U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #128, 97-09-05
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1143
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Friday, September 5, 1997
Briefer: James B. Foley
MIDDLE EAST
1-2,13 Lebanon: conflict with Israel; peace negotiations and talks
2-5,8 Israel: details/aims of Israeli operation; April accords;
Israeli threat to invade Palestine; US assessment of
trilateral security coordination
14 Hamas and Islamic Jihad capture; Israeli closures; withholding
tax fund; reducing tension
5-6 Political climate; mass arrests of Palestinians; antiterrorism
bill
6-7 Albright's contact with Netanyahu, Arafat, Talbott; Ross
meeting with Palestinians
7-10 Status of the peace process; interim agreement
8 Northern Ireland peace process compared; Hamas and Islamic
Jihad as participants; extremist groups; military and
political arms
9-10,13 US support of Arafat; Albright's trip
NORTH KOREA
10 US-North Korea meeting; 4 party talks; missile talks
CUBA
11 Bombings; alleged US involvement
CYPRUS
12 US view of sovereignty; Turkish air space violations; RAP
system
TURKEY
12-13 arrest of pro-democracy advocates; US response
17 meeting with Turkish State Minister
BOSNIA
14-15 Plavsic's Ministers; Contact Group; US policy on Pale Serbs
16-17 NATO action in Brcko; opening the bridge; Pale compliance with
transmitter conditions
VIETNAM
17-18 Pham Kham, dissident released from jail
CAMBODIA
18-19 Abuse by Hun Sen's officials; UN report
RUSSIA
19 Lebed's charge of unaccounted for nuclear weapons
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #128
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1997, 12:44 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: I think we have a quorum. Barry, I have no announcements to
make.
QUESTION: All right, well, we just had a couple of Middle East folks stop
in the doorway and talk to us. One was the Lebanese ambassador, and he was
giving his version of what happened in Lebanon. One thing that was
interesting was the involvement of the Lebanese army, which doesn't happen
all the time. He said it was because the Israelis had infiltrated - he sort
of said they were planting bombs. Does the State Department have -
when you're done deploring the violence and all and appealing for restraint,
could you get to the second layer and tell us if the State Department has a
view as to Lebanon right - if that what it is - to defend its territory and
try to force the Israelis out?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, this has happened on previous occasions -
on many occasions, even. Our message is one of restraint. It is a very
delicate moment in the Middle East, throughout the Middle East - including
in Lebanon. We urge all the parties to exercise maximum restraint. We
cannot afford to see an escalation of the cycle of violence. We need a
diffusing of tensions in Southern Lebanon.
We understand that Israel launched this commando raid south of Sidon today.
The raid and subsequent fighting between Israeli forces and those belonging
to Hezbollah and the Amal Militia resulted in 12 Israeli soldiers
killed.
We've only seen press reports on the involvement of the Lebanese army.
According to those reports, the Lebanese army soldiers were wounded in an
Israeli air strike on their position. The ground fighting, however,
appeared to have involved Hezbollah and Amal guerrillas against the
IDF.
QUESTION: As far as the US knows, the Lebanese did not play an active
role in the combat?
MR. FOLEY: That's our understanding, yes.
QUESTION: So I guess it's academic to ask you what you think about the
Lebanese role. Do you still feel that Lebanon can take care of South
Lebanon and police it well enough so that the Israelis should go home?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, we look forward to the day -- and we hope
it's an early day - when Lebanon is able to assert control and maintain its
sovereignty over the length and breadth of its territory. We are constantly
urging the parties involved to return to the negotiating table to ensure
that these examples of violence are eliminated; that the dispute - the main
kernel of the dispute is settled; and that Lebanon is able, as I said,
to enjoy the full sovereignty.
QUESTION: Who are the parties involved - that should go to the table?
MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry, in terms of the recent fighting?
QUESTION: Well, you said the parties involved should return to the table
to resolve the fighting in South Lebanon. Who are the parties involved?
MR. FOLEY: I think it's no secret that the problems in Lebanon are
connected to the overall issue of Syrian-Israeli relations. As you know,
the Secretary on her upcoming trip to the region, will be visiting
Damascus. We've discussed over the last two days, obviously, the Palestinian
and Israeli angle. But her trip does indeed have a broader focus. We do
hope that we will be able to see eventually a resumption of negotiations.
QUESTION: But the ambassador speaks of two different phases. He spoke of
the overall negotiations and was quite clear that that position remains
that Lebanon is awaiting or wants to see a comprehensive arrangement. But
so far, Israel getting out of there, he seemed to say that negotiations - I
suppose he'd rather have unilateral withdrawal - but negotiations could
begin separately and apart from the whole set of talks. I don't know
if the US supports that. I don't know that I've ever heard that. And who
would negotiate?
