Browse through our Interesting Nodes of Newsletters & Journals on Hellenic Issues Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923)
HR-Net - Hellenic Resources Network Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Friday, 29 March 2024
 
News
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  Announcements
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Hosted
  Mirrored
  Interesting Nodes
Documents
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  Constitutions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Other
Services
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts
  Tools
  F.A.Q.
 

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #113, 98-10-09

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>


765

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Friday,October 9, 1998

Briefer: James B. Foley

MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
1-3		Plans/Arrangements/Press Coverage for Summit Scheduled to
		  Begin 10/15
3-4		Whereabouts of Dennis Ross and Assistant Secretary Indyk

ISRAEL 3 Ariel Sharon Sworn In As New Israeli Foreign Minister

INDIA/PAKISTAN 4-5 US Ambassador Celeste's Remarks on Kashmir/US Policy

IRAN/AFGHANISTAN 5 Reports of Skirmishes on the Border

SERBIA (Kosovo) 6-7,8 Ambassador Holbrooke's Meetings with President Milosevic 7,8 Prospects for Use of Force/Military Action 7-8 Update on Situation in Kosovo 8 US Condemns Threats Made Against Media and Human Rights Organizations 1-10 Activation Order/Mechanisms

SYRIA/TURKEY 11 Status of Tensions/Mediation Efforts

DEPARTMENT 11-13 US Embassies Security/Supplemental Appropriation


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #113

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1998, 2:30 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: We will now undertake our daily State Department briefing. I note Barry Schweid, Gil Butler - are you the two survivors of the Secretary's latest marathon trip?

QUESTION: We don't have a home in London; we came home.

MR. FOLEY: Barry, instead of continuing in that vein, why don't I ask you to ask the first question.

QUESTION: Well, you can be extremely helpful and keep me from phoning back and forth between State and other places and tell us what you can, logistically, about covering the Wye Plantation talks.

MR. FOLEY: I can't tell you a lot today because that's an issue that we're still working, and it's one also that we have to work with the two parties - with the Israelis and the Palestinians. What I can do is signal to you the direction we're moving in, in terms of press coverage, and I --

QUESTION: You can?

MR. FOLEY: -- yes - I hate to disappoint you as members of the press, but of course our interest is in maximizing chances for success and so --

QUESTION: The more you keep the public in the dark, the better your chances of sneaking something by them?

MR. FOLEY: The press versus the public, perhaps but we are going to strive, Barry, for a minimalist approach to briefing the media. We haven't yet determined whether, and to what extent, there will be kind of a blackout, or rather a very limited kind of briefing that might give journalists the flavor of the schedule and the atmospherics. I would not expect much, if anything, beyond that limited approach, and it may even be more severely limited. We're working the issue now, and I expect we'll be able to tell you what the press arrangements are, hopefully, by Tuesday, when we return from the holiday.

I can tell you, though, that there are no plans for press access whatsoever to the conference site itself. There will be limited and very small pool arrangements, when that is appropriate; for example, I believe - and I'd refer you to the White House on this - but when the President attends the opening of the plenary session on Thursday, I would expect that there will be a small pool, according to White House rules, that will be allowed in. We may be distributing -- and that's a matter to be decided, as well -- still photographs on a daily basis. I know that's of particular interest to you, Barry. But in any case, the details that you're looking for to enable you to make the necessary arrangements, I don't have yet, and we'll have them hopefully by Tuesday.

QUESTION: You know there are some news organizations that don't like to run government pictures -- that they'd prefer taking their own pictures instead of getting government-approved pictures?

MR. FOLEY: I understand.

QUESTION: So you might throw that in when you talk to the White House folks - who, of course, say talk to State if you want to know the logistics.

MR. FOLEY: I believe there is --

QUESTION: But I'd be careful about trying to sell news organizations official pictures.

MR. FOLEY: There's precedent - on the photograph question, I believe there's precedent going back to Camp David in terms of how it was handled then.

QUESTION: I was at Camp David; I don't remember that. I do remember Jodi Powell briefing regularly at Thurmont, Maryland, at the American Legion hall. There was enough to live by and it went on for 13 days, but I --

MR. FOLEY: I wanted to signal the direction we're heading in, and we are discussing this with the most concerned parties - the Israelis and the Palestinians. We'll have a joint approach, I can assure you, on the subject.

