U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #34, 99-03-18

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>

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Thursday, March 18, 1999

Briefer: James B. Foley

ANNOUNCEMENT
1		African Ministerial Backgound Briefing at 3:30
SERBIA (Kosovo)
1		Secretary's statement on Kosovo
1		Evacuation of personnel from Belgrade
1		Shuttle diplomacy
2		Secretary spoke to FM Vedrine and Foreign Secretary Cook
2		Secretary travel plans
2,3,11		NATO is prepared to act / NATO seriousness
4		Serbs are building up security forces
4		Humanitarian castastrophe
4,5		Number of Displaced persons
6		KVM as human shields/troop movement
7		Visit of Kosovars Albanians
CUBA
7		Judge's ruling of MCI & AT&T
7		Letter from Department to Judge
14		People to people ties
NORTH KOREA
8		Nuclear site
MEXICO
8		Diplomatic Note to Department
CHINA
8,9		US China Relations
8,9		Nuclear Espionage
RUSSIA
9,10		Cooperation with Iran
10		Nuclear Missile program
10		Prime Minister Primakov's visit
BURMA
		Visa for Aung San Sui's Husband
BOSNIA
11,12		Investigation
11		Money laundering
DEPARTMENT
12		Senator's Helms letter to Secretary Albright re
		  Amb. Dobbins

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #34

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1999, 2:45 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. FOLEY: Welcome to the State Department's noon briefing. Just one announcement, there will be a background briefing -- the final briefing -- to sum up the US-African ministerial in this room at 3:30 p.m., assuming that you're done with me by 3:30 p.m. But I have no other announcements.

QUESTION: The Secretary made a statement on Kosovo. I haven't seen it. Could it be made available?

MR. FOLEY: Sure, sure. I've been looking for it, too. Because she just made it, as you know, an hour ago, we're transcribing it, and we'll release it in the Press Office shortly.

QUESTION: Well, it's hard to ask about Kosovo not knowing what she said.

MR. FOLEY: In fact, let me take a time out and -

QUESTION: Think we're going to get it?

MR. FOLEY: Sid, thank you. If I can take a time out, please, make sure that that is finalized and distributed.

QUESTION: I've got to pass on Kosovo because I don't know what today's party line was.

MR. FOLEY: All right, Barry. Sid, you're next.

QUESTION: Well --

MR. FOLEY: Carole?

QUESTION: The status of the planning for evacuation in -

MR. FOLEY: I have nothing to update since yesterday. As I said yesterday, we are looking closely at those plans. We want to be in a position to implement withdrawal of our personnel in Belgrade, of our personnel in Kosovo as necessary. I have nothing to announce in terms of implementation, but it's something that we will do as soon as we see the need.

QUESTION: Any plans for last minute shuttle diplomacy? I think there was a Reuters story about European diplomats expected to go to Belgrade this weekend.

MR. FOLEY: You may have seen Jamie Rubin spoke to that on television earlier. He said that we weren't ruling out any particular steps. There's nothing that I'm aware of. I think this will be a matter for the co- chairmen to decide. Certainly, we don't - let me put it this way, we are really at the crunch point now. We have a Serb no, so far, to the peace plan. We have Serb actions on the ground -- and I will describe them in further detail in a minute -- which constitute non-compliance with the October commitments. In other words, the Serbs, on the two triggers for the NATO decision, are out of compliance and the NATO decision is becoming more and more relevant, given that Serb behavior.

But in terms of what precisely happens next, it's up to the co-chairs, first of all, to decide that this round of negotiations has come to an end. I would anticipate that decision shortly; I don't know exactly when. It will be up to the co-chairs to decide if they wish to pursue a further diplomatic effort. Secretary Albright has been in touch with Foreign Minister Vedrine, Foreign Secretary Cook today. I wouldn't rule that out. But I think President Milosevic already knows where things stand, and we already know where things stand with him. Unless we see quickly a reversal on his part, then, as Mr. Rubin indicated earlier, really, the NATO Act- Ord being in effect will be - NATO will be the decision maker in the next instance.

But in terms of further diplomatic moves, we don't seek military action for the sake of military action. We would like to see President Milosevic reverse course. But again, we don't see signs that he's about to do so.

QUESTION: What is it that you're not ruling out?

