U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #8, 00-02-03
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1001
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Thursday, February 3, 2000
Briefer: James B. Foley
IRAQ
1-7 Diversion Of Russian Vessel by US Navy Ship Operating within the /
Multinational Maritime Interception Force / UN Security Council
Resolution 665 / Oil Smuggling
8 US Iraqi / Kurdish policy
SERBIA/MONTENEGRO
7 Closing of Borders / US Aid to Montenegro / Prime Minister
Vujanovic Visit to Washington, DC
AUSTRIA
8-11 New Government Coalition / Freedom Party Participation in
Government / US Concerns / Declaration on European Values
RUSSIA (CHECHNYA)
11-12 Territorial Integrity of Neighboring States / Radio Liberty
Correspondent Babitskiy Exchanged for Russian Soldiers / Russian
Treatment of Noncombatants
SOUTH KOREA
12-14 US-ROK Nonproliferation Discussions February 8 - 9 in Hawaii
NORTH KOREA
14 High Level Talks Scheduled in February / KEDO Turnkey Contract /
Construction of Lightwater Reactor Project / US North Korean
Framework / US Commitment
DEPARTMENT
14-15 Russian Spy Case Investigation
HAITI
15 President Preval Visit to Washington, D.C. / Withdrawal of US
Troops / US Aid for Elections
CHINA (TAIWAN)
16 Taiwan Security Enhancement Act
NORTH IRELAND
16 Suspension of Government
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
16-17 Israel-Palestinian Track / Peace Process
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2000, 1:50 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. FOLEY: I am pleased to be here for another on-time briefing on the
part of your Deputy Spokesman. I know you have come to count on me in that
regard. I do apologize, though, for the delay.
I don't have any announcements so, George, you've got the first shot at
me.
QUESTION: Could you give us a rundown on the tanker that was detained in
the Gulf?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, I can. I think you'll find that the operational details
will be made available at the Pentagon today. I don't necessarily wish to
empty the room as I just begin my briefing, but I understand that P.J.
Crowley's briefing would have begun a few minutes ago. So you may have to
check with your colleagues about some of those operational details.
What I can tell you is that yesterday a US Navy ship operating within the
MIF, the Multinational Maritime Interception Force, stopped a Russian
tanker in international waters off the United Arab Emirates. As the
multinational force has done for the last nine years, the tanker is being
inspected to determine whether it is carrying contraband. I was informed
before coming in here that the decision has been made by the MIF to divert
the ship for further inspection but, again, I'd refer you to the Pentagon
for up-to-the-minute details on the MIF's actions.
Under the authority of UN Security Council Resolution 665, the multinational
force routinely intercepts and inspects ships to ensure compliance with UN
sanctions on Iraq.
So that's the bare-bones answer, George. Do you have a follow-up?
QUESTION: Have you received a protest from the Russians?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we've seen public declarations out of Moscow in this
regard. I don't know whether those have been conveyed through diplomatic
channels in any kind of a formal way, but what I can tell you is that we
have been in regular contact with Russian officials, both here and in
Moscow, for almost one month on this issue. We have spoken with the Russian
ambassador here in Washington several times in January prior to the
interception of the vessel.
The focus of these discussions were suspicions that the MIF had regarding
the activity of vessels belonging to certain Russian firms. The Russians
have told us that this ship is privately owned and that an investigation on
the Russian side is underway. The Russians have not provided us thus far
with the results of their own investigation.
The Russian Government has also requested consular access to its Russian
nationality crew on the tanker and consular access has been granted. We are
working now to make the necessary arrangements.
QUESTION: Can you tell me, aside from this ship which has been seized and
one other which was in the area - you said that you talked to the Russian
ambassador several times in January.
MR. FOLEY: Right.
QUESTION: About this. Was this about these particular ships or other
ships which were in the area and suspected of smuggling?
MR. FOLEY: I think it's the particular case we're talking about.
QUESTION: Okay. Can you say - you all brought out pictures on, I believe
it was December 10th, showing a larger number of ships than usual - at
Basra, I believe - that you believed were engaged in smuggling activity. Do
you have any information about whether that up-tick in activity continues?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, that indeed is our understanding that that up-tick that
we brought to your attention in December is continuing. I may have some
information on that, if you'll bear with me for a moment.
The amount of illegal Iraqi oil smuggled by maritime routes has virtually
doubled since the resumption of oil smuggling in late August of 1999. Now,
this is indicative of Iraqi attempts to circumvent current sanctions that
limit Iraq to the legal export of oil via the Mina al Bakr oil terminal.