QUESTION: Will you have any sort of press office out there - American wise?

MR. FOLEY: We're looking - I'm sorry?

QUESTION: An American office - would you have an American office out there or something?

MR. FOLEY: Not at the conference site. We're looking at another possible site a few miles from the conference place itself.

QUESTION: The outlet center? Brooks Brothers outlet center.

MR. FOLEY: I have nothing to confirm right now - nothing to announce. I wouldn't rule anything out at this point, Barry.

QUESTION: Okay. How many days do you think this not-precooked event might go on?

MR. FOLEY: I think that the Secretary has already indicated -

QUESTION: But she said multi and the President said it might be a day or more, so there's a little confusion here.

MR. FOLEY: I don't believe that's been determined.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - attending, obviously, the opening and after that?

MR. FOLEY: The Secretary will be present throughout the conference.

QUESTION: Will the new Foreign Minister Sharon be there?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that he's been officially sworn in yet as Foreign Minister. Certainly we've seen the news, and expect that he will be formally appointed as Foreign Minister, I believe, by that time. I would certainly expect that he'll be there if that's the case.

QUESTION: Has the State Department any opinion about the selection?

MR. FOLEY: We look forward to working with the new Israeli Foreign Minister, Ariel Sharon, as we have with his predecessors. We plan to work closely with him to advance the cause of peace in the region. We expect to have a productive working relationship with him, as we have with his predecessors.

QUESTION: Do you happen to know, on the various trips to the region, I mean, for instance, Albright sought out Ehud Barak, who is the opposition leader. I don't mean trips necessarily by the Secretary of State, but Dennis has been out there a lot. Has there been much contact with Sharon, who was in the Cabinet but he wasn't Foreign Minister?

MR. FOLEY: To be honest, Barry, I'd have to ask Dennis Ross the answer to that question. We spoke briefly today on other matters. Perhaps Jamie Rubin will be in a position to answer that next week from this podium on Tuesday; I just don't know.

QUESTION: Also, a little confusion on who stayed behind to do what. It seemed, in fact, that Dennis Ross stayed behind, planning to stay until Friday evening. Indyk's bag was sighted going one place; others think Indyk went to Egypt; still others think he was left with Dennis to keep working the problem from there. Do you know where --

MR. FOLEY: I spoke to him briefly today; he was in Jerusalem.

QUESTION: Great. He is in Jerusalem? He didn't go to Egypt, then?

MR. FOLEY: I don't know whether he did.

QUESTION: Oh, that's right, he could do both; he could go and come back. But he's in Jerusalem, working the problem?

MR. FOLEY: He was when we spoke a few hours ago, as is Dennis Ross.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. FOLEY: I don't have that for you. I didn't ask him. We were talking about arrangements for next week in terms of the summit - the sort of things I was discussing a few minutes ago.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. FOLEY: What's that?

QUESTION: I say, if you had to tell him what you had to tell us, you didn't burn up the long distance bill.

MR. FOLEY: Ambassador Ross is obviously dealing with the issues that will be dealt with in the summit. Whether Ambassador Indyk is working with him on the same issues or not, I just don't have --

QUESTION: Speaking of ambassadors, Ambassador Celeste has apparently irritated --

MR. FOLEY: Are we finished with the Middle East?

QUESTION: I guess. Ambassador Celeste evidently has aggravated some Indian officials through the remarks he made or didn't make about Kashmir. If you could address that; and most particularly, isn't Kashmir an international problem, considering the risk involved in a face-off between those two countries now, being nuclear-powered - or admittedly nuclear- powered?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure precisely what the criticism was in the local press. I was hoping you would give that to me so I could --

QUESTION: Well he was supposed to have said Kashmir is an international problem, and the Indians don't think it is. They think it's a local problem.

MR. FOLEY: He was responding to a question. Let me first state what our policy is - our view of Kashmir; and this is not new; this is long- standing. The United States has long held the position that all of the pre- independent state of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed territory. The United States believes that an ultimate resolution must be achieved through negotiations between India and Pakistan, taking into account the interests and desires of the people of Kashmir.

Now, what Ambassador Celeste said - and I'll just quote you, because I think it's fully consistent with US policy. He indicated that we press both governments to undertake direct talks to address very severe differences between the two countries about Kashmir. He repeated what I said is our long-standing position, that those differences can only be resolved through bilateral discussions, he indicated, at the highest level between the two countries. He was then asked whether the United States believed it was an internal issue and not an international issue. He said that the government of India has indicated it has issues with respect to Kashmir that it must take up with Pakistan.