MR. FOLEY: Barry, I didn't see his comments. We'd have to get them, and
our experts would have to sit down and analyze them. So I really couldn't
comment on that.
QUESTION: Who did he see, by the way? He was very --
MR. FOLEY: I'd have to get that for you. I imagine he saw senior
officials in our Middle East Bureau, NEA.
Yes.
QUESTION: Have you got any explanation from the Israeli Government on
this operation and what was the aim of this operation?
MR. FOLEY: No. This was, obviously, an operation that has just taken
place today, the details of which are still unclear. We may have had
contact with the Israeli Government in Israel, through our embassy, but I
don't have a read-out of that. So it's impossible to say from this podium,
at this point, what the Israeli intentions were.
QUESTION: Two questions. The ambassador also sort of hinted that the
Israeli soldiers might have blown themselves up, if you can bring any light
to that. And secondly, is this type of operation, this infiltration and
booby trap operation, a violation of the April accords that Secretary
Christopher brokered?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I believe that the accords - I have to be careful here,
because I don't have the text before me - but I believe they obliged the
parties, and in this case Israel, not to fire weapons at civilians or at
civilian targets in Lebanon. As to whether the Monitoring Group has a role
to play or might be seized, that would depend on the parties. If any party
wished to bring it to the group, that would be convened
Your other question was one that I can't answer, though, because, again,
the details are still just coming in.
QUESTION: Okay. So it's not, in this building's mind, what happened - the
Israeli operation is not a clear violation of the April accords?
MR. FOLEY: We're not in a position to characterize the operation right
now. All that I can say, and I think the important point to underline, is
really the need to prevent this latest cycle of violence from escalating
any further. We need maximum restraint on all parties. It's a very delicate
moment throughout the Middle East.
Talal.
QUESTION: Israel is threatening to go into the Palestinian areas and
arrest about 200 people. Are you counseling them against it?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I've not seen any specific report to that effect. We
really are not in the habit, as you know, of answering hypothetical
questions, and I'm certainly not going to get into that one. However, I can
only emphasize what we've been stating from this podium for weeks now, and
which I reiterated yesterday, which is that we expect the Palestinian
Authority to do its utmost. We look for 100 percent effort, including
unilateral measures, to root out and destroy the terrorist infrastructure
in those territories.
Yes.
QUESTION: Saeb Erakat says they are already making 100 percent effort --
those were his words when he came out of here - and they already have zero
tolerance for terrorism. He suggests that the trilateral security
coordination is sufficient.
MR. FOLEY: We don't share that assessment.
QUESTION: Well, he says the State Department is -- I don't know if he
qualified it - satisfied or mostly satisfied, I think he said, with --
mostly satisfied with their exerting --
MR. FOLEY: I stated --
QUESTION: -- exerting 100 percent effort.
MR. FOLEY: I stated yesterday that, when asked in connection with the
Secretary's upcoming trip to the region, that in the wake of Ambassador
Ross' last visit to the region and the establishment of the security
mechanism in which we have been participating, that we believe there had
been some progress on security cooperation.
Now, that is one determination. But the Secretary of State, in her remarks
in Prague yesterday, made clear that what we're looking for are unilateral
actions on the part of the Palestinian Authority that we haven't seen
Yes.
QUESTION: This Israeli demand that the Palestinians have a massive round-
up of suspects - Mr. Erakat said that would be unconstitutional - my word,
not his - trample on the human rights of Palestinians; and it was
unreasonable for them to - for Israel to ask them to do that. Do you share
the view that there should be more organized, kind of due process rounding
up of Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Or do you think, as the Israelis say, they
should just go in and clean house?
MR. FOLEY: I think the Palestinians have as great an interest as anyone
in the Middle East in seeing a peace process that is on track and that is
heading towards successful resolution of the major political issues and
problems at play. As we have stated, security is a central element of this
whole equation. It has to be going hand in hand with hopes for political
progress. It is in the supreme interest of the Palestinian Authority and
the Palestinian people that 100 percent efforts be undertaken to root out
this problem.
I think this is a compelling interest on the part of the Palestinian
Authority, and I think I wouldn't say any more.
QUESTION: Just to follow up a little bit on this, Arafat said that the
closures Israel made after the first bombing in withholding the tax fund
created an environment of fanaticism for maybe this to happen a second
time. How do you respond to that? And is there -- we've talked a lot about
what the Palestinians need to do; obviously, security and beefing up,
cracking down on terrorists. But is there anything that Israelis could do
to reduce tensions? I know that this is sort of a delicate moment,
but thinking ahead?