MR. FOLEY: She asked if there were going to be any diplomatic efforts -

QUESTION: She used the word shuttling. Let's re-rack and try it this way. I didn't get her statement and I wasn't watching television, so I'm operating a little blind; I come to the State Department for these things. Secretary Albright yesterday had no plans. Is she beginning to have plans to do some traveling on behalf of a last diplomatic effort? Is that what you're not ruling out?

MR. FOLEY: No, I think the question was more generally whether anyone was planning diplomatic efforts because you and I have seen the same press reports that perhaps, some of our European friends may be considering trips to Belgrade or what not. I don't rule that out. They will decide themselves. We will be in touch with them.

But really, the critical factor here is not whether someone makes a visit to Belgrade or not, it's whether President Milosevic reverses course. We are seeing quite the opposite. He's digging in his heels; he's digging in his forces; he's refusing to negotiate. He's putting himself in a position where he will bear the consequences of his obstinacy.

Everyone knows that the NATO Act-Ord is in effect, that NATO is prepared to act. I think we have solidarity on the part of our allies. The conditions are clear. President Milosevic does not have much time to reverse course. Whether he needs to hear that message again in person or not is not a terribly important detail. If a visit produced a change of course, change of opinion on his part, that's a good thing. I don't think we would hold out exceptional hopes in that regard.

QUESTION: I think people know that NATO has been prepared to act for a long time; but the question has been, is NATO really serious about acting on the terms that NATO sets for itself? The fact that you're talking now about the possibility of an extension of time -

MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry, where did you - in any sense I talked about an extension of any kind?

QUESTION: To the extent that you raise the issue yourself about, well, maybe another visit.

MR. FOLEY: Let me, if I can, interject something. We had a very similar debate - maybe you and I or Mr. Rubin and other journalists in December. We were asked, because the United States had indicated in that situation, whether if Saddam did not cooperate with UNSCOM and once it was clear he had not cooperated, you were asking us a question involving military timing and you were questioning our credibility and willingness. You waited a few more days, and the result was Operation Desert Fox.

Then others raised questions of a different nature after that. That's the nature of journalism is that you ask tough, skeptical questions. We will do our business. We will not, through you, let President Milosevic know the timing of what may follow. That's a matter of national security, and I'm not in a position to talk about that. But for you to conclude that we are extending something or that we are delaying something is erroneous. We will act - we and our NATO allies - when it's the right moment, when it's in our interest to act.

QUESTION: I'm not really concluding anything. I'm trying to actually understand what message you're trying to send. I got the impression through some of the things that you were saying, including, well, if another mission has to go to Belgrade and we get a yes out of Milosevic, then that's great. I mean, you're leaving open yourself the possibility that there will be another mission to Belgrade, which of course would require more time to execute. So I'm just trying to understand how serious that possibility is. It sounds like there may be a difference of opinion between the United States and its European allies.

MR. FOLEY: I'm not suggesting that. I don't believe decisions have been made yet in that regard. We'll let the - whether the Europeans are planning another visit or not to Belgrade; I'm just saying I wouldn't rule it out. I'm not saying that I'm criticizing that in any way.

NATO is fully capable of acting at a moment of its own choosing. The signs are not good for President Milosevic. He is way out of compliance on the ground. He has refused to engage seriously, let alone sign the peace accords. The writing for him is on the wall, unless he completely reverses course.

As to when something might happen, what might happen before that action takes place are details; they're not fundamentally important.

QUESTION: Jim, one thing the Secretary did say on the Hill is that the Serbs are building up their security forces in and around Kosovo, and that alone would be a violation. Can you give us those figures?

MR. FOLEY: Serb, VJ and MUPP operations, apparently designed to root out the KLA, destroy villages and displace the Albanian population, continue. KLA units have been withdrawing from the Cicavica Mountains, north of Vucitrn, in the wake of the recent Serb offensive there.

A new offensive about five kilometers northwest of Prizren has also been reported. An estimated 200 MUPP and VJ tank and armored armed truck support are involved in this operation, which has produced an additional 1,500 internally displaced persons.

In a village northeast of Pec, three Kosovar Albanian brothers, who disappeared two days ago, were found. All, tragically, had been shot at close range, one with his throat slit, another handcuffed. In a village east of Orahovac, there was a large funeral for nine KLA fighters, killed on March 15.

