U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #81, 00-08-14
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
466
U.S. Department of State
Press Briefing
Monday, August 14, 2000
Briefer: PHILIP T. REEKER
STATEMENTS
1 US Contributions to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
AFGHANISTAN
1-2 Usama Bin Laden / Presence in Afghanistan/Terrorist Training Camps
RUSSIA
2,13-14 Nuclear Submarine on Bottom of Barents Sea / Requests for Assistance
13 Status of Edmond Pope Case /Consular Access
NORTH KOREA
2-3 Kim Jong Il re Missile Program Offer Made to President Putin / Next
Round of Missile Talks
6-7 Prospect for Removal from Terrorism List / Relations with US /
Sheehan Meetings / Outcome
BOSNIA
3 Operations to Arrest Radovan Karadzic
CHILE
3-4 Release of Declassified Documents on Pinochet Era in Chile
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
4,5 Dennis Ross Whereabouts / Prospects for Official Travel in the
Region
5,12 Travel of Assistant Secretary Walker in the Region
6 Possible Travel by the Secretary to the Region
12-13 Status of Israeli-Palestinian Track / Permanent Status Issues
MEXICO
7 President-elect Fox's Interview / Upcoming Visit to Washington
CHINA / TAIWAN
7-11 Transit Stop in US by Taiwan President Chen / Meeting with
Congressmen
CYPRUS
12 Status of Peace Talks
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #81
MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 2000, 1:45 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. REEKER: Good afternoon, everybody. Apologies for my slight delay.
Let's see here, the only statement I have today -- and we'll post it after
the briefing -- involves US contributions of an additional $42.9 million to
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We'll post that. That
brings out total contributions to date for refugees this year to $214
million.
QUESTION: I think they were distributed last week, but anyhow -
MR. REEKER: A separate one, Barry.
QUESTION: There's another one?
MR. REEKER: Yes.
QUESTION: God, we're so generous. Here is probably an old report, but it
keeps coming up. Do you know anything about restrictions placed on Usama
bin Laden by the Afghan -- by the Taliban leadership -- communications,
recruiting, et cetera? I think this report has been circulating for a few
weeks.
MR. REEKER: I don't have anything new on that, Barry, in particular. As
you know, we have discussed for a long time the difficulties with Usama bin
Laden and his presence in Afghanistan. What I can say is that the United
Nations Security Council Resolutions call for Mr. bin Laden to be turned
over to a country where he can be brought to justice under those UN
resolutions, and that has not occurred. So we have repeatedly expressed our
concerns to the Taliban about the presence of Usama bin Laden there, also
about the presence of training camps for militants and terrorists in
Afghanistan and the need for them to be shut down. We've made our position
known quite publicly on that, in addition to discussions with the
Taliban.
Bin Laden and other camps, the presence of others there, are a threat to
the region and beyond, and they must be shut down. You'll recall earlier
this month we had a working group meeting with our Russian counterparts on
Afghanistan here in Washington and issued a statement at that time
discussing our renewed condemnation with Russia of the terrorism emanating
from Afghanistan and reiterating the determination we have with Russia to
cooperate in countering it and calling for full implementation of the UN
Security Council resolutions and support of further measures against the
Taliban.
QUESTION: Do you think they're getting the message; they've begun to
act?
MR. REEKER: Well, they should get the message because we reiterate it
regularly through all of our contacts, not just us but the entire UN
Security Council, including the Russians, as I indicated, and other members
of the United Nations. So these are steps that need to be taken. We're
patient. We're watching.
QUESTION: Have the Russians asked for, has the US offered any help in the
matter of the submarine that seems to have sunk?
MR. REEKER: We have been following closely the situation there and
awaiting confirmation of some details, which I see are coming minute by
minute. I'm not aware of any particular conversations we've had at this
point or requests for assistance. You might want to try the Pentagon since
this is a continuously evolving situation involving that Russian submarine.
We're still trying to get all the facts, and I would think the Pentagon
would be first place to do that. But we'll watch that throughout the
afternoon and can certainly let you know if there are any developments
where we might be involved.