MR. FOLEY: Well, if you're taking a snapshot today, we're 24 hours
removed from another horrible bombing in Israel that claimed the lives of
innocent civilians and wounded nearly 200 civilians. It won't surprise you
if we're focusing almost exclusively on that issue today. As I've said
before, it's not an issue that's going to go away. It will be uppermost in
the Secretary's agenda on her trip - especially in Israel and when she
visits the Palestinian Authority.
QUESTION: And responding to Arafat's comments? Could you just --
MR. FOLEY: Well, I can only repeat what I said yesterday, which is that
terrorism is completely unjustified. I was asked a question yesterday about
a bombing in Havana. And of course I gave the same answer - we condemn
terrorism anywhere it takes place in the world; there's no justification
for it.
As I think the Secretary stated clearly in her speech on August 6, there's
no moral equivalency between bombs and bulldozers, I think was her comment
in that context. So although we expressed our differences with the Israeli
Government over certain of the measures that they undertook in the wake of
the July 30 bombing that we felt impacted negatively on the daily lives of
Palestinians - and we think it's important that the Palestinians be able
to go about in their daily lives and lead normal lives, and this
is a critical element also in the peace process - nevertheless, we
understood those measures taken by Israel which were directly targeted
towards meeting their urgent security needs in the wake of the bombings.
QUESTION: Jim, could I --
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: -- Sid's question. Yesterday, the Secretary, and I think you
also, spoke about the necessity of creating a proper political climate
where terrorism would not be fostered. Do you think that mass arrests
without formal charges would create the right political climate, or would
it worsen it?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure I could accept the premise of your question.
Again, we have not, from this podium, gone into the details of the various
positions taken by either side within the security mechanism; and I'm not
going to do that now, in terms of what's being asked and what's being done.
But you're asking a hypothetical question, and I can't answer it. I can
only repeat what I said to a question a few minutes ago. This is a
compelling national interest that has to do with the prospects of the
Palestinian people in achieving their legitimate political aspirations,
and we think it should be viewed and treated as such.
Talal.
QUESTION: Excuse me. It's not hypothetical that the Israeli Government
handed over a list of hundreds of Palestinian suspects whom the Israeli
Government would like to see arrested or detained. That is not hypothetical.
Do you think that is the sort of thing, if carried out, that would
contribute to the political climate?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not going to change our practice here of not commenting on
the specific issues and deliberations that have been taking place within
that security mechanism. I can't do it.
Talal.
QUESTION: Any comment, at least, on Erakat's statement? Just a few
minutes ago, outside the State Department's doors, he said that we are
asked to arrest people without evidence, just on suspicion, just on
Israel's say-so. Do you support arrests outside the due process of
law?
MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry, Talal, it's a similar question to one which I
declined to answer. Let me try to help, though, in one sense. Of course, we
support the rule of law, but governments, democratic governments, all over
the world deal with the threat of terrorism. They deal with this threat
within the rule of law, but they deal with the threat forcefully and
vigorously. That's what we're looking for.
Yes.
QUESTION: Some - (inaudible) --
MR. FOLEY: I wouldn't --
QUESTION: Your antiterrorism bill has been attacked roundly by civil
libertarians, because you're short-cutting various procedures for what
people who do this call the balancing act of trying to deter terrorism.
MR. FOLEY: On a philosophical level, I would agree with you, Barry.
Yes.
QUESTION: Secretary Albright called the prime minister yesterday. Did she
make a similar phone call to Chairman Arafat? And can you characterize what
message she may have delivered to him?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that she's called the Chairman. As you know,
Dennis Ross spoke to the Chairman yesterday. She's been in contact with
Acting Secretary Talbott and other senior department officials, but I don't
have a read-out on other phone calls she may have made over the last 24
hours.
QUESTION: Can we do a little bit on the meetings? There were two,
evidently, and one was last night.
MR. FOLEY: Which meetings, Barry?
QUESTION: The Palestinians and Dennis Ross, please. Maybe - they're still
going on, apparently.
MR. FOLEY: Well, he reviewed - I don't have much, specifically, to say. I
had a brief conversation with him, but unfortunately, not much for public
consumption, given the nature of the meeting. He discussed and reviewed
with them the range of issues in preparation for the Secretary's visit to
the region next week. Security, it will be no surprise to you, was at the
very top of the agenda.
QUESTION: There was a meeting last night?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, there was a meeting --
QUESTION: Outside the building?
MR. FOLEY: Outside the building.
QUESTION: In his house?
MR. FOLEY: I don't know where it took place.
Yes.