According to KVM observers, the VJ is conducting last minute training drills and call up of reservists and regulars in apparent or possible preparation for possible NATO action. The KVN confirms four tanks are in position at Podujevo air field and six large concrete barriers have been pre-positioned along the roadway near Gnjilane. The barriers could be designed to cut off KVM departure routes or to deter entry of NATO forces.

I gave figures yesterday, Jim, on our estimates of the numbers of Serb, VJ and MUT forces either outside or in Kosovo. I'd refer you to those figures; I don't have them before me today. They were in the 18,000 to 21,000 range. But obviously, the situation on the ground is very alarming.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up? This air field, is that central to the evacuation planning?

MR. FOLEY: Which evacuation plan - of the KVM monitors?

QUESTION: The KVM.

MR. FOLEY: I'm not in a position to talk publicly about evacuation plans; that's a security matter.

QUESTION: And one more thing - the nine bodies found and the three others, do you now believe that the humanitarian catastrophe that some people have been talking about has already begun?

MR. FOLEY: Well, that's a judgment call. The situation is worsening there. The numbers of internally displaced persons are going up. I can give you some figures on that. We have increasing numbers of people being forced from their homes, mostly as a result of the VJ offensive in the Cicavica Mountains. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimates over 80,000 people have been displaced since December 24. Now, that's an update; a few weeks ago I gave you a figure, I think, in the 50,000 neighborhood. So that continues to go up.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. FOLEY: Since December 24 - 45,000 since the close of the first round of negotiations at Rambouillet on February 23. UNHCR and about 50 or so non- governmental organizations are still operating in Kosovo, continuing to do really heroic work in spite of obstacles. They've increased emergency convoys that go into the countryside in search of displaced persons. They've had their vehicles stopped; they've been searched; they've been stoned; they've had their access to displaced people blocked by Serbian police, VJ also, in one case, the KLA. So these are very difficult conditions, but they are still there on the ground looking for people who are displaced.

The fact is that most of these people are not facing the elements. The numbers of displaced people that we give you mean these are people who are not living in their homes. In most cases, they are able to - thanks to the work of these humanitarian workers - able to get shelter of some kind and food.

QUESTION: When you began your military description, you spoke of an offensive. By the time you ended it, you were describing steps - by your description - being taken to defend against the possibility of a NATO attack.

MR. FOLEY: Right.

QUESTION: Is this a mixture of things, or are they, plausibly enough, digging in, preparing to be bombed by NATO and wouldn't you expect a country about to bombed to take steps? Or are they moving independently against civilians, killing people, taking towns, rooting people from their homes? Is it a combination of these things?

MR. FOLEY: It's a combination. Of course, people are fleeing because of the heightened military activity, as well as the attacks on some villages. That is happening. They are also positioning themselves in such a way that one could infer that they are anticipating NATO military action. It's a combination.

Now I don't know if you're a mind reader, Barry, but the ability to read Mr. Milosevic's mind is a hazardous endeavor, and he may not know his mind either. I tried to make the point yesterday that he's making the gamble of a lifetime, gambling with the fate of his country, because he cannot predict what will happen if it comes to military action. On the other hand, if the Serbs reverse course and embrace the peace plan, he can count on a stable future and one that's better for the people of Kosovo and the people of his own country.

QUESTION: Just a quick one -- I didn't know, when you said offenses, if you meant they're on the move, or you literally meant offensive in military terms. Apparently, you mean they're on the move and you can't --

MR. FOLEY: They're on the move, but they have been undertaking military actions, though, against the KLA in Kosovo in recent weeks.

QUESTION: Also when you were describing, you talked about these barriers - some sort of barriers they're erecting that you said could be designed to hinder the withdrawal of KVM? What did you mean by that?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, well I can just repeat. I'd have to check further for you in terms of what's behind it. But four tanks are in a position; six large concrete barriers pre-positioned along the roadway that might be designed to cut off KVM departure routes or deter entry of NATO forces.

QUESTION: Is this along a road where the NATO forces would be coming in, or why -

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not able to specify where these roads are and what there purpose might be in the mind of military planners. I'm just pointing out to you that they're engaged in provocative activity.