In that context, one can't view it as a purely internal matter; and again, our position is that it's disputed territory that has to be addressed and resolved peacefully between the two countries.

QUESTION: Sounds like he was saying it's bilateral and that has been understood to mean international. Maybe that's the problem.

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I think it's a semantic issue that's really not significant from our perspective.

QUESTION: South Asia - how concerned are you about the situation between Afghanistan and Iran - the border skirmishes?

MR. FOLEY: Obviously, there was press reporting yesterday indicating that there were skirmishes on the border between Iran and Afghanistan. You can be certain that I checked with people in this building today to determine what we knew had happened. I was told that what Assistant Secretary Inderfurth said yesterday in testimony on the Hill remains the case - that we don't have - the United States - independent confirmation of the press reports, some of which have been conflicting, in terms of a clash that I believe the Iranians alleged had taken place after the Taliban fired on Iranian border posts. The Taliban, I believe, have claimed that they did not initiate any such clash.

So we don't, as of today, have independent confirmation. But I'd like to take the opportunity, once again, to urge, on behalf of the United States, both Iran and the Taliban to use the current visit of UN Special Envoy Brahimi to the region to achieve a peaceful settlement of this issue between them by diplomatic means. We are actively working with other countries in the region and through the UN to defuse this crisis and to create the conditions necessary for long-term peace in Afghanistan. As you know, we've been operating through the Six-plus-Two framework at the United Nations, and we fully support Special Envoy Brahimi's current mission in this regard.

QUESTION: Just to follow that, are there any indications that the Iranians are moving in a way to indicate some kind of major cross-border incursion or is that stable or do we know?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we've reported previously that the Iranians had deployed significant military forces along their border. That's going back some weeks. I'm not aware of a significant change, either upwards or downwards, in those numbers and in those capabilities. And we don't have current indications of any imminent movement of those forces. And we continue to urge Iran to employ the diplomatic route to address the very real concerns that they have with the Taliban.

QUESTION: Okay, and could I lead you into Kosovo to ask if you've heard from Mr. Holbrooke? Has there been any movement, any positive signs that Milosevic is going to conform to the demands? What more can you say about the Chinese and the Russian warnings to NATO not to do this?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of any Chinese utterances in this regard. I did speak to Ambassador Holbrooke about an hour-and-a-half ago. As you may expect, I don't have a lot to report; he's not reporting a lot himself because he's in the middle of these discussions with Mr. Milosevic. He met for 31/2 hours earlier today with President Milosevic. Ambassador Holbrooke told me that those were very intense discussions, and tough going. He did not, to me, characterize either positively or negatively those discussions, except to say that they will resume. I don't think they've resumed yet; they're going to resume quite late this evening Belgrade time.

But the purpose of his meeting is, as has been described all along, to bring home to Mr. Milosevic the seriousness of the situation: The fact that NATO is poised and ready to take military action in the absence of full compliance with the UN Security Council Resolution 1199 - compliance which must be full, durable and verifiable. And that's the exact nature of what he's discussing with Mr. Milosevic at this moment.

QUESTION: Is he negotiating with Milosevic or is he just mindfully, but very narrowly, listing the six or seven - that's sometimes changing number - of demands - the US demands for compliance?

MR. FOLEY: I would not characterize them as US demands; they're contained in UN Security Council Resolution 1199. Foreign Secretary Cook, yesterday in London - you were there, Barry - enumerated on behalf of the Contact Group what those demands are. Ambassador Holbrooke is discussing those very demands contained in UN Security Council Resolution 1199, as endorsed by the Contact Group. I wouldn't describe his meeting as a negotiation.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: How long is he staying in Belgrade?

MR. FOLEY: That's undetermined. He did not know the answer to that question when I asked him.

QUESTION: He could be there for days still.

MR. FOLEY: I wouldn't characterize it in any way.

QUESTION: Did Ambassador Holbrooke tell you if he had received any sort of assurances on some of those six - say one of the six or three of the six?