QUESTION: Prime Minister Netanyahu said Israel is not going to give land
to Palestinians as long as Arafat doesn't fight against terrorism. This
means the peace process is frozen?
MR. FOLEY: No, we don't think the peace process is frozen, but we do
believe there's a crisis of confidence. The peace process is in trouble,
that is clear. But the Secretary is going to the region next week, and
hopes to make progress. If we were hopeless, then we would pack our bags -
we would never pack our bags and undertake such a visit.
She is determined in the face of the latest outrage and provocation not to
be intimidated, not to be deterred, but to carry on in her mission. So we
don't abandon hope, as difficult as we know it's going to be. The bombing
certainly made her trip more difficult. But I think, as the President said,
it also made her trip more urgent.
QUESTION: Sure. Are this kind of statements productive when you're trying
to move the peace process ahead?
MR. FOLEY: Which - you're referring to which statements?
QUESTION: Yeah, the first one; the one of Prime Minister. I mean --
MR. FOLEY: Well, he was referring, I believe, to the interim agreement
and the subject of re-deployments. We believe that that agreement is an
important one and it still holds. We believe that all parts of the interim
agreement need to be implemented.
But clearly, security arrangements and responsibilities are a part of the
interim agreement, as indeed security is part and parcel of the overall
hopes for an overall peace settlement in the Middle East. The implementation
of the agreements - of the interim agreements, however, need to be
implemented. The implementation must occur in all parts and on the basis of
reciprocity.
QUESTION: On that, Jim, have you looked into the question I asked the
other day, which is, do you know if the Israeli Government has held back
the September tranche of the tax appropriations for the Palestinians?
MR. FOLEY: I'd still have to get that for you, Jim.
Sid.
QUESTION: Can I just draw a comparison? You probably don't want to
address it, but - In Northern Ireland, there is a peace process which you
all back, which places the people responsible for the bombings at the
negotiating table under certain conditions. Is that something that could be
applied, something you might consider with Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Under
certain conditions, could they have a role in these negotiations?
MR. FOLEY: Well, it's a hypothetical question, but we don't see any role,
any political role for those extremist groups. There was - and I was asked
this yesterday - an attempt made by Chairman Arafat some weeks ago to reach
out to those groups. We criticized that at the time. A charitable
interpretation was that it was an effort to bring them into the tent of
those who support peace.
To the extent that that effort was made, I have to assume the scales have
fallen from his eyes and he must understand that these are enemies of peace
and that the bombing the other day - yesterday's bombing - was directed at
him, was directed at the peace process, and shows the futility of political
dialogue in including these people in the peace process.
QUESTION: But, Jim, Jim --
QUESTION: I --
MR. FOLEY: Go ahead, please.
QUESTION: Well, Mr. Erakat attempts, and maybe rightfully so, to draw a
distinction between the political arm of these groups and their military
arm. While condemning the military arms, he says the political arms have a
legitimate voice in a democratic entity. You don't seem to agree with that
at all. And he's referring directly to the people that Arafat was meeting
with, hugging and so forth.
MR. FOLEY: I think anyone who wanted to play a role in the political
process would have to demonstrate by deed as well as word that they were
doing all that they could to sever ties -- I'm speaking about leaders of
those kinds of groups - with any kinds of activities; doing everything in
their power to crush and eliminate such terrorist activities. Certainly in
word, as well, to condemn such activities. I don't think we've ever
seen anything on the part of leaders of those extremist organizations
that demonstrates such an attempt.
Bill.
QUESTION: So but indeed, Arafat has now fallen on his face. He's failed
to prevent terrorists from getting into Jerusalem. He has embraced, kissed
the Hamas leadership. Isn't it time that the United States is hinting to
Arafat to step down. Why do we continue to support him when it's a non-
starter with the Israelis?
MR. FOLEY: Bill, I think I addressed the question of his relationship
with the extremist leaders just a minute ago. I don't think I need to say
anything more on that subject.
QUESTION: One other thing, though.
MR. FOLEY: Yeah.
QUESTION: When you, the Secretary, whatever, ask for more from the
Authority, you never speak of statements. You speak of -- you don't ever
speak of words. Presumably, you're now against kissing. I wonder if you're
in favor of - or do you think Arafat has sufficiently said publicly so that
everyone could hear that he has zero tolerance -
MR. FOLEY: I don't have the text right in front of me of the Secretary's
statement in Prague yesterday, but I do believe that she talked about
creating an environment in which there is no tolerance for terrorist
activity. I think it's clear that - we often, at this podium, say that
words are not enough and that actions are more important.
QUESTION: Right. But words are important, too.
MR. FOLEY: They are also important, yes.