QUESTION: So you're raising the possibility of the Serbs using the KVM as human shields?

MR. FOLEY: Well, you're saying that; I'm not suggesting that. Now that you raise the point, let's remember that President Milosevic made a commitment, first of all, to invite the KVM monitors into Kosovo; secondly, to guarantee their safety. We hold him responsible for living up to that commitment. Certainly, at a moment when the Serb authorities are saying they don't want a NATO force but they do want the OSCE monitors to play a role, it would be very ironic and self-defeating were there to be any threats or impediments to the KVM monitors.

QUESTION: Is there just one place where you see this happening?

MR. FOLEY: I'm only aware of that one instance.

QUESTION: And this offensive that you're talking about in such stark terms today, when exactly did this become - I mean, I realize there's been some talk about moving troops for weeks and some US officials were sort of discounting it as a real problem.

MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure they were discounting it. The fact is there was a build-up along the borders.

QUESTION: And when did it become a critical mass, though? I mean, it just seems that it's convenient that it all comes to a point at the same time.

MR. FOLEY: I don't know if it's convenient, but you're able to watch your television screens as we are. All of us have seen a significant up-tick in military action. We've seen villages burning in the last couple of days. It seems to me - and I don't have a studied answer for you, I'd have to check and see what our analysts see as a threshold day, if there was such one, when military activity increased. But anecdotally, it seems to have been in the last number of days that they've really stepped up the military action on the ground.

QUESTION: The last week, you would say?

MR. FOLEY: Anecdotally, in about the last week, I would say.

QUESTION: The visit by the Kosovar Albanians - the Rubin-Thaci show. Is that on for Saturday?

MR. FOLEY: I don't have the exact date. Ambassador Hill talked this morning with the Kosovar Albanian delegation about their visit. We have no announcement to make today about who's coming and when. Maybe we'll be in a position to do that tomorrow; I'll let you know.

QUESTION: Is there any official reaction to the ruling today in Miami by Justice James Lawrence King that $6 million that MCI and ATT owe to the Cuban national telephone company should be given to the American families of the shot down over near Cuba?

MR. FOLEY: Not at this stage. We've just seen the press reports that the judge has issued a ruling in the case. We will have no comment until the Administration has had an opportunity to obtain and also to assess Judge King's ruling.

QUESTION: But you -- (inaudible) - to that type of settlement in advance. Were you not opposed to the --

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'd refer you to what Spokesman Rubin and I said previous to today about that. But I'm not really in any position to comment today until we've actually gotten a copy of the ruling and had a chance to study it.

QUESTION: I don't recall what you said before.

MR. FOLEY: I would refer you to the transcript.

QUESTION: One of the assistants -- (inaudible) - said to the wires that the State Department sent a letter to the judge saying that this is a matter of national security for the United States and they are rejecting his decision. That's not true?

MR. FOLEY: I'd have to check that for you, whether any such letter was written.

QUESTION: Another subject - the official North Korea news agency is quoting a Foreign Ministry official as saying the US has agreed to pay a fee to inspect the nuclear site. There was a sufficient debate and agreement on the payment of the inspection fee. That's the central news agency.

MR. FOLEY: That's absurd.

QUESTION: On Mexico, the government of Mexico sent an official note to the State Department asking to sustain or deny the story in The New York Times saying that the defense minister of Mexico is involved in money laundering. Do you have any response to that?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, a diplomatic note on the subject of those allegations, which were raised in The New York Times article was received from the Mexican Embassy on Tuesday. As the Mexican Embassy indicated, in a press release Tuesday, the note asked for clarification of the basis for the allegations about General Cervantes. Beyond that, we're not going to discuss the contents of a private diplomatic communication. It's a serious matter, certainly, and we'll be studying the Mexican note carefully and responding in due course.

QUESTION: But you said you will continue to work with General Cervantes.

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I stand by what we said previously - that certainly the drug traffickers have had a practice of claiming connections with senior officials. We have no evidence in that regard.

QUESTION: On China, a Chinese Embassy official today rejected the insinuations and reports that there was any Chinese nuclear espionage here. He also said that US-Chinese relations are being held hostage to party politics. Do you have a reaction to that?