You remember during that briefing I pointed out the various locations,
including the terminal and the tankers that were receiving off-loaded gas
oil.
Obviously, we have stressed the point that Iraq is able to gain more from
the profit of illegal sales since they go directly to the Iraqi regime;
they're not controlled, by definition, by the United Nations. We believe
the recent surge in smuggling activity can be attributed, at least in part,
to the increase in the price of oil that obviously increases the profits
that smugglers enjoy and also more money for the Iraqi regime. So, yes,
we've seen a significant up-tick in this kind of activity over the last
several months.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary talk about this in her meeting with
Putin?
MR. FOLEY: Well, as I said, we've been discussing this issue with
Russians in Moscow and here in Washington at a variety of levels. I'm not
going to go into the details of her meetings in Moscow.
QUESTION: Jim, there's another regime that benefits from the smuggling,
and that's the one that controls the waterways that these ships go through -
and that's Iran. And I wondered if you all have asked Iran to clamp down on
this, if you've made any sort of protest to the Iranians.
MR. FOLEY: Well, as you know, all countries are bound by the relevant UN
Security Council resolutions, are bound to respect and, indeed, to enforce
the sanctions regime. The United Nations is aware that the smugglers route
often hugs or goes along the Iranian coastline, and it's our information
that the UN Sanctions Committee has raised this issue with Iran in the past
and we expect that it will be doing so again.
I have, by the way, just I think a little bit more in the way of statistics
about the nature of the up-tick, again in response to your question.
Illicit oil exports via the Persian Gulf averaged about 50,000 barrels a
day for much of 1998. Oil smuggling increased sharply in the Fall of 1999
and has now reached about 100,000 barrels a day.
QUESTION: My first question is: How do you know that? Is that because
it's been confiscated?
MR. FOLEY: Well, this is, obviously, the responsibility of the multinational
force to enforce the embargo and enforce the sanctions, and they are able
to make determinations on the basis of the observations they make and on
the basis of their inspection and boarding activities.
I can give you some figures, if you're interested, in connection with the
kind of work that the multinational force has been performing. Since 1990,
the interception force has queried more than 28,000 vessels. This is done
by radio. They have boarded more than 12,000 vessels and diverted 700 for
violating UN sanctions. I may have statistics covering the last year, if
you'll bear with me again. In 1999, there were 2,422 queries, 700 boardings,
and 19 diversion to various ports of call.
I might add also that this is not the first case of an interception of or
diversion of a Russian vessel. The facts in this regard are the following.
Russian-flagged vessels have been implicated in the illegal export of Iraqi
oil in the past. This is not a new event but it is unusual in the sense
that we've not seen very large numbers of violators and a significant
pattern of such activity. It's not new; it is somewhat unusual.
Again, the MIF routinely intercepts ships of any nationality suspected of
carrying contraband. The last time a Russian-flagged vessel was boarded was
on the 31st of August, 1998. The last time there was an actual diversion of
a Russian-flagged vessel was on January 5th, also in 1998.
QUESTION: You said that you've been talking to the Russian ambassador and
other Russian officials about this for over a month and talking about these
specific cases, or in a sense that's what I thought you said.
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: And so if you've been tracking this for a while, I mean, was
there a conscious decision made to wait until the Secretary had left Moscow
before boarding the ship?
MR. FOLEY: No, not to my knowledge. Again, this is something that has
been tracked, but this is an operational question. I'd have to refer you to
the Pentagon. But the multinational force acted when it was in a position
to do so, is my understanding.
QUESTION: Are there any countries who can tell you that you also have
this kind of contact about suspicious vessels?
MR. FOLEY: What was the first part?
QUESTION: Other countries, perhaps, besides Russia? You only gave us
Russia as the name of a country which you have boarded and intercepted.
MR. FOLEY: Well, I gave you statistics about large numbers of queries, of
boardings and of diversions. I don't have a breakdown on the nationality of
the flags of the various vessels.
You know, I think it's important to stress here that these are, in many
cases, vessels that employ flags of convenience, and you can't necessarily
point to a given flag and assume that a particular government is responsible
for what's going on. And in fact, even when you're talking about the
littoral states - I think I made this point in December - some of this
activity can occur unbeknownst to them.
It's the job, obviously, of all nations to meet their responsibilities
under Security Council resolutions, including the littoral states. As I
noted a few minutes ago, this Russian flagship is privately owned and we,
again, have not drawn the conclusion that the Russian Government in any way
is supportive of efforts to smuggle or to overcome or subvert the sanctions
regime. But this is something that they told us that they're looking into.
And as I said, we'd not been informed of the results of their own
investigation.