QUESTION: Have you heard all the words you think you have to hear,
publicly, from Arafat about what his associate calls his zero tolerance for
terrorism?
MR. FOLEY: I think we've heard some of the right words, but we are
looking for unilateral actions to stamp out, root out and crush the
terrorist infrastructure in those territories.
Any other questions on the Middle East?
Patrick.
QUESTION: Yes. You've said that the question of security will be
uppermost during the Secretary's trip next week, but will she still be
taking ideas for restarting the peace talks?
MR. FOLEY: I don't think I can improve on my eloquent attempt yesterday
to describe her agenda in her upcoming visit. As I said yesterday, first
things first. She will be addressing the issue of security. That's of
critical importance, now; that this issue be resolved, be addressed
sufficiently, so that will be number one on her agenda.
It's difficult at this moment, just after the bombing, to forecast
specifically to what extent she will also be able to address other
political issues. I certainly won't rule it out. Certainly, her overriding
aim on this visit is to help overcome the crisis of confidence, help
restore hope in the political process and the peace process. To that extent,
certainly, the trip will have a political dimension.
Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the North Korea and US meeting in New
York yesterday?
MR. FOLEY: Well, there was a meeting yesterday at the level of the North
Korea office director, Mark Minton. It's possible there could be other
meetings or another meeting next week. Nothing specifically was scheduled.
But that's really all I have to say on that.
QUESTION: Did the North Koreans say they were coming to the four-party
talks?
MR. FOLEY: They didn't say that they were; they didn't say that they were
not. There's been no change in their position. I have nothing new to report
on that. Our offered assumption remains that they will come.
QUESTION: Did Minton ask if they were coming?
MR. FOLEY: I have nothing more to say on their meeting.
(Laughter.)
Good question.
More on North Korea?
QUESTION: What about resumption of missile talks?
MR. FOLEY: I have nothing new on that.
George. On North Korea or --
QUESTION: No, this is Cuba.
MR. FOLEY: Do we have anything more on North Korea?
QUESTION: On the Middle East, Bosnia.
MR. FOLEY: Okay. Well, let's do George and we'll come back over
there.
QUESTION: No, no, no, no, no, Bosnia is not the MiddleEast.
MR. FOLEY: George, you set the table.
QUESTION: The Cuban Government said the perpetrators of the bombings
yesterday were groups which receive support from US-based groups. Do you
have anything to say about that? Has the Cuban Government been in touch
with you about this?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have much news since yesterday. Our interest section
in Havana has confirmed the reports of the explosions at the Copacabana,
the Triton and the Chateau Hotels. We are obviously saddened by reports
that an Italian citizen visiting Cuba was killed at the Copacabana. We are
checking reports, also, of an explosion last night -- I don't have any
detail on that - at a restaurant in Havana's Old City.
I can also tell you that our information is that there were no US citizens
staying at any of the hotels, and therefore we believe there were no US
citizens injured in the bombings. We don't have, frankly, any idea who was
behind the bombings. The Cuban Government has again alleged that groups or
persons with links to the US mainland were involved. It has not responded,
however, to our repeated requests for substantive information or evidence
to support that contention.
We have no information regarding involvement of persons or groups based in
the United States, as the Cuban government has alleged. We reiterate our
commitment to investigate, if the Cuban Government provides substantive
information or evidence, which they have not done to this date.
QUESTION: I understand that there is an investigation underway by the US
Government on the bombings, checking out some groups in Miami. Can you
expand on that, please?
MR. FOLEY: I have nothing on that, no. I don't - you say US Government,
but that's a rather general term.
QUESTION: Probably Justice Department.
MR. FOLEY: You'd have to ask them. I'm not aware of any such thing.
QUESTION: Do you have the name of the restaurant where the explosion
occurred last night?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I have the name. The quality of my Spanish is such that
I hesitated to reveal it, but it's the Bodeguita del Medio.
QUESTION: Hemingway's - there was an explosion at the - that's --
MR. FOLEY: We have a report, a press report on that, but we have no
further information on that.
Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: On Cyprus, during his --
MR. FOLEY: On Cyprus?
QUESTION: Excuse me?
MR. FOLEY: On Cyprus. I'm sorry.
QUESTION: On Cyprus. During his selective briefing, His Excellency Dr.
Tom Miller touched also the issue of the sovereignty of the Republic of
Cyprus on the dilemma of- (inaudible). It's totally unclear if finally your
government supports one or two sovereigns over Cyprus. Could you please
comment, since Dr. Miller was not in a position to clarify?
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen the text of his interview. I couldn't answer the
question without seeing what he said.
QUESTION: Can you take the question?
MR. FOLEY: I'd be glad to take the question.