MR. FOLEY: Well, rare are the cases where a government denies that it has committed activities of this nature; so that denial is not surprising in any way. We, for our part, remain deeply concerned about reports of China's attempts to illegally acquire sensitive US technology. We have conveyed our concern to Chinese officials. We've warned of negative effects on our overall bilateral relationship, and urge them to take the matter very seriously.

In response to your second question, let me say that we've also explained to the Chinese that this concern is shared broadly within the United States Government. It is shared by the Executive and the Legislative branches, by both political parties. It is not a matter manufactured by opponents of US- China relations.

QUESTION: I think you misspoke in the first sentence of that. Can you repeat it again for the record? You said rare are the times when a government denies this. I think you meant to say admit.

MR. FOLEY: No, I think I got it right.

QUESTION: Well, I'll bet you. I know what you meant, but --

MR. FOLEY: I don't want to hear journalists talking about betting. Enough of that. But for the record, it's rare for a government to deny - I'm sorry - now you've got me -

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Jim, you said it's not a matter of politics? You don't think there's anything political behind these Chinese allegations?

MR. FOLEY: Let's make a distinction - to the opposition to the deep concern over potential or actual espionage against the United States is not a partisan matter; it's shared widely by both branches, the Executive, Legislative branches of government, by both political parties. There's no division there. The Chinese should not read our concern over espionage as a partisan matter or a matter that's manufactured by opponents of US-China relations.

Now, apart from the question of illegal acquisition of US military secrets or technology, which we have to remain vigilant about, which is a constant in international relations, it is as we've stated. Many countries seek to acquire sensitive information and technology for military use by many means. We have no illusions about China or other countries in this regard. But we also have to have a relationship with China. China is 1.2 billion or more people; it is a major and emerging power in Asia; it is a growing economic market; it is a force for good or ill in the world. We believe that having a relationship with China helps to build a China which is a contributor to international peace and security and not a threat.

I've not heard any argument that can credibly make the case that isolating China will be in the US interest and will produce the kind of China that we would like to see play a positive role in international relations in the next century.

So it's a different - I forget who was asking me the question - the distinction is that we are capable of having major differences with China on human rights and to be totally opposed to Chinese or any country's efforts to illegally acquire our technology and secrets and still be able to conduct a diplomacy in the interest of the American people and the United States.

QUESTION: Yesterday there was a story about potential Russian concession on the Iranian issue. I wondered what you knew about that. Have the Russians signaled to you that they are going to limit in any way their cooperation with Iran - present cooperation or future cooperation?

MR. FOLEY: Right. In January, the Clinton Administration, as you know, imposed penalties against three Russian entities -- (inaudible) - University of Chemical Technology for their contributions to Iran's nuclear weapons programs, and also the Moscow Aviation Institute for its contributions to Iran's missile program.

We welcome statements by Minister Adamov that Russia is willing to curtail illicit cooperation with Iran's nuclear program. So this is a potentially positive statement on his part. Ongoing Russian cooperation with Iran remains a serious concern that we are discussing intensively with the government of Russia. We would like to see action taken to remedy the problem before the penalties can be reconsidered.

QUESTION: Adamov's public statements don't go as far as you want them to go, right?

MR. FOLEY: I wouldn't quite put it that way. If the Russian aim is to halt that kind of cooperation with Iran, that is a good statement. What we want to see, though, is the action taken to eliminate the problem so we can verify that cooperation has ceased. In that context, we'll be willing to look at the penalties.

QUESTION: Have they told you this privately, or are they only dealing with what's on the front --

MR. FOLEY: I believe we've heard that in the last weeks, and I would expect it to be addressed also in the context of the Gore-Primakov Commission meeting next week.

QUESTION: Can you stay on Gore-Primakov and Primakov's visit here in general? In addition to the subject you've already discussed, can you tell us what's expected?

MR. FOLEY: This is the 11th session of the US-Russia Joint Commission on Economic and Technological Cooperation. It will be the first one between Vice President Gore and Prime Minister Primakov. The Prime Minister is coming to the United States at an important time in US-Russia relations and in Russia's post-communist transition.

