says no, and you see them as
equally unresponsive.
MR. REEKER: I don't think that's what I indicated at all, Barry.
QUESTION: Well, I don't mean you. I mean the Administration.
MR. REEKER: So I disagree with your little statement there. You get it on
the record. I think I was very clear in what we are waiting for.
QUESTION: The President also said that he believed that it was the
bombings this morning that prevented Barak from -- or making Barak decide
that he didn't want to go to the summit. But is that an accurate timeline?
Didn't they decide last night that they weren't going to hold a summit?
MR. REEKER: You would have to ask Mr. Barak. It was not a summit that we
were organizing. It was not a summit that we were participating in. So I
think you -- I believe it took place -- the meeting in Sharm el Sheikh
between Chairman Arafat and President Mubarak took place today, that is
Thursday, in Sharm el Sheikh. And so in terms of Mr. Barak's decisions, you
would really need to address that to him.
QUESTION: Well, the President spoke about it, so that's why --
MR. REEKER: Exactly.
QUESTION: It wasn't communicated to the State Department or to the US why
-- when Mr. Barak made his decision and why?
MR. REEKER: Not that I am aware of, and I just don't have anything
further. That would be something for Israeli officials to describe to
you.
QUESTION: Could you tell us what is in the parameters about the refugees?
There is understanding that --
MR. REEKER: I think I already had said that we are not going to get into
specifics or discussions of the talks or the specific proposals or the
details.
QUESTION: Yeah, but is there any effort to consider the situation in
Syria and Lebanon where millions of --
MR. REEKER: Let me just stand by the answer I just gave you, because it
is not going to change, okay? We are not going to discuss the details of
those things. The sides know what is being discussed, and they need to
respond to let us know if they are ready and willing to move forward.
Anything else on this subject?
QUESTION: North Korea. The President is not going, he said today.
MR. REEKER: Right.
QUESTION: Could you help and tell us how -- I assume the US policy hasn't
changed, and he suggested it hasn't changed. What is it in the 20 -- I
don't know, what -- 27 or 24 days the Administration has left that will be
done to pursue this policy of reconciliation in North Korea? Can you hit
some of the high spots?
MR. REEKER: I don't think really, Barry, I can add anything beyond the
statement that the President made. He addressed it a little bit, but there
was a formal statement, written statement, put out by the White House. And
if you look at that, you will see a little more detail there.
I do not believe -- I am not aware of any travel plans, and the President
indicated this was simply a lack of time to prepare adequately for such a
trip that really was the determining factor in his decision not to travel
to North Korea.
QUESTION: So you're not going to put out a statement?
MR. REEKER: No. We can get you a copy if you would like one from --
QUESTION: Perhaps it doesn't answer this question, so let me try. Is
anybody from the State Department going to go to North Korea?
MR. REEKER: What I just said was I was not aware of anybody traveling to
North Korea.
QUESTION: Oh, I thought you meant the White House. All right, okay.
QUESTION: New subject?
MR. REEKER: Please. Anything else on North Korea?
QUESTION: There was an editorial in The Washington Post today criticizing
the State Department and American administration in general for not doing
enough for American children that were kidnapped.
MR. REEKER: Right. I did see that editorial, and in fact I saw the
article, I believe, over the weekend in The Washington Post regarding the
issue of international parental child abduction, which is something we have
discussed here on numerous occasions.
Let me just say that we were extremely disappointed by both the article and
the editorial, neither of which accurately depicts the depth and seriousness
of our efforts in these cases. I think, in fact, both the article and
today's editorial inaccurately characterize our efforts in these cases. The
Department, and in particular the Consular Affairs Bureau, place a great
deal of emphasis on successful resolution of these cases. And the
accusations made in the editorial today, most especially that we somehow
treat these cases with indifference or worse, completely -- are completely
groundless accusations.
The implication, I think, in the article that somehow The Washington Post
stories that date back many months on this subject -- it was earlier in
this year when we first discussed this based on some articles in the paper -
- that somehow these stories pushed us to take a more proactive approach on
this are ludicrous and ultimately self-serving.
As we have discussed before, the staff of the Consular Affairs Bureau,
particularly the Office of Children's Issues, has nearly tripled in the
last three years, an effort that began well before The Washington Post even
discovered that international child abduction existed, and we regret that
the Post has consistently been unable or unwilling to take a fair and more
honest approach to this very serious topic. We have had briefings on this
for you; we have discussed it from here.
I will just point out that some of the interviews that are cited in the
article that appeared over the weekend with officials from the Consular
Affairs Bureau took place over six months ago, and so in terms of updating
those stories, they also refer to a General Accounting Office report that
is equally outdated.