QUESTION: And one for the Aegean. I was told by the US official that you
cannot comment on the continuing Turkish violations over the Aegean on the
basis that you do not have an independent source. I was told, however, that
the DOD is in a position to monitor the air activity over the Aegean. And
additionally, the DOD spokesman yesterday stated, on the record, that the
NATO existing RAP, R-A-P system over the Aegean now is very efficient. I'm
wondering, then, why the State Department is not using the data of the
RAP system in order to take finally a position of this concerned matter.
MR. FOLEY: Thank you for the question. We've seen the reports. We cannot
confirm them independently. If you have questions concerning the Pentagon's
information, I'd refer you to the Pentagon.
Yes.
QUESTION: A Bosnia question?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: I have a question about Turkey.
MR. FOLEY: We'll get back to you.
QUESTION: Repeating a question I asked the other day about a round-up of
several dozen pro-democracy activists in Ankara, I'm told today that they
have now been - the foreign ones have been deported or expelled from
Turkey. Do you know that, one, they were arrested; and two, do you have any
reaction?
MR. FOLEY: We saw the press reports that there were arrests. The issue of
deportations, I haven't seen. I suppose that's a matter of Turkish
nationality and immigration law. We've expressed, on previous occasions,
the United States Government's concern that Turkish law and practice not
infringe on the legitimate rights of assembly and freedom of speech. We
continue to urge the Turkish Government to take steps to adopt reforms that
would expand freedom of expression.
Yes.
QUESTION: Could I --
MR. FOLEY: Is this the Bosnia question?
QUESTION: Here --
MR. FOLEY: One question on the Middle East.
QUESTION: Yes. Jim, is there a relationship - it's a double-barreled
question. First of all, is the Secretary going to be visiting Lebanon,
perhaps? Has the Department made any representations or had any discussions
with the Lebanese about the possibility that these bombers in Jerusalem
have the same MO as the last bombers, who were identified as having come
into the country probably from Beirut, inspired by Iran and possibly
Hezbollah, although that's very tentative. I doubt if the Hezbollah would
involve themselves in something over there.
MR. FOLEY: I wish I could help you with the second part of your question,
but the bombing just took place yesterday. I'm sure the Israeli security
authorities are working day and night to find out what they can about it.
Really, the question would have to be addressed to them at this point.
As to your first question, there has been no decision on the part of the
Secretary to make a visit to Lebanon.
QUESTION: And the last of the three, on Lebanon --
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: -- would be, has the Department made any representations to the
Israel Government about the fact that they had an operation going some 20
miles north of their security zone? Isn't that somewhat of a violation of
international law, and at this time, very provocatory?
MR. FOLEY: Well, this kind of incident has occurred on numerous occasions
previously. I can't improve on the message that I've given from the podium
when the question was first raised 20 minutes ago, which is that we hope
the cycle of violence stops now. We urge maximum restraint on all the
parties.
We had a Bosnia question, I believe.
QUESTION: Right here.
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: As you know, Mrs. Plavsic - this is to clear up something I'm
confused about. Mrs. Plavsic recently said she'd fired her information
minister, Mr. Tohalj, and her interior minister, Mr. Kijac. And on Sunday,
Bill Farrand, the US diplomat who's in charge of Brcko said, told reporters,
"we will work only with those ministers whom Plavsic nominated."
And yet a couple days later, US troops in Bosnia turned over a transmitter
to the information - to the people under the command of the information
minister that Mrs. Plavsic had fired; then a couple days later, the bridge
to the police troops who are commanded by the interior minister she has
fired.
How do you explain this contradiction between Farrand saying we only work
with ministers whom she's nominated and then developments that suggest
exactly the opposite?
MR. FOLEY: Well, you're getting into a level of detail where I'm afraid I
can't match you. Secondly, you're talking about ministers; I'm not sure
that ministers were on the scene. I think the real question is, how do
these latest events fit into the overall picture of where we're heading in
Bosnia. We're very pleased with the Contact Group meeting that took place
in Brussels yesterday.
I spoke to Ambassador Gelbard this morning. He chaired that meeting,
chaired it vigorously, and was very pleased with the results. You've
probably seen, perhaps, the communique or the statement they issued. But
there was agreement - unanimous agreement within the Contact Group to
support supervision by the OSCE of elections in the Republika Srpska. We
support that. There was a very strong statement against terrorist acts and
provocations, stating that such acts will be met with an appropriate
response, as envisaged under the Dayton Agreement. There was strong support
for freedom of media, and support for the right and the authority of the
High Representative to make forceful use of his authority to curtail
or suspend any media network or program whose output is in - and I'm
quoting - "persistent and blatant contravention of either the spirit or the
letter of the peace agreement."