QUESTION: You mentioned about diversions. What happens when it is proven
that it is smuggled oil? Is it confiscated then?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, my understanding is that the contraband is confiscated.
The proceeds of the contraband are deposited into UN accounts.
QUESTION: Where does the diverted oil go?
MR. FOLEY: What was the question?
QUESTION: The oil that is smuggled, where is it sold? Where is it off-
loaded?
MR. FOLEY: It's off-loaded I think in a number of the littoral states
along the Persian Gulf.
QUESTION: Is anyone aware where this ship was going? And then I have
another question too.
MR. FOLEY: You'd have to ask the Pentagon if they have that information.
QUESTION: And the figures you gave, does that cover only illegal exports
by sale, or does it also cover the fairly extensive, I believe, shipment
exports through - across the land border to Iran which are then shipped
from Iranian ports?
MR. FOLEY: I'd have to take the question. I'm not sure if the figure
encompasses merely that transported by sea or whether it captures all of
the illegal smuggling that is occurring.
QUESTION: So you're leaving open the possibility that this Russian vessel
was working on behalf of another foreign company or a foreign government?
MR. FOLEY: I didn't say that at all. I said that the Russians have told
us that this is a privately owned company. They're investigating on their
side the suspicions that we brought to their attention. I have not said
anything about whether they're under the authority of a foreign government
or not. I don't see how you would draw that conclusion.
QUESTION: You said earlier that the Russian Government was supportive of
this activity.
MR. FOLEY: No, I said that we've not drawn that conclusion.
QUESTION: So then why is it wrong to draw - to speculate at least that
this vessel was operating on behalf of another - of a foreign government,
non-Russian, or a foreign non-Russian company?
MR. FOLEY: I wasn't implying that this vessel was under the authority of
any government, be it Russia or another government. I think the fact of the
matter is that as I indicated, that a lot of this illegal smuggling occurs
on the part of, on behalf of, private interests, private smuggling
interests that use flags of convenience.
QUESTION: Not to establish where you think the oil goes when it's being
smuggled, you said to the "littoral states", so I don't understand why
"littoral states" were important.
MR. FOLEY: The oil eventually disappears into the international
marketplace. You lose trace -
QUESTION: The tank is monitored -
MR. FOLEY: Do you have a question?
QUESTION: You said the tankers were being monitored. So they're
presumably being monitored to their final destination. It's their final
destination which I'm asking you about.
MR. FOLEY: Of this particular ship?
QUESTION: Of the ships that are being monitored.
MR. FOLEY: I don't have a list of all the littoral states. You can take a
look at the map. They're along the Persian Gulf is normally where they're
often located.
QUESTION: Sorry. I'm not trying to be disingenuous, but you're saying
that the ships are being monitored to their final destination, presumably.
I don't understand why ships should take crude oil from Iraq and sell it to
littoral states. I mean where is the market? Where are they selling it
to?
MR. FOLEY: I don't really understand your confusion here. The gas oil is
taken out of Iraqi waters. My understand is that these tankers hug the
coastline, and they off-load where they can at points of convenience.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) send oil, for example, to a littoral state in the
Gulf? It doesn't make sense.
MR. FOLEY: Well, but they're able then to take possession of it and sell
it on the open market.
QUESTION: Okay. So are we saying that littoral states are taking part in
the smuggling operation?
MR. FOLEY: I think you weren't listening to me a few minutes ago. I
repeated what I said in December, which is that our understanding is that
basically much of this occurs unbeknownst to many of the littoral states.
That's not necessarily always the case. That's why it's necessary to remind
the littoral states of their responsibility. The UN Sanctions Committee has
done that in many cases. We have done so bilaterally as well.
QUESTION: Is Iraq understood to be getting the full amount of - is this a
black market in that they're underselling this oil and, therefore, getting
only a fraction of what a country - a producer would get on a legal market,
or are they just getting whatever any country would typically expect to get
for a shipload of -
MR. FOLEY: Well, you can take the global figures that I mentioned. We
believe the smuggling is in recent months occurring to the tune of about
100,000 barrels a day. And that, I'm told, equals in the vicinity of $25
million a month. But obviously if you're dealing with middlemen, rogue
tankers that are off-loading this stuff and selling it on the market, you
have different levels of middlemen - the transporters, those who are buying
it, those who are then taking it and selling it perhaps through second
and third parties - that the profits may be eaten away as you go.