And a number of things I think were also quoted completely out of context
in those articles. One case cited in the newspaper article has been
resolved. The child is home in the US with her father, explicitly through
the close cooperation of the Department of State and the FBI. So that, I
guess, is basically my response to that. We take each and every case very --
QUESTION: Why don't you just say -- (inaudible) -- ?
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Phil, the last time someone from this podium delivered this
kind of an attack on a newspaper, the New York Times was the target and it
had to do with a story on Bosnia. I am wondering, are you asking the Post
for an apology?
MR. REEKER: I don't think that is what I said.
QUESTION: I know that's not what you said, but do you want an apology? I
mean, do you think they will --
MR. REEKER: Look. There was an editorial printed today, there was an
article over the weekend that we think is inaccurate. We provided them
information in terms of interviews with senior officials. Some of those
took place over six months ago, and clearly things have changed. There is a
number of developments that we have discussed, and certainly information
that we have made available to the journalist involved and would obviously
be available to editors at The Washington Post on this issue, which were
ignored.
What we are asking for is a more fair, balanced treatment of this issue.
The suggestion that we just are indifferent or treat these cases with
indifference is groundless, and I think you are all aware of that.
QUESTION: Well -- (inaudible) -- ?
MR. REEKER: That is up to The Washington Post. I am not suggesting that.
You simply asked for our response to that editorial, or your colleague did,
and that is what I am trying to outline to you. And I think all of you that
are here on a regular basis and cover issues from the briefing room in a
day-to-day manner know that we have discussed these issues and how
seriously we take cases of international parental child abduction and do
everything we legally can to assist the parents in getting their children
returned.
Sometimes we are limited by US or international law. Parents often become
frustrated with those limitations and view them as some sort of political
reticence on our part, and that is simply not the case. We understand the
frustrations of these absolutely tragic cases, and indeed we have taken
great steps in the last three years to address this and identified it as an
issue that needs to be addressed and something that we place as a high,
high priority.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- the stigma of taking this up with the Post in
any other way except for --
MR. REEKER: I am not particularly aware of that. As I said, we tried to
work extensively with journalists who were covering the issue more broadly
over a long period of time. We had some meetings. In terms of the editorial,
obviously that just appeared today, and frankly this is in response to your
questions that I am saying this.
QUESTION: One of the reasons the Post may have made some of these claims
to have influenced the behavior of the State Department was an instance
that we saw actually happen in front of us when they wrote this article on
the case of the German father Joseph Cook, and then the German Foreign
Minister was visiting, read the article, we asked about it as a briefing,
and Secretary Albright took it up with him.
Do you think that this commission that was set up between the two
presidents would have happened -- or I should say Prime Minister and
President -- would have happened had this not come to such a visible level
during that visit?
MR. REEKER: Well, as I indicated, I think it is something that we have
been focusing more and more on, in the Bureau of Consular Affairs in
particular, particularly in the last three years as it has become a greater
problem. The Secretary of State and the Attorney General in October of last
year, '99, established a State-Justice senior policy group to enhance the
federal response to this issue of international parental child abduction.
And they have developed a comprehensive action plan to improve our efforts
about bringing these abducted children home. They established an interagency
working group to oversee implementation of this plan. And as I said, the
staff of the Office of Children's Issues here in the Department has tripled
in the last three years alone, so reducing the caseload that each case
officer has and allowing them to spend more time on individual cases.
Every consular section -- our embassies and consulates abroad -- has
designated a child abduction officer to coordinate efforts in these cases.
And as I said, we are working closely with the Justice Department because,
of course, the Department of State is not a law enforcement agency so the
Department of Justice is responsible for determining prosecutions as
well.
QUESTION: You wouldn't agree that that was a positive outcome also for
the State Department's office that the Germans saw that this was a case of
great public outrage and did help it?
MR. REEKER: I think it is absolutely crucial. I think we have a lot to be
gained by publicizing these issues, and certainly we want to help that.
That is why we discuss it from here. It is why we do raise these issues. It
is why people in the Consular Affairs Bureau, in the particular Children's
Issues Office, are willing to talk with reporters.
What I am trying to say is that what we see in these two more recent pieces
is a certain unfairness that we frankly didn't expect, and there were some
inaccuracies that we feel that we have to point out.
QUESTION: Well, I didn't see the story. In the editorial at least today,
there are some citations of some rather harsh language contained in State
Department cables about the parents of some of these children. Are those
accurate reflections of what these cables say?
MR. REEKER: In one case -- it is probably the one to which you are
referring that included -- it was not a cable. In fact, it was an email
that included some derogatory remarks. And I have absolutely no qualms in
saying that such remarks are absolutely inappropriate. Our Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Ambassador Maura Harty, made this
clear to the reporter during their June interview this past summer, and
expressed our sincere regret that such a comment had ever been made. The
person who made the comment, the officer, has been specifically counseled,
in fact, about remarks and reminded of the crucial importance of sensitivity
toward parents in these very difficult cases -- something that was pointed
out to the journalist in question.