MR. FOLEY: No he did not, no he did not. And he explained to me -- since I was playing my role, as Deputy Spokesman about to go out and brief the press -- he explained to me his philosophy that insofar as he is involved in confidential negotiations, he would care very much to keep those negotiations or discussions - excuse me, Barry, thank you for looking in my direction - confidential.

QUESTION: But you said he said it's tough going, though. I mean, tough going --

MR. FOLEY: As I said, he refused to characterize them in either positive or negative terms. He said, "It is tough-going."

QUESTION: Are you going to plan to have anyone available on Saturday or Sunday in case there's some development in Kosovo?

MR. FOLEY: Well, if there is a development - and I'm not saying that I anticipate a development - if it's something that we're in a position to talk about publicly, or to discuss in any way, we will make ourselves available. But I wouldn't want to predict the outcome of his meetings in Belgrade.

QUESTION: Can you comment on what the prospects are at this point?

MR. FOLEY: No, I cannot.

QUESTION: More diplomatic?

MR. FOLEY: I cannot. What I can tell you is to repeat what the Contact Group unanimously agreed yesterday, which is that Mr. Milosevic is not in compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1199. That has not changed today. If you're interested, I'll give you a little update on the situation on the ground, as we see it in Kosovo.

The stand-down of Serbian forces is holding; there have been no reports of new fighting in Kosovo. We were pleased to see that the KLA has also announced formally its own cease-fire, beginning today. We welcome this move and we are watching closely, to see that their deeds match their words. However, while there has been no shooting in the past 24 hours, neither has there been any measurable change in the Serbian deployment of army troops in the field. A large police presence also remains on major roads and highways.

As Secretary Albright said yesterday, the situation on the ground in Kosovo has not changed fundamentally. Yugoslav army and police remain deployed, and some are even digging in for the winter which, as she noted yesterday, I believe, at Heathrow, is not a sign of good intentions.

The withdrawals we've seen publicized represent, as the Secretary said, only a snapshot of the situation. Tens of thousands of Kosovars remain in the open, afraid to go home. At the end of the day, I think that is the litmus test as to whether the security situation is changing - whether the refugees feel safe enough to go home.

So Secretary Albright indicated in Brussels yesterday that, given the track record of Mr. Milosevic, that we can expect half-measures and cosmetic responses unless he is convinced that he is going to be faced with a very harsh and imminent alternative, which is what Ambassador Holbrooke is bringing home to him today in Belgrade.

QUESTION: Could you just clarify what your assessment is of what the KLA is doing? They've announced a cease-fire today and they haven't moved in terms of territory or anything? There were reports that they had moved on some villages.

MR. FOLEY: I have not seen those reports.

QUESTION: There are reports that the Belgrade government has begun issuing threats to media and civic leaders and monitor groups, that they will crack down if NATO does intervene militarily. What information do you have on this; and what would the State Department's reaction be to it?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we've seen those threats. I'm going to be posting a statement later this afternoon, and I can tell you in advance that, certainly, the United States is condemning strongly the threats made against Serbia's independent media and human rights organizations. These have included threats of physical violence and the action that Belgrade has taken to fire dissenting professors at Belgrade University.

I would add that we stress also that we expect Serbia to fully cooperate at once with the Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal. Belgrade's actions against Serbian civil society demonstrate Mr. Milosevic's agenda.

QUESTION: If I could, Jim: To paraphrase Secretary William Cohen this morning, he says that this conflict in Kosovo - paraphrasing - certainly has to be resolved within the week because time is running out, as far as the people who are up in the hills. Is there really that urgency now - one week deadline? Is that the way the government sees it?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we've certainly not talked about deadlines, and I'm not going to start to do that now. We've talked about the onset of winter, which has begun in certain parts of Kosovo. As that accelerates, the danger of the humanitarian crisis becoming a humanitarian catastrophe looms larger. So we are racing against the clock of nature in one sense.

But Mr. Milosevic is facing the clock of NATO action, which is also ticking and winding down. So there are different clocks at work, all of which point in the direction of dire consequences if we don't achieve full compliance with the UN Security Council's resolution in very short order.

QUESTION: Do you know where Mr. Holbrooke will go when he's done with his talks? Cook spoke of another meeting -- meaning NATO, not the Contact Group, I think - within a few days. Would Holbrooke - since his mission has been endorsed by all the Contact Group now - would he go back to NATO, to Cook, to Washington? It's a little early, maybe.