But, nevertheless, we believe this is an important and serious violation of
the sanctions regime; that the money that Iraq gets, whatever portion of
that figure is in a given instance, is money that goes directly to the
Iraqi regime. It's not controlled by the United Nations and, therefore, can
more easily go toward the nefarious purposes that the Saddam Hussein regime
is using its revenues for.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, a follow-up. The reason that hugging the coast
is important is because that is how you get through the embargo, is that
right, and that's how you get through the net?
MR. FOLEY: I believe that the MIF - and you'd have to ask the Pentagon -
operates in international waters.
QUESTION: On another subject, the Serbians report that they have closed
their border with Montenegro and are halting all trade between the Republic
of Serbia and Montenegro. Have you heard that? Is that to be a topic of
discussion between the Secretary this afternoon and the Montenegrin
official?
MR. FOLEY: What I have heard is that you were going to ask the question
and, therefore, we're aware of the press report in the last few minutes
before I came out here. It's not something that we're able to verify. We've
just heard that there is a media report that this has happened, but we're
not in a position to confirm that at this point. So I'm going to have to
take the question and we're attempting to follow up on it.
QUESTION: Well, on a more general question on the same subject, the
United States has been giving, I guess, $15 million in various forms of aid
to Montenegro in the last year, $7 million the other day, $8 previously. Is
the United States interested in weakening the links between Montenegro and
Serbia?
MR. FOLEY: No. We are interested in providing significant support to
Montenegro in its efforts to serve as a model of democracy and good
governance in the FRY, in its efforts to implement economic reforms and
increase the economic opportunities of the people of Montenegro - again,
serving as a model to the people of the FRY at large as to how a government
committed to democracy and reform can benefit its people and can allow its
people to benefit from assistance and integration with the international
community.
That is what motivates our strong support for the reform government of
President Djukanovic and, in that regard, I think you're aware that the
Prime Minister of Montenegro, Mr. Vujanovic, who is here in Washington, is
meeting Secretary Albright this afternoon. She will be reiterating our
support to Montenegro.
QUESTION: About Iraq, last week, The Washington Post articles claim that
when you squeezed Iraq and the Iraqi Kurdish areas became as an independent
Kurdish state and they have their own money, they have their own flag, they
have everything which the state has it. And did the United States change
the Iraqi Kurdish policy?
MR. FOLEY: No, of course not. No, we continue to support the territorial
integrity of Iraq.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the possible formation of a new
Austrian Government that includes the Freedom Party? The Office of the
President - evidently there's a wire story that says that the government
will be sworn in tomorrow.
MR. FOLEY: Well, we've been very clear on this matter, as I said on
Tuesday, and I think Secretary Albright spoke to this important issue when
she was in Croatia yesterday. We've been very clear that we were very
concerned about the possibility that the Freedom Party would join in a new
government in Austria. If this report is borne out of the president's
intention to bless the formation of such a government, our concerns
obviously increase.
I don't believe that the story is finished, though, at least in terms of
constitutional procedures in Austria. First of all, this report of the
president's intentions needs to be confirmed. Secondly, if that happens, I
believe the parliament will need to act. And so in some sense, we're not
going to be able to comment about something that hasn't happened yet, but I
can, for your benefit though, restate our concerns given the profound
worries that have existed in Europe, in the United States and around the
world, about some of the statements that have been made by the Freedom
Party leader in connection with the Nazi era that are deeply disturbing. We
have significant concerns about this potential development. As you know,
Secretary Albright spoke with the Austrian Foreign Minister and emphasized
the importance of democratic values and Austria's commitments to pluralism
and tolerance, and we are in close touch with our European friends and
allies on this issue.
I would note that the two parties that may form the government have issued
a declaration of commitment to broad democratic principles and values that
form the basis of our partnership with Europe. I think that this declaration
is a reflection of the very strong international concern that has been
expressed so far and, yet, we believe that actions are indeed more
important than words. However nice words may appear to sound, we are going
to be watching very, very closely how events unfold in the coming weeks,
days and months. And I think it's fair to say that Austria will be
under an international microscope in the coming weeks - days, weeks and
months - precisely because of the deep concern and, indeed, stake that the
international community has in a viable democratic system in Austria.
Let's remember that the health and well-being of democracy in Austria is
important to the people of Austria. We recognize that. I think Secretary
Albright yesterday in Croatia noted that the Austrian people have a right
to participate in free and fair elections, have a right to vote, and have a
right to form their own government. No one is questioning that. But the
international community, though, has a legitimate interest in the nature of
democracy in a fellow democracy, and that is increasingly true around the
world as democracy takes hold in various parts of the world. It is
especially true in a part of Europe that spawned the most unspeakable
atrocities known to humankind in history in that part of the world. And
therefore, the concerns of the international community, including those
of the United States are legitimate, and they are profound.