Anything else? New subject?
QUESTION: An American businessman named Somkhit Vilavong seems to have
gone missing in Laos earlier this year, right about the same time the Lao
Government seized the assets of his gem mining operation. Do you have any
information about his whereabouts, whether he is okay, whether he is being
held or detained?
MR. REEKER: That is something I would have to check into. I am sorry, it
wasn't something that was on the top of my list today.
QUESTION: Okay. Could we get back to you about it?
MR. REEKER: If you could just make sure that we have the correct name and
spelling, I would be happy to check both with Consular Affairs and our East
Asia Bureau.
QUESTION: On Turkey, the Consul General of Istanbul and Adana, are they
open right now?
MR. REEKER: Yes. To my knowledge, they are. We got that question on
Tuesday, and I believe they are both open. Obviously there are holidays
involved in terms of Monday being a US holiday. [US Consulates Istanbul and
Adana are open for business, but closed for the holiday weekend.]
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the American in Israel arrested for
defacing areas of the Old City?
MR. REEKER: I am aware of the case. An American citizen was apparently
arrested this morning, Thursday morning, in Jerusalem, reportedly for
vandalizing the Western Wall in Jerusalem. We have not yet gained consular
access. We are trying that and expect probably tomorrow that we will do
that. So obviously without a Privacy Act waiver I am unable to make any
further comment on it, but it is something we are following up.
QUESTION: Well, is there a problem getting consular access or is --
MR. REEKER: I don't believe that was indicated.
QUESTION: Do you know his name?
MR. REEKER: I don't have a Privacy Act waiver, Gene, so I wouldn't be
able to verify any names.
QUESTION: You mentioned that both the President and the Secretary had
spoken with their Russian counterparts over the last couple days, but I'm
wondering, did they also discuss the visit of Defense Minister Sergeyev to
Iran and his -- and also -- well, I don't know if it happened, if they
called before this happened, but this morning Sergeyev and his Iranian
counterpart announced a brand new chapter in Russian-Iranian military
cooperation.
MR. REEKER: I don't have specifics on those phone calls as to what was
discussed. I know the Middle East was obviously the focus in terms of the
President's call, and I know the Secretary's call to her counterpart
Foreign Minister Ivanov.
Let me just say in terms of the visit of Russian Minister of Defense
Sergeyev to Iran and those comments today, we have made very clear our
views for some time now on arms sales to Iran, and we are particularly
disturbed by Russian press accounts that we have seen today of Defense
Minister Sergeyev's discussions with the Iranians which suggest that Russia
is ready to sell Iran missiles, submarines and other equipment which would
clearly place the national security interests of the United States, its
allies and friends in the region, at risk.
It is not sufficient for Russia to simply call this type of equipment
"defensive." Some of the equipment reportedly being discussed between the
Russian Minister of Defense and his Iranian counterpart would pose a
serious threat, and so calling it "defensive" is not going to diminish that
threat. And this is something obviously we will watch very closely and
continue to monitor.
QUESTION: Isn't this something that they were going to stop doing? Am I
wrong? I can't remember. Russia had taken some sort of a pledge a few weeks
ago.
MR. REEKER: Well, we have had discussions, Barry, at the experts level
following Secretary Albright's meeting with Foreign Minister Ivanov in
Vienna some weeks ago about this, and we are going to continue to discuss
this and continue to monitor these developments. I am simply responding to
what we saw as reports in terms of what has been reported out of Iran and
expressing our concern with those reports and what they would mean.
QUESTION: If the reports are true, are they reneging on a promise or just
doing the wrong thing, which is bad enough?
MR. REEKER: Well, you will recall that the Russians had indicated some
time ago that they were no longer participating in the aide memoire which
had been in place since 1995 and had quite successfully kept weapons from
going to Iran. We are continuing those discussions. As I said, we had the
expert talks and I know it is a subject that will continue into the future
in terms of addressing the concerns of both sides on that issue.
QUESTION: Would we be notified -- I don't know if we're going to have a
briefing tomorrow -- if the reports have been verified and, if possible,
whether the US got back to the Russians --
MR. REEKER: Well, again, the reports are of something that hasn't
occurred yet, and so for discussion of such things I think it is appropriate
now that we make clear our views that any sale of missiles, submarines and
other equipment is something that would place security interests at
risk.
QUESTION: I'm just wondering, if you found out that was indeed their
intention, could we be told?
MR. REEKER: Again, I don't think we are the ones that will be able to
define someone's intention. What we can do, Barry, is simply tell you our
position in response to what was reported as being --
QUESTION: Well, there will be contracts and presumably be a relationship
with Russia. You can say, "Have you people signed a deal like this?" And
they would either lie or tell you the truth.
MR. REEKER: I am not aware, Barry, that anything has been signed.