That's an important body, the Contact Group. They're united on these
important issues, and so we're looking forward to the municipal elections
September 13 and 14.
QUESTION: Well, I don't mean to make this a real complicated, but it's
actually a simple point. I mean, are we working with Mrs. Plavsic's people
or are we working with the people that she opposes and in fact has fired?
It seems to be sort of an inconsistent policy here.
MR. FOLEY: Well, again, you're getting into a level of detail where I
can't join you. But I think to answer your specific question, you'd have to
refer to SFOR, in terms of whom they were dealing with on the scene, whom
they were talking to on the telephone.
But as I said, we - I said it the other day -- we respect SFOR's judgment
and the judgment of the High Representative on those matters.
QUESTION: Well, Jim, what is the policy of the US Government, not SFOR,
about dealing with the Pale Serbs?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, Mr. Krajisnik is a Pale Serb, but he's also
a co-president of Bosnia. We deal with him. We deal with officials in their
official capacity. We support President Plavsic. She's made what we believe
was a legal decision, constitutional decision to dissolve the assembly. We
support her in her plan to hold new parliamentary elections in the
Republika Srpska in October.
Yes, Crystal.
QUESTION: So there are some Pale Serbs you'll deal with, and there are
some you won't deal with?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I can only repeat, Mr. Krajisnik is currently a co-
president of Bosnia.
Crystal.
QUESTION: Excuse me. I mean, as co-president he has no authority over
internal Republika Srpska affairs. That is the province of the Republika
Srpska government. As co-president, he has to do it Bosnia-wide. So I don't
understand quite how you justify dealing with Krajisnik as a representative
of the Republika Srpska government on Republika Srpska issues.
MR. FOLEY: Well, we recognize Madame Plavsic as the legitimately-elected
president. We recognize that she's dissolved the assembly, and we look
forward to the elections. I can't speak for who on the ground is dealing
with whom in this interim period, as we move towards what we hope will be
elections that produce a new parliament and a new government.
Crystal.
QUESTION: So is NATO giving in to Karadzic and his forces by abandoning
the Brcko area? I mean, it seems as though that - the Secretary was just
over there, you know, opening the bridge again. What's your opinion?
MR. FOLEY: She opened the --
QUESTION: But what's your opinion of - I mean, NATO --
MR. FOLEY: I can't accept the characterization at all. You'd have to ask
SFOR, talk to SFOR and the High Representative. I believe it was the Office
of the High Representative which decided that SFOR should come down from
the bridge for now. But this bridge was reopened in the presence of
Secretary of State Albright. It's something that we think is an important
link between Bosnia and Croatia. We fully expect that it will continue to
function as a means of transit and communication, and we're going to be
watching that very carefully.
QUESTION: Does the United States think it was a prudent decision for NATO
to just walk away? You know, Karadzic starts throwing stones, and NATO
backs off.
MR. FOLEY: This was a decision made by the High Representative together
with SFOR, and we respect their judgment.
QUESTION: Jim, there's one major newspaper in this country which quotes
an unnamed US official as saying Washington was livid over the deal for the
radio transmitter and for the bridge. Can you clarify?
MR. FOLEY: I can't speak to a report citing an unnamed, so-called
government official. I was asked the specific question the day of or the
day after the decision was made by the High Representative and SFOR to turn
back the tower, under specific conditions, to the Pale authorities. And
what I stated, and I repeat now, is that there were conditions that were
agreed to, and we look to those who control the tower to respect those
conditions. We're going to be watching it very closely.
QUESTION: How is compliance going?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think, so far, it's been uneven, to be honest. We've
been monitoring through the Foreign Broadcast Information Service their
broadcasts, and our view is that they have not met all the stipulations.
The OHR apparently hasn't gotten its message out. I'm not sure why that is
the case. Time has not been granted, on a daily basis, for the opposition,
as was indicated. I'm also not sure, and we'd need to look into that, why
that is the case -- whether it's a problem on Madam Plavsic's side
or whether it is a failure to comply on the Pale group side.
We've noted that the inflammatory language directed against SFOR and the
international community seems to have cooled down. We're going to continue
monitoring the broadcasts and consult with our allies on the broadcast
situation. As I said, the Contact Group meeting last night issued some very
firm statements connected with media activities in Bosnia.
QUESTION: Do you need total compliance of the agreement in order to not
take it over again?
MR. FOLEY: Well, the North Atlantic Council has taken a decision on the
matter. SFOR has authority to act in this regard. Without going any further
than what I'm going to say now, I do understand that SFOR has issued a very
stiff warning to the Pale authorities that they'd better start complying
immediately on the terms they agreed to.