The Commission has become a key vehicle for strengthening the US-Russian cooperation and promoting solutions on a number of tough issues. The Vice President and Prime Minister will discuss many issues on the bilateral agenda, such as working together to promote Russia's economic recovery; pressing foreign policy issues, such as Kosovo and Iraq; and our continuing concerns, as we noted a minute ago, about Russian technology flows to Iran's missile nuclear program, as well as next steps on strategic arms control and the US stance on national missile defense.

The Commission has eight committees and two working groups under its umbrella. Each of these has an ongoing agenda and practical work that will come to the fore next week. Vice President Gore and Prime Minister Primakov will recognize achievements since the last session, review ongoing work and look for opportunities to further provide impetus to join activities and cooperation.

QUESTION: While we're on this Russia business, the timing of Primakov's visit - and you probably won't answer this question, but I'm going to try anyway. I mean, can you conceivably see the - or what do you think the consequences would be if the United States actually took military action against Yugoslavia in the time before or during Primakov's visit?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I wouldn't want to speculate and I think you anticipated that. However, it is a fact that Russia has been a very constructive participant in the Paris talks -- within the Contact Group as well -- and has also helped the Contact Group effort in its dealings with the Serbs. I don't think it's a secret that Russia has been urging President Milosevic to accept the Contact Group plan. Russia supports the Contact Group plan. We believe that President Milosevic is thoroughly isolated in this regard.

There is a difference of view between the NATO members of the Contact Group and Russia about the actually use of military force. But certainly, we understand that the Russians are doing their utmost to persuade President Milosevic that this peace agreement is in the interest of his people. Let's remember, Russia has a close and historic relationship with the people of Serbia. Their relationship with President Milosevic is not an easy one, though, and they are finding the same difficulty that everyone is in trying to bring him to his senses.

But I don't want to speculate about what might happen if NATO is forced to use military action. As we've said repeatedly, we don't seek to use military action for its own sake. We believe that the Contact Group peace plan is in the interest of Serbia as well as the people, Serb and Kosovar, of Kosovo. We think that President Milosevic ought to see it in that way but if he does not, the consequences will be his to bear.

QUESTION: The other question was about Burma. There are reports that on Aung San Suu Kyi's husband, Michael Aris, is critically ill with cancer, and they're seeking a visa for him.

MR. FOLEY: I issued a statement on that yesterday.

QUESTION: Did you really? I'm sorry, I apologize.

MR. FOLEY: I can go into it, if you want.

QUESTION: No, that's all right.

QUESTION: Jim, there's an AP report that Strobe Talbott's brother-in-law is being investigated by the State Department over contacts with the accused Bosnian war criminal and may be receiving money from him and his associates. I'm wondering if you can comment at all if he is under investigation?

MR. FOLEY: I cannot comment on the work of the Inspector General of the State Department. I'd refer any questions you have to the Inspector General's Office.

QUESTION: They have basically no comment, so they basically -

MR. FOLEY: Well, they follow their standard practice, but I'm not allowed to comment on whether or not they're conducting an investigation. If you have questions about the specific elements that appeared in that press story, Mr. Shearer is a private citizen; he's a private business man. I'd urge you to ask him about his activities. They don't involve or engage the State Department, though, I can tell you that.

QUESTION: Jim, can I just clarify something what you say on Cervantes. You say the State Department doesn't find any evidence that involves Cervantes with money laundering.

MR. FOLEY: I would refer you to what I or Jamie Rubin said the other day on this subject and leave it at that.

QUESTION: Speaking of investigations, would you comment on The New York Times article today that implicates Jim Dobbins, saying that he was under investigation, the investigating stopped and what type of punitive measures against Mr. Dobbins are about to occur, if there are going to be punitive measures?

MR. FOLEY: Well, there's a lot in your question that's not exactly on the mark, Toni, with all respect, but there's a lot in there.

My first comment is that this is old news; it's kind of an old story. These are events that happened quite a number of years ago and were looked into quite some time ago. The story has reappeared. But the problem I had with your question, you were asking matters about the present tense that don't really apply. I think I was asked for comment in that article, and I would stand by exactly what I said. I can repeat it for you: The State Department has in place a rigorous discipline process. The allegations that are referred to in that article were thoroughly investigated. After a thorough consideration of all relevant facts, it was determined that Ambassador Dobbins testified in good faith, did not intentionally mislead Congress.