MR. FOLEY: I asked him that question, and as I explained, Barry, he truly did not know how long he would be staying in Belgrade. He had nothing to say about where he might go when he eventually leaves Belgrade. I don't know the answer to that, and I don't think he does either.

He's wholly focused on the matter at hand, which is trying to persuade Mr. Milosevic to comply in a thorough-going, durable, verifiable way. It's hard work, and he's not there. So he remains in Belgrade. I cannot tell you how long he'll be there and where he might go after that.

QUESTION: Do you have any sense of --

MR. FOLEY: I think our sense of action, rather, that's parallel and provides the context for his work, occurs at NATO headquarters.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. FOLEY: The next step will be the convening of the North Atlantic Council. We expect to authorize SACEUR General Clark to commence military operations.

QUESTION: Well, Saturday seemed the projected date, that was time, that was being said in corridors. I wonder if it's too early in Holbrooke's fourth meeting with Milosevic for him or you folks to begin to wonder if he's being held hostage -- if Milosevic is keeping him there to keep the guns from opening up. Do you think that's possible? The Serbian leader might be prolonging these talks or enticing the US into thinking maybe there's some give there, as a way to play for time?

MR. FOLEY: No. Well, let me try to answer that in the following way - and this is your humble spokesman talking; I didn't get this from Mr. Holbrooke. He is in Belgrade now. I think you can draw the logical conclusion that he believes that there's something to discuss and that there's reason to stay there. He'll stay there as long as he believes that either the negotiations can succeed or he has concluded --

QUESTION: Negotiations?

MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry, Barry, that's just a spokesman's slip of the tongue. But to return to your -

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. FOLEY: Let me back up a second, I can explain why I used --

QUESTION: Can't you finish the sentence?

MR. FOLEY: I'll come back to it, Carole.

QUESTION: It has been reported as negotiations.

MR. FOLEY: Yes. There is an issue that is subsumed within the demands of the Security Council - that's a political settlement, and the need for negotiations. That's one of the items he's talking about, is the need to achieve rapid progress toward a political agreement that respects and guarantees the legitimate rights of the Albanian people of Kosovo. So in that sense, that's a negotiating track as one element of the demands of the international community.

But to return to - and he's not negotiating those demands. He's conveying them and laying out to Mr. Milosevic that, if he wants to avoid military action, he needs to comply.

But to finish the quote that Carole wanted me to complete: The very fact that Mr. Holbrooke is in Belgrade is indicative of the fact that he believes that it's worthwhile to continue these discussions. Presumably he will remain there as long as he believes that his discussions can reap success, and as long as he has not concluded that it's pointless to continue those discussions.

But I don't want, in any way, to convey some sense of indefiniteness to his effort. I think maybe that's what you're driving at. Because, after all, there are separate, parallel tracks going on. One is what he's doing in Belgrade. The other is the machinery of NATO decision making - the machinery of NATO military action which will continue on its own track.

QUESTION: He went into this a little bit on this trip, and I don't think it was ever resolved truly, and that is - I'm sorry, Barry. Is it your understanding that the decision to have an Activation Order that will be reached by the NAC - if it's reached by the NAC - is the last thing that needs to be done before the actual cruise missiles or bombs, or whatever, start falling?

MR. FOLEY: Certainly that's the last political step that needs to be taken for there to be a commencement of military operations. The North Atlantic Council, when it issues its Activation Order, has authorized SACEUR to commence military operations when it becomes possible, militarily, for him to act.

QUESTION: Then the question was --

MR. FOLEY: I wasn't on the airplane, Barry.

QUESTION: No, you were lucky, for several reasons, but then the question became whether there would necessarily have to be some sort of a consensus - I want to say meeting - some sort of a touching base, touching of bases with the NATO countries, before General Clark could pull the trigger. And we heard it every which way.

MR. FOLEY: I don't want to speak very explicitly, in a public forum, about the mechanisms of commencing military action. General Clark will have to have placed all of his assets where they need to be. He will have a number of things he needs to do in order to commence military operations, and he will do that. And if I knew the answer -- which I don't - I wouldn't say so publicly, in terms of how long that takes or what exactly it entails.

QUESTION: We just wondered if that's what it would be.

MR. FOLEY: Following the activation order, he is authorized to commence military operations.

QUESTION: That's what some of us understood. Thank you.