QUESTION: Phil, do you have anything on the fact that it's coming out now
that Kim Jong-il was only kidding when he said to Putin that -- made that
offer to Putin? I know you're familiar with it. Barry and I on the plane
have always said that Kim was a big kidder.
QUESTION: And polite.
QUESTION: And he's very polite. He's a well-brought-up young man. And I
wonder if you have anything on that.
MR. REEKER: Well, I've seen a number of press reports. We were looking at
those yesterday and this morning -- the press reports in question that
suggest some of the things you're indicating.
As we've said many times before from here, we strongly encourage any
concrete action that North Korea may take to achieve progress in addressing
the concerns that the international community has, both about the North
Korean missile export activities and about its indigenous missile
program.
We agreed during bilateral missile talks, which you'll recall were held in
Kuala Lumpur in July, to hold another round of missile talks as soon as
possible to discuss those issues further, and we are seeking to arrange an
early date. The next round of missile talks will certainly provide an
opportunity, I think, for North Korea to explain very clearly whether it's
interested in exploring the sort of arrangements that Putin had described
earlier.
I think, as the Secretary said during her press conference after her
meeting with North Korean Foreign Minister Paek, that she wasn't able to
glean further details of the proposal from the foreign minister. So we'd be
very interested in seeing North Korea eliminate its ballistic missile and
space launch vehicle programs and exports, in return for the ability to
launch satellites from other countries using launch services from existing
launch providers under the strict technology safeguards.
But again, I don't have any clarification, and we'll continue to follow up
on that when we have our next round of missile talks.
QUESTION: Do you know anything about an issue reported today in the
London Daily Telegraph which quotes British defense forces as saying the
French military have thwarted efforts to arrest Karadzic? It also quotes
former Hague chief prosecutor Louise Arbour as calling the French zone a
"safe haven for war crimes."
MR. REEKER: I have seen a couple of those reports. All I can say is that
NATO forces -- which would be SFOR -- in Bosnia should detain all indicted
war criminals that they encounter in the course of their duties. That's
been our position and our policy, and that has not changed. And we want to
see those responsible for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia brought to
justice. All indictees, and that would include Radovan Karadzic, Ratko
Mladic and of course, Slobodan Milosevic, belong in The Hague, and that's
where we want to see them.
I think Richard went over last week some of the numbers in terms of 94
persons who have been publicly indicted, 49 who have been brought to The
Hague. I believe there are 19 others where indictments have been dropped or
the individual has passed away. So we continue to pursue our policy that
those responsible for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia should be brought
to justice; that NATO forces, as they have, should detain indicted war
criminals when they encounter them in the course of their duties.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) that the French have purposely tried to derail any
plans, any operations?
MR. REEKER: I don't have anything specific on that. I think our policy
remains very much the same, and we coordinate closely in SFOR on that.
QUESTION: Last week in The Washington Post there was a story saying that
the CIA doesn't want to share with the public documents about Pinochet's
era and the State Department has to release on September 14th some
documents. Do you have any reaction to that?
MR. REEKER: I think we may have discussed that last week; at least, if
not in a briefing, some people called and we talked about that. As you know,
the Administration has made a special effort over the last year to disclose
and declassify and release documents on human rights abuses pertaining to
the Pinochet era in Chile. This is a NSC-directed declassification project,
which has involved the State Department, the CIA, the Defense Department,
the FBI, the Justice Department and the National Archives in truly a
massive undertaking, searching pertinent records. And that search
continues. We hope -- expect -- the third tranche of documents to be
released as scheduled in September. Any questions pertaining to a specific
agency and their role played in this big project should be directed, I
think, to that specific agency. But we expect to meet the date.
As you'll recall, originally we had hoped to release the third tranche
earlier this summer, but the burgeoning size of this release -- we expect
some 11,000 documents -- has forced a delay in the completion of the
project. And we expect that, again, to be in September. A lot of the
documents related to the Letelier case will be released at that time. There
are other documents that may be withheld due to law enforcement sensitivities
in connection with ongoing investigations regarding that assassination, but
you may want to also talk to the Department of Justice for specifics on
that.
QUESTION: Israeli radio is reporting that Dennis Ross is going to the
Middle East to talk to both sides, to the Israelis and to the Palestinians.