QUESTION: In that regard, since you mentioned that the parliament has a
role in this and the president has a role in this, what would the United
States recommend to either the parliament or the president to do? I mean,
you've expressed concerns. As you said, actions are more important. What
actions should they take?
MR. FOLEY: Well, it's not incumbent on the United States or anyone else
to dictate as outsiders what specific steps that the government of Austria,
the Austrian body politic, the people of Austria should take. I think that
is clear, that they have the right, as Secretary Albright indicated
yesterday, to make their own choices. But the international community has
its own rights, indeed its own obligations in this regard, to be on
the watch, to be vigilant, to be concerned in this event about the
fate and the future of democracy in a fellow democracy in Austria.
So we are going to watch very carefully what they do. No one is telling the
people of Austria what to do, but we're watching to see what the impact of
the choices they make will be. And as we've indicated over the last several
days, while it's premature to talk about our actions at this stage, we will
determine what steps are appropriate based on what happens. And so we're
going to be watching that closely in the next several days.
QUESTION: A couple of things on that. One, given the fact that just hours
after the Secretary spoke with the foreign minister, he agreed to form this
coalition with the Freedom Party. Do you have any thoughts on that? I mean
it sounds like Schuessel completely ignored what the Secretary had to say,
and I'm just wondering if he didn't care what she had to say. Do you have
any comment on that?
And secondly, I'm kind of confused about your actions-speak-louder-than-
words thing. I mean, it seems to me that what Haider and the Freedom Party
have done is only speak words. And you say they certainly haven't gone out
and actually done anything that's anti- Semitic or pro - I mean, any
physical action. So when you say that you believe that actions speak louder
than words, it gets back to Jonathan's question of yesterday or two days
ago, of what can they do to make themselves acceptable if they haven't done
anything except for speak words which most people find objectionable?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I hope your colleagues won't object if I take five or
ten minutes to answer what is a very lengthy, multi-part question. First of
all, in terms of the Secretary's conversation with Foreign Minister
Schuessel, several points.
First, she certainly spoke very vigorously on behalf of the United States.
Others have spoken out as well, including the European Union, including
Israel, others around the world. We recognize that Austria will make its
own decisions. We have a responsibility to state our view, and that's what
the Secretary did.
Number two, I think you've seen that, indeed, there has been a declaration
by the parties of their fealty to international norms, to democratic
principles. And I believe that, as I said, that the concern expressed by
the international community is reflected in that statement that came out
the other day.
In terms then leading into your next point about that declaration which
does involve words to this point and not actions, I fail to see the
connection or the point or the conclusion that you're drawing from what I
said that actions speak louder than words. The fact is that words that have
been uttered by Mr. Haider on several occasions have caused deep concerns,
precisely because they occur in a context in a region which saw the most
unspeakable barbarity of man to man in recorded history. And anyone who
in any way, however cavalierly, however much someone may retract
or apologize for statements that in some sense minimize or trivialize or
explain away those unspeakable events of 50-some years ago, is bound and
will and does cause deep concern.
Now, actions, as I said, are more important than words. The words have
caused concern. The words may indicate the direction that people may take
in practice, the actions they may take. That's why we're going to be
watching very carefully because, given what happened in Europe 50-60 years
ago, I think it is an obligation of the international community to be
vigilant, for its ears to perk up, when things are said which can
trivialize some of those things that happened 50-60 years ago. And,
therefore, we're going to be very vigilant in watching how events
unfold.
QUESTION: Does that mean, then, that the US is concerned that if the
Freedom Party gets into power that we're going to see - that we may see -
that there is a danger of a repeat of what happened 50 years ago?
MR. FOLEY: Well, you're leaping to conclusions. You're putting words in
my mouth that I did not utter. We have reason to be concerned. For us to
spell out specifically bad things that might happen would be both pointless
and irresponsible. The people of Austria have been committed to democratic
norms and principles, and we expect that commitment to continue to
demonstrate itself in not only words but in actions in the months and years
to come.
QUESTION: A couple of questions on words and deeds and so on. You brought
up the question of this declaration twice, but on neither occasion did you
actually welcome it in any way. I mean, you obviously are willing to
condemn previous statements. Why are you not prepared to welcome a
declaration renouncing those statements?
And, secondly, since we're talking about actions, what does the State
Department or the United States think of Dr. Haider's record as governor of
the Canton of Corinthia where he has, in fact, been in an executive
position for some years?
MR. FOLEY: I can speak to the record of foreign governments in their
foreign policies. That's the job of the State Department. I don't have a
scorecard or an analysis of his domestic program in the state of which he's
governor. I can't answer that question. That's now where our concerns
lie.