QUESTION: Greece - I'm sorry - Turkey and Syria? Is someone still --

MR. FOLEY: Is this still Kosovo?

QUESTION: No, not really.

MR. FOLEY: We're following the leader of the band. Yes, Barry?

QUESTION: There was a lot of background noise of concern about the - maybe we can put it on the record, if you have something - is there extreme concern here still, that Syria and Turkey are in a very rough and dangerous confrontation and --

MR. FOLEY: Well, the rhetoric has been worrisome, certainly. But we've urged both countries, though, to talk to each other; to solve the issue diplomatically. We don't, at this moment, see that there is a danger of the rhetoric spilling over into something else. We certainly do not want to see that happening. And we are in communication with both governments, strongly urging them to address their concerns through diplomatic channels.

We have indicated publicly -- as we have for many, many years -- our view that the PKK is a terrorist organization, and that Syria must cease its support of the PKK. We've also said that we believe this is an issue that can be and should be settled through diplomatic channels. We support President Mubarak's efforts in this regard, which, I believe, are continuing. The Foreign Minister of Iran, I think, is in Ankara today, also to push for a negotiated settlement. That's exactly what we are telling both sides.

QUESTION: Does the PKK leader live in Damascus?

MR. FOLEY: My understanding is that he has lived in Damascus. I don't have information indicating his abode has changed - let me put it that way.

QUESTION: Different subject. In light of the evacuation of embassy personnel in Belgrade, and the one-day closing of the Saudi Arabia missions, I'd like to ask a question on embassy security.

MR. FOLEY: I need to correct you, though, first of all. We have not evacuated our embassy in Belgrade. What we've gone to - and the term of art for the State Department is "authorized departure" -- meaning that the ambassador may canvass the Embassy and determine what we call non-emergency staff and dependents who may wish to leave and the ambassador wishes to leave; and that has been preceding.

Ordered departure is another level of preparedness and of security precaution and we haven't reached that decision yet, although we will take further precautionary steps as necessary as the situation unfolds.

QUESTION: So a question about embassy security - what is the thinking on constructing physical barriers around US embassies that would keep truck or car bombers from getting close to such compounds?

MR. FOLEY: Of course, a lot was said on this subject at the time of the bombings of our embassies in Dar Es Salaam, and in Kenya in August. Our security officials talked, quite openly and forthrightly, about the fact that, following the Inman report in the mid-1980s, which recommended the ideal or the optimum solution of, I believe, a 100-foot setback from streets, that we just didn't have the funds and the resources to even begin to achieve that kind of an objective around the world, in our many embassies and installations.

In the wake of the bombing though, we have been consulting with Congress about a supplemental appropriation. Those consultations went very well. There was strong bipartisan support. I don't have the exact state of where that legislation is and how much is involved, but it would be significant resources to do a number of things having to do with upgrading our security.

It's also been said from this podium that we've sent teams of security officials to all of our posts around the world, to assess their particular needs, because this cannot be just a generic approach. We will develop the standards needed, but we may require different kinds of solutions and adjustments around the world. But it's a very high priority issue for us now. I just don't have the particulars for you at this time.

QUESTION: What do you know about physical barriers, if I could just follow up? Is the State Department philosophically opposed to making overseas embassies look or feel like fortresses by having physical barriers? I'm talking about in addition to the 100-yard (sic) set-back that you were just discussing.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I believe many of our posts have physical barriers. The State Department has physical barriers. I don't believe that that is an impediment.

Secretary Albright, following the bombings in mid-August, did, I think, speak very eloquently about the fact that we did not want our embassies to be fortresses; that the embassies are the home of the United States overseas, in foreign countries. We want our home to be welcoming; we want to be able to do business with people in foreign countries, and to symbolize the openness of America. So that remains a key factor in our presence around the world.

At the same time, though, we have an overriding obligation to provide security for all of our personnel around the world. I think you'll see us doing what it takes. If it requires some aesthetic blemishes in certain cases in order to provide enhanced security in our posts, that's what we're going to have to do.

But the idea of physical barriers and blocks and things of that nature in front of and around embassy installations is not new.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. FOLEY: Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 3:05 P.M.)


U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
Back to Top
Copyright © 1995-2023 HR-Net (Hellenic Resources Network). An HRI Project.
All Rights Reserved.

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.01b run on Friday, 9 October 1998 - 23:01:36 UTC