You all have said that he is going there on vacation. Can you clarify for
us exactly what this trip of his entails?
MR. REEKER: Well, I don't get Israeli radio in the office but, as we have
said before and as you indicated, Dennis Ross plans to travel to the region
later this week for vacation. Not surprisingly, he will have some meetings
while he's there, but I have no other details on that or specifics of his
travel. The major purpose of his trip is to go on vacation. While he is out
there he may have some meetings. I just don't have details for you.
QUESTION: On which part?
MR. REEKER: I don't have any details for you, Barry. We've seen various
reports coming out of there. I think Dennis is prepared to have meetings
that may be useful since he'll be in the region, but the main purpose of
his travel is to go on vacation.
QUESTION: And are you playing -- I mean, we're all familiar with how Ross
trips are played down. And no reflection on you; this is the way it's been
going on for 12 years or so.
MR. REEKER: Thanks, Barry.
QUESTION: Ross goes on vacation, and so if he doesn't get any place in
his meetings he was on vacation; if he got someplace, hip, hip, hooray. I'm
tempted to ask again if he's traveling on government expense or he's
traveling on his own, because if he's traveling at government expense then
he's on an official trip and we can stop horsing around. I don't want to
get into his personal security, but we don't want to do anything that would
bring that to anyone's attention.
MR. REEKER: I just don't think there's anything more for you, Barry, and
we'll see as his travel evolves and he goes on vacation. If he has meetings,
we'll see what we can get as far as with whom, when, where.
QUESTION: Meanwhile, someplace on the radio -- and I apologize -- I don't
know, might have been NPR, might have been somebody reading an AP or
Reuters story - there was Ambassador Walker or Secretary Walker, who as we
all know is traveling the region - I don't think he's on vacation - was
said to have said that he expects a breakthrough soon in this effort to
resume negotiations. Whether he was quoted correctly or not - perhaps you
know - but more to the point, is a breakthrough in getting going again
imminent, do you suppose?
MR. REEKER: Well, I have seen a variety of reports coming out of the
Middle East. What I can tell you, Barry, and everyone else, is that
Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Walker is still traveling in
the region to brief Arab countries on the developments that took place at
Camp David. Today he is in Turkey. He is going to continue to North Africa
later this week, and we expect him back in Washington about the end of the
week. I don't have an exact itinerary. He was in Doha yesterday and has
reported back that he has found seriousness and commitment by all the
countries to the peace process and a desire to move the process forward.
Obviously, Secretary Albright will look forward to his report when he
returns and when she's back from South America, and discussions on how best
to move the process forward. But I don't have anything else to give you in
terms of any specific next steps.
QUESTION: So nobody here possibly heard the report or checked to see if
Walker said anything like that, or is that the assessment, if not Walker's -
-
MR. REEKER: I think what I just gave you was as much as I have on
Ambassador Walker's travel. I don't have anything on specific readouts. I
don't think he's been providing readouts or predictions on next steps. He's
taking the trip that we discussed at the behest of the President and the
Secretary of State, and he will finish that trip around the end of the week
and come back and report to the Secretary and then we'll be able to discuss
where we'll go from there.
QUESTION: Can I get a clarification on the same subject? Did I understand
that you were taking Barry's question about whether Dennis Ross was
traveling at government expense?
MR. REEKER: I thought we had taken Barry's question, or someone's
question last week to that effect.
QUESTION: But nobody has --
QUESTION: You took the question but haven't said what he --
QUESTION: Exactly.
MR. REEKER: So we'll have to continue to take that question until we can
clarify that. Obviously a lot of it will depend on what decisions are
made.
QUESTION: There were reports in the region, too, that the Secretary
herself will be traveling in the Mideast after Dennis. Is there any word on
that? And if so, is it official --
MR. REEKER: I'm not aware of any plans for the Secretary to travel at
this point.
QUESTION: Could you comment on the report out of North Korea that Kim
Jong-il is prepared to resume ties with the US tomorrow if the US removes
North Korea from the terrorism list?
MR. REEKER: We saw those reports. I think as everyone is aware, we've
been talking about North Korea for some time now; in accordance with Dr.