What was your first question?
QUESTION: Why you're not welcoming the statement --
MR. FOLEY: Well, we've taken note of the statement, but given our
concerns, what we're interested in is what happens. As I said, a statement
of commitment to democratic norms, to international standards, to human
rights, is something that ought to be taken for granted on the part of all
functioning democracies, and words are useful. And, certainly, we believe
that positive commitments in that regard reflect the strong concerns that
the international community has voiced in the last days. But for you to
suggest that our concerns would evaporate simply on the basis of a
statement is not credible.
QUESTION: Recently at the CIS meeting there seemed to be a warming
between the countries of the Caucuses, that is, Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan
and Armenia. And President Shevardnaze made the proposal to have Prime
Minister Putin chair the meeting. Everything seemed to be very friendly.
Did the Secretary on her visit get the impression that relations between
the countries in the Caucasus, aside from the problem in Chechnya, are much
better and that, therefore, less of a danger of a conflict in Chechnya
possibly spilling over; whereas, five months ago there were accusations
between Georgia and Russia on who was, you know, providing arms to the
rebels?
MR. FOLEY: You're right. There were concerns expressed in the region at
various moments or various points of the Chechen conflict about a possible
spillover, about violations of borders in the region. We were encouraged by
the fact that Acting President Putin himself, I believe, unless it was
Foreign Minister Ivanov - I'd have to check the record - but one of the two
gentlemen made some rather explicit statements about a month or so ago
in regard to the territorial integrity of neighboring states, the
commitment not to allow the conflict in Chechnya to spill over. And as I
said, we were encouraged by those comments.
As you know, there were reports maybe a month or so ago of potential
spillover or of some activity that occurred cross-border. I've not seen any
such reports in recent weeks, and we do trust that all the states of the
region recognize that this is a bridge that should not be crossed. It's not
in anyone's interest for this conflict to spread, especially beyond
international borders.
I don't have a specific readout of the Secretary's conversations in Moscow
to the extent that they did cover the topic of the Caucasus. I do know that
the Secretary, with Foreign Minister Ivanov, did discuss the Nagorno-
Karabakh conflict and the efforts of the Minsk Group to promote a peaceful
resolution to that conflict. But I'm not aware that any problems in the
Caucuses were discussed or whether there was any problematic dimension to
the discussion.
QUESTION: As long as we're in the Caucasus, do you have any guidance or
update on the latest turn of events with RFE correspondent Babitskiy?
MR. FOLEY: I do. I have a bit of disturbing information in that regard,
if you'll bear with me one moment. We understand that the Kremlin press
spokesman announced today that Russian authorities exchanged Radio Liberty
journalist Andrei Babitskiy for three Russian soldiers in Chechnya on
February 3, today. We are urgently following up on these reports and are
seeking facts and clarification from the Russian presidential administration.
If this report proves true, it would raise very serious questions about
Russia's adherence to its international commitments regarding the treatment
of noncombatants. In a statement condemning the purported exchange, Radio
Free Europe - Radio Liberty President Thomas Stein raised serious concern
about the well-being of Mr. Babitskiy before the exchange took place. We
are going to continue to follow this situation very, very closely and seek
further information from the Russian authorities.
QUESTION: Are there any precedents to this that we can go back to
historically?
MR. FOLEY: I'd have to check the record. This, as I said, is a disturbing
development if true, and I'm not aware of any precedent to it, no.
QUESTION: Are you suggesting that the Russians picked up Babitskiy as
trading material for the prisoners?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't think we're in a position to speculate on what
the rationale for this could have been. It's simply an unacceptable action
that reportedly has taken place and that we're following up on.
QUESTION: There is some indication that he, Babitskiy, may not have been
opposed to this deal. Does that in any way -
MR. FOLEY: If the facts turn out to be happy facts, and this transfer or
exchange - I'm speaking very hypothetically now - leads to his release and
he declares himself and is in a position freely to declare himself pleased
that he has been released and is in good shape physically and able to
resume a normal life, that's again a hypothesis and is a different matter.
Right now, all we know is what has been reported, and it is disturbing.
QUESTION: Can you confirm reports that South Korea and the United States
will meet in Hawaii next week to talk about South Korea's missile
plans?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, if I can come back to that in a second, I had something
on that the other day. I believe that is true.
QUESTION: I have another question. What can you tell us about what they
agreed at the last round, and did they agree - did the United States agree
in principle that South Korea could extend its range to 300 kilometers?