QUESTION: Can I just make sure that I understand this correctly? You're
saying you've seen these reports, but officials in this building have not
yet sought to clarify from Moscow whether those reports are accurate?
MR. REEKER: I just would have to check as to who has spoken with whom. I
mean, Defense Minister Sergeyev was in Iran. Things like wire services,
with which you are extremely familiar, have reported certain comments
attributed to him from Iran. And we are disturbed by those press accounts,
and I think I made clear why we would be disturbed by that.
QUESTION: When the Russians announced that they were pulling out of the
Gore-Chernomyrdin aide memoire, there was talk about how the Russians could
be subject to sanctions if they went ahead and sold more of these
weapons.
Is anyone in this building now kind of dusting off the sanctions book and
looking at --
MR. REEKER: I think that book stays dusted off all the time, Matt, so I
just -- again, I don't think we are --
QUESTION: Well, I realize --
MR. REEKER: We monitor this stuff very closely. We are prepared to take
action
that --
QUESTION: Do you know -- (inaudible) -- ?
MR. REEKER: I just would have to get you a briefing on that. It is not
just the kind of thing I have now. They are very much proscribed by law, I
believe.
QUESTION: This is just wondering if, ahead of New Year's Eve, what our
threat levels are abroad, if there are any closings. I mean, just comparing
to last year, as David Carpenter told us last week, things look very good.
I just want to know if that has been maintained.
MR. REEKER: I would first just refer you back to what Assistant Secretary
for Diplomatic Security David Carpenter --
QUESTION: Remember, he said it could change any hour.
MR. REEKER: Well, if you would let me finish the sentence, I can do that.
I am not aware of any broad change in the hours that have gone by since he
did that. He talked about Christmas, and I think the same goes for New
Year's, been a focal point of concern and a time when a number of Americans
are traveling overseas, when there are large gatherings of Americans for
parties and things. And this year is certainly no different than any
others.
I don't have any new cautions or anything to announce, other than that
Embassy Rangoon in Burma will be closed to the public on Friday -- that's
tomorrow -- in response to some security concerns. I believe they have sent
a Warden message to the American community there, and any American citizens
requiring emergency services should call the Embassy.
I don't have information to give you on specifics of these security
concerns, but the Embassy will be closed for an extra day leading into the
holiday weekend and is expected at this point to reopen for business on
Tuesday, the 2nd.
QUESTION: Kathmandu is closed today because of a holiday. Do you know if
it will reopen tomorrow? Do you happen to know?
QUESTION: Tomorrow is a holiday.
QUESTION: I thought today was the birthday.
QUESTION: Tomorrow is the -- (inaudible) --
QUESTION: All right, then I'm misinformed.
MR. REEKER: I believe in our Public Announcement --
QUESTION: I celebrate -- (inaudible) --
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: I'll take tomorrow off.
MR. REEKER: I will be happy to go to Barry's party for the King of
Nepal.
QUESTION: And you all, too.
(Laughter.)
MR. REEKER: As we noted, due to some serious civil unrest in Kathmandu
and other major metropolitan areas of Nepal, the Embassy was urging all
Americans to exercise extreme caution, avoid non-emergency travel. The
consular section was going to be open for emergency services only today.
The Embassy will be closed tomorrow for a previously scheduled local
holiday in observance of the King's birthday, and I would then expect them
to be open on Tuesday, the 2nd. I understand that the situation in
Kathmandu today was quiet.
QUESTION: Is there some kind of demonstration scheduled in Rangoon or
something like that?
MR. REEKER: I don't have details for you, Matt, on what the security
concern -- the specifics of that might be, other than that there were
concerns about security and they had decided to close the Embassy for
tomorrow.
QUESTION: But it's open -- or it was open today?
MR. REEKER: Yes. It's already nighttime there.
QUESTION: Right. And also in that same part of the world, there isn't
anything going on in Indonesia? There was a warning that was put out two
days ago, I guess, on that. I'm specifically talking about the Embassy,
though.
MR. REEKER: Right. I don't believe there are any specific plans. There
was a Travel Warning, which I thought I had a copy of with me, but we can
obviously get that for you. It's in the front of my book. There it is.
Travel Warning. There we go. A Travel Warning for Indonesia was issued on
Tuesday.
QUESTION: But the Embassy is open, no problem?
MR. REEKER: I believe the Embassy is open for business, but the Warning
stands.
QUESTION: Are you open for business from now till Tuesday? In other words,
is there a designated driver for New Year's?
MR. REEKER: The Press Office is of course open tomorrow for normal
business hours. And just as we do on every other holiday and holiday
weekend, there is a press duty officer that will be available, and we can
try to get you whatever help and assistance that you need as you celebrate
your New Year's. So, Barry, drive safely.
QUESTION: Happy New Year.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 P.M.)