Ambassador Dobbins retains the full confidence of Secretary Albright. Secretary Albright has conveyed that confidence to members of Congress. Ambassador Dobbins shares her commitment to close cooperation with Congress and looks forward to working with its members as he assumes his new responsibilities.

QUESTION: Is there any ongoing investigation at the State Department at this point?

MR. FOLEY: No.

QUESTION: The Congress had no ability to block any appointment?

MR. FOLEY: Well, his position is not a Senate confirmed position.

QUESTION: Do you have any theories as to why this story has cropped up so many years after the fact?

MR. FOLEY: No, I don't.

QUESTION: It wouldn't be anything like the Chinese partisan - a hint of partisanship in the story, would there?

MR. FOLEY: Chinese, I don't see any Chinese.

QUESTION: Like the Chinese comments on the spying allegations, that they were partisan. I'm saying, could this be like that - that perhaps these allegations against Mr. Dobbins are of a partisan nature?

MR. FOLEY: I have no idea where the story originated. I couldn't comment. I don't see any signs of partisanship, certainly.

QUESTION: Well, Jesse Helms is quoted in that same story as the prominent Republican member of the Foreign Relations Committee. He's given you some trouble on such issues in the past. He is quoted as sending Secretary Albright a letter asking that she not appoint Mr. Dobbins.

MR. FOLEY: That's a different matter; now you've narrowed it. The question earlier was about an investigation that is not a current matter. But your question about Senator Helms' letter is a relevant issue of the moment. Secretary Albright will respond to that letter. She certainly respects Chairman Helms and values highly her good relationship with him. I expect in her reply she will explain that she has confidence in Ambassador Dobbins. He really is one of the top-flight diplomats in the State Department. He has, really, a remarkable record of service to this country. He is someone who specialized in tough situations, and he's the kind of person, really, as is historically proven, you need in this kind of a tough job where you're dealing with issues involving peace in the Balkans. So he's in the same sort of line as some of his predecessors - very capable guy. As I said, there was a rigorous discipline process and those allegations were looked into.

There were serious allegations there. It was determined, after careful review and checking with different sources and other relevant factors in weighing the totality of evidence and looking at the case very carefully, that he was not careful in his testimony. He could have been more careful, and that certainly is the watch word when we are dealing with issues that have to do with law enforcement; I can tell you that. Every time, as you know, when we spokesmen are standing here and you ask a question about an ongoing investigation, we're normally very careful not to comment, not to get ahead of it. He was not appropriately careful in his response.

But since he is such a strong and capable and eminent diplomat and when you're talking about charges of this nature, under any circumstance, no matter who the employer diplomat may be, requires really looking very carefully at the matter. We determined that he was careless, that he could have expressed himself better but that he did not intentionally seek to mislead Congress; that he testified in good faith. I think the record will show that.

QUESTION: I have a Cuba question. I know that you want time to review the specific ruling, but would you mind commenting specifically on the fact that this Administration thinks it's so important to have people-to-people contact, and one obvious people-to-people contact is telephone usage. So the specific targeting of retrieving money from telephone companies, how does that affect the people-to-people contact?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we've made that point. We think that, first of all, we're fully committed to US legislation regarding Cuba. We don't think that it's a time for olive branches to be extended to Fidel Castro. He doesn't show, really, any signs of change. Certainly, if Cuba were on the road to democratic change, that would be a different matter. We don't see any evidence of that; on the contrary, we see a crackdown on dissidents.

In that context, Secretary Albright and the President have felt that dealing with this entrenched communist dictatorship, which is really responsible for the suffering of the Cuban people, that we ought to try to open up some space for the Cuban people and to increase our people-to- people ties, being very careful not to help the regime not to in any way prolong or consolidate the regime.

So we've made some efforts in this regard, and communication is part of them. I've indicated that previous to the judge's decision. I hope that answers your question.

I can't analyze the judge's decision. We haven't seen it yet.

QUESTION: We're about to run into another briefing. Could we call it off?

MR. FOLEY: Okay.

QUESTION: Could we also get like 15 minutes or something?

MR. FOLEY: Ten?

QUESTION: Well, I mean, people have to file.

MR. FOLEY: Can we do it? 15, okay, thanks.

(The briefing concluded at 3:25 P.M.)

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