MR. FOLEY: Well, that's part of the - connected to the first question. So
when I get the information I needed - it could happen any second - here we
have it. The United States and the Republic of Korea will be holding
nonproliferation discussions in Hawaii on February 8 through 9. As we've
done periodically since 1995, we're going to be discussing issues related
to the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery
systems. The US delegation will be led by Assistant Secretary Robert
Einhorn and, on the South Korean side, by Director General Song of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
We expect the two sides will discuss a full range of nonproliferation
issues including technical missile issues following on from the last round
of nonproliferation talks in November. I don't want to comment further on
the meetings, they haven't taken place yet, and these are meetings that we
don't normally talk about publicly given the sensitive nature of the
subject.
I can tell you that in the context of our very close relationship with the
Republic of Korea, we regularly consult on the best means of insuring
adequate deterrent capabilities on the Korean peninsula. In this connection,
we share the Republic of Korea's concerns about the threat posed by North
Korea's missile activities. We have always stressed with the South Koreans,
and will continue to, our desire to cooperate with South Korea to insure
adequate Republic of Korea defense and deterrent capabilities while
continuing to promote our regional and global nonproliferation objectives.
I couldn't answer your specific second question.
QUESTION: Can I ask in a slightly different way a slightly different
question? What does the United States think is an appropriate limit for the
range of South Korean missiles?
MR. FOLEY: I know whenever the subject comes up it's in your best
interest to try to press me and Mr. Rubin on the details of our discussions
- of our frank, private and collegial discussions with our South Korean
friends. We don't do so. We think it's, as I said, a sensitive issue but
it's also one that we think we can advance best by doing it privately.
As I said, we are sympathetic to the defense requirements of our South
Korean allies and we cooperate with them on their defense needs, but we
also have an interest in ensuring that their defensive capabilities are
also in conformity with global and regional nonproliferation objectives.
Beyond those two principles, we've never gone in terms of the particulars.
QUESTION: Well, I hope the choices of venue for these meetings wasn't
determined by anything other than the fact that it's halfway between the
two countries and not the fact that it's winter in both Seoul and
Washington. My real question is have the North Koreans yet said who they
are going to send for these high-level talks?
MR. FOLEY: No. As we indicated I think at the close of the last round of
Ambassador Kartman's talks in Berlin, we expect to have another round with
the North Koreans, I believe in New York, at the end of this month,
February. We expect that the high-level visit will take place about a month
after that, and we will learn from the North Koreans at some point who the -
the identity, rather, of their high-level visitor, but that has not been
communicated to us yet.
QUESTION: Have you seen the statement out of Pyongyang in which they
accuse the United States of being the principle cause to the delay in the
construction of the light-water nuclear reactor?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, I have seen that. You know, we've covered this ground on
previous occasions. This is not the first time. I can tell you that the
United States and its partners in KEDO are working actively to meet all of
their obligations under the Agreed Framework. Indeed since KEDO signed a
Turnkey Contract in September with the prime contractor for the light-water
reactor project, construction can now proceed steadily.
As you know in terms of the financing of the construction of this light-
water reactor, Japan has pledged the equivalent of $1 billion towards that
project. The Republic of Korea has pledged to fund 70 percent of the
construction costs of the light-water reactors. The legislatures in both
countries have approved funding for the light-water reactor project. The
procedures for disbursement have been finalized, and this all assures that
construction will continue to move forward.
We believe the light-water reactor is a critical element of the US-North
Korean Agreed Framework which we believe the framework remains the most
viable way to contain the North Korean nuclear program.
Groundbreaking took place on the light-water reactor in August of 1997.
There's been site preparation ongoing since that time. You'd have to check
with KEDO on the particulars of that.
Our commitment as the United States to this effort is in a different area.
The burden-sharing agreement achieved at KEDO does not contain a commitment
for US contributions to the light-water reactor project as such. Our
contribution under the burden-sharing agreement is to provide funding for
the supply of heavy fuel oil and other KEDO needs which we have been
meeting.
QUESTION: The FBI earlier this week released a tape showing quite
explicitly how Mr. Gusev, who has now been deported for spying, set up his
operation here and also laying out the probably scenario that someone
inside helped - someone who has been inside the building has helped to
place the device. And I'm wondering your reaction to this release and
whether you believe it compromises the security of this building that
something like this would point out vulnerabilities in it and if there's
been any further action on - you can't tell us if it's under investigation,
but any further guidance on the case.
MR. FOLEY: Are you asking whether we have a problem with the FBI's
cooperation with that program? The answer is no.
QUESTION: I don't suppose I'd get an answer to something that blunt.