Yes.
QUESTION: This week, a Turkish State Minister, Mr. Gurel, met with some
State Department officials --
MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry, who met with --
QUESTION: Turkish State Minister.
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: He met with State Department officials this week, two days ago,
I believe. Can you give us who was this gentleman on the American side? And
also, what was the subject? And did you satisfied with those meetings?
MR. FOLEY: I don't have details on the meeting. I'd be happy to look into
it for you, though.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Today The Washington Post revealed that a well-known Vietnamese
dissident, namely Mr. Pham Kham, was released from jail after serving
something like seven years of a 20 year sentence due to poor health. They
didn't state any reasons. What is the US position on this case? And how
would you comment on the implication that there might be other releases to
follow? And if so, who do you expect might be released by the Vietnamese
Government?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we were heartened and pleased to receive the news that
Mr. Pham Duc Kham was indeed released and permitted to leave Vietnam to
join his family.
We applaud this action by the government of Vietnam, and we wish Mr. Kham
the best of luck in reuniting with his family in the United States.
The Vietnamese Government's decision is in keeping with our efforts to
engage in a dialogue on a broad range of issues and mutual concerns. This
step contributes to the overall improvement of the bilateral US-Vietnam
relationship.
QUESTION: Also, aware that there are a number of other religious leaders
that are still being kept in jail. Are you doing something on their cases,
or do we intend to do something?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we have an ongoing dialogue, as I just indicated, with
the Vietnamese Government on the human rights situation and issues
involving political freedom. This decision, however, to release Mr. Kham,
was a decision made by the government of Vietnam; it was not made by the
government of the United States, although we applaud it.
I saw reference only in the press. I don't have any sort of special
information, but reference in the press to the fact that the Vietnamese
Government may indeed be contemplating other gestures of this nature. We
would obviously welcome that.
George.
QUESTION: Did you see the reports about the atrocities committed by Hun
Sen's people?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, the UN report.
QUESTION: Yes, and do you have any comment?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we condemn in the strongest terms the political
executions and violence which have taken place in Cambodia during and since
the events of July 5 and 6. We call on the government of Cambodia to take
concrete steps to end acts of violence and political intimidation within
Cambodia.
Our embassy in Phnom Penh has worked very closely with the UN Center for
Human Rights. We find the report of at least 40 extra-judicial killings to
be highly credible and well-documented. We strongly support the UN Center
for Human Rights and its commitment to investigating violations of human
rights, including extra-judicial killings and torture.
We have called on the Cambodian Government to investigate the reports of
human rights abuses that occurred during and after the early July violence;
and also, importantly, to bring the perpetrators to justice. In addition to
reports of killings, there are highly credible reports of arbitrary arrests,
torture, intimidation of the media, harassment of human rights workers and
other abuses.
Our ambassador in Phnom Penh, Ambassador Ken Quinn, and other US Embassy
officers have pressed this issue on numerous occasions with Cambodian
officials at many levels, including with Mr. Hun Sen. We will continue to
urge the Cambodian authorities to investigate these reports and prosecute
anyone found responsible for human rights abuses.
QUESTION: Do you think that Hun Sen played a role in this?
MR. FOLEY: I couldn't say. I'm not sure that that is addressed in the UN
report. I'd refer you to the report. I have no information in that
regard.
QUESTION: Jim?
MR. FOLEY: Still on Cambodia?
QUESTION: No.
MR. FOLEY: What's the subject?
QUESTION: Different subject - Russia.
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: What credibility do you give to Lebed's charges that there are -
that the Russian authorities are unable to account for a number of nuclear -
-
MR. FOLEY: Not a lot of credibility. Reliable command control in the
physical security of nuclear weapons and materials are of key importance to
all nuclear powers. The government of Russia has assured us that it retains
adequate command and control of its nuclear arsenal and that appropriate
physical security arrangements exist for these weapons and facilities.
I would add that through our Nunn-Lugar and other important programs, that
we are working with the government of Russia to further enhance the
physical security of its nuclear storage facilities.
QUESTION: Has the US Government spoken to the Russians specifically about
these Lebed charges?
MR. FOLEY: What I do know is that we've spoken - we speak to the Russian
Government about this overall subject of security of nuclear weapons and
materials on a very regular basis. I would be surprised if this has not
also come up, this specific report. Again, we've been assured by the
Russian authorities that there's no cause for concern.
QUESTION: And the US Government, then, is confident the Russians know
where their weapons are?
MR. FOLEY: We believe the assurances we've received.
Any other questions.
Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:25 P.M.)
|