MR. FOLEY: No, I'm giving you an answer. No.
QUESTION: No answer? No reaction?
MR. FOLEY: No, not the lack of an answer. No, we don't have a problem
with the FBI's cooperation with that program. In terms of the investigation
itself, it's ongoing. And all the questions that you're interested in are
ones we're interested in. That's what the investigation is investigating in
terms of the spy incident that took place here, and it's ongoing.
My understanding is that conclusions have not been reached. I did check,
having seen the report, because the report indicated that the investigation
is reaching certain conclusions or pointing in certain directions. I'm told
that that's not really true, that it's ongoing and the conclusions have not
been reached.
QUESTION: The President of Haiti is in town and is meeting with Deputy
Secretary Talbott this afternoon.
MR. FOLEY: Right.
QUESTION: Can you say anything about what's going to be discussed at that
meeting? Will it have to do mainly with the - this is a bad word - but
abandoned withdrawal - not abandoned - withdrawal of US troops from Haiti?
And also, if I might make a plea to the number two in the State Department
for his schedule to be formally listed especially if he is meeting Heads of
State.
MR. FOLEY: You are in fine fettle today, I must say, Mr. Lee. In terms of
your second point, I take note of it. I'd be glad to look into it for
you.
The President of Haiti, Rene Preval, is in Washington. He came here today
to participate in the US Congressional Prayer Breakfast. He was supposed to
meet with the President briefly afterwards. I refer you to the White House
on that. He is meeting I believe this afternoon with Deputy Secretary of
State Talbott, whom you elegantly referred to as the number two. He's also
meeting with the President's Special Assistant Senior Director for
American Affairs Arturo Valenzuela and our special Haiti coordinator
Don Steinberg.
Among other issues, the US officials will express support for Haiti's
democratic process and assistance for Haiti's upcoming elections. There
have been obviously technical difficulties as we get closer to the
elections, but we believe Haiti is continuing to make significant progress
in preparing for legislative and local elections that are scheduled for
March 19 and April 30.
QUESTION: Do you have a figure on how much money the US has supported -
MR. FOLEY: About $20 million.
QUESTION: Is that just this year or in the last election?
MR. FOLEY: Well, it's in connection with preparation of the elections. I
don't know when the moneys have been spent in terms of Fiscal Year 2000
versus 1999.
QUESTION: The Secretary had lunch with Senator Biden. Can you tell us
whether she asked for his support against the Taiwan Security Enhancement
Act?
MR. FOLEY: I have not spoken to the Secretary about the lunch. As I was
coming out here, that lunch was ongoing and I will try to get some sense of
the agenda. This was obviously a private meeting among US officials of
different branches. If there's anything I can tell you about it, I will,
though.
QUESTION: Did you know that Deputy Secretary Talbott was also supposed to
meet with a Belarusian leader today, Sharetsky?
MR. FOLEY: I believe he was.
QUESTION: Do you have any other details?
MR. FOLEY: No, I don't. I'll look into for you. I'll be glad to. Thank
you.
QUESTION: There seemed to be several peace processes collapsing once
again. The Brits are about to announce -
MR. FOLEY: Matt, there you go again.
QUESTION: -- that the Northern Ireland Government is going to be
suspended. That's one. And then the Palestinians are saying that there's a
crisis with the talks in the process with Israel, and the Israelis are now
saying the deadline of the 13th is not going to be met. On either of those,
do you have anything new to say?
MR. FOLEY: Any other good news questions, Matt?
QUESTION: No, that's it.
MR. FOLEY: On the first one, we've just heard this report coming in. I
have nothing for you on the Northern Ireland situation. Obviously we'll
hope to be in a better position to comment on it as we learn more.
On the Israeli-Palestinian track, we always said that meeting, the February
13th deadline, was a formidable challenge. Obviously, we're very close to
February 13th and it remains formidable, if not more formidable, than the
last time Mr. Rubin called it formidable. The important point, though, is
that the Israelis and the Palestinians are committed to serious negotiations
to address all the permanent status issues. Regardless of the date, we
believe there is a solid commitment on both sides, and we expect those
negotiations to continue.
Ambassador Ross is in the region. He's keeping touch with the parties. I
would expect before he departs the region that he will have a meeting with
both sides together to assess where they are. And we are very committed on
our part to do what we can to help that process forward in agreement with
the parties.
So yes, it is a process that has its ups and downs, and this is inherent to
a process that aims to solve once and for all the issues dividing the
Israelis and Palestinians. We expect it to be hard, but we also expect that
the parties will hang in there, and we will do so ourselves. Thank
you.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:45 P.M.)
|