Perry's recommendations in the review he did of US policy toward North
Korea, we are prepared to improve relations with Pyongyang as North Korea
addresses the areas of concern that we have had. The Perry report and what
we've called the Perry process focuses on our key nuclear and missile
concerns, but also the state support of terrorism is another important area
where we've had concerns about North Korea for a long time.
Last week, as you'll recall, Ambassador Michael Sheehan visited Pyongyang
and held productive talks with Vice Foreign Minister Kim. This was the
second round of terrorism talks that have been held, the first round having
been in March in New York. Ambassador Sheehan explained to the North
Koreans the steps that North Korea needs to take to cease support for
terrorism and thereby be removed from our list of state sponsors of
terrorism.
As you'll recall - and from our report on terrorism, which is issued
annually - under US law, a country may be removed from the list only after
the President certifies to Congress that that country's government has not
been supporting terrorism and has given assurances that it will not support
terrorism in the future.
So to that end, we expect to hold further bilateral talks on the subject of
terrorism with North Korea, and we hope they will be prepared to take the
necessary steps to allow us to then remove them from the list.
QUESTION: Can you just expand on that a little bit? Expect to. Did
Sheehan depart with an agreement to hold another --
MR. REEKER: We do expect to have another round of talks, but I don't have
a specific date for you.
QUESTION: Can you say whether there was any progress made at all in those
talks?
MR. REEKER: They were reported to me as being good talks, where
Ambassador Sheehan was able to explain again the steps that we see that
North Korea needs to take to be considered for removal from the list. He
described them as productive talks, but indicated that we would continue
those talks in another round -- date to be determined, obviously.
I'm not in a position to sort of get into a defining step by step, or
discussing the details of that. We have indicated in the past, and it's in
our terrorism report, that one of the steps, for instance, would be ceasing
the safe haven that's been provided for Japanese Red Army faction hijackers
from the 1970s. That's an example of a step that the North Koreans would
need to take, and that's listed in our annual report on terrorism.
Anything more on this?
QUESTION: On Mexico. President-elect of Mexico gave an interview to an
American journalist this weekend.
MR. REEKER: Were you there?
QUESTION: No. I said American. He talked about opening the border to the
Mexican immigrants as one of the tools to solve the violence on the border.
My question is, the State Department supports the idea to have a new
amnesty program in the US trying to solve these violence problems on the
border, and also in the extradition issue, he seems more open to concede
the extradition of Mexicans to the request of the United States. What's
your opinion?
MR. REEKER: Well, obviously, it's a little premature to comment on any
developments there. We've noted with interest the reports of President-
elect Fox's discussions. We're looking forward very much to his visit to
Washington, I believe the 24th of this month, where he'll meet with
President Clinton at the White House, and they'll have an opportunity to
discuss this.
As we've said from here, we are extremely excited for Mexico. This is a
tremendous opportunity. We look forward very much to working with President-
elect Fox and his administration. Secretary Albright this past weekend had
good meetings with her Mexican counterpart, as well as Canadian counterpart,
when they held their annual trilateral meeting in Santa Fe.
In terms of the specifics, again I'm not going to get into the specifics
until we've had more of a chance to discuss these with President-elect Fox,
and until his administration can take over. I think we've talked about
before the fact that an open border can only be achieved with a certain
economic symmetry that we need to work on, and President-elect Fox also
indicated the need to reduce the flow of illegal migration.
So we look forward again to hearing the details of the proposals that
President-elect Fox will have. Again, as I said, he'll be here in
Washington on the 24th, and we will follow this with great interest.
QUESTION: President Chen Shui-bien of Taiwan was in LA transiting this
weekend, and canceled plans to meet with several members of Congress,
reportedly under pressure from this Department, which said that if he did
so, he might not be allowed to transit the US again. Can you comment on
those reports?
MR. REEKER: Well, I think as we discussed quite fully last week, Mr. Chen
acted in accordance with our shared understanding of the private nature of
his transit. They had requested a transit of the United States for travel
purposes, and we agreed to that, considering his safety, comfort and
convenience. This is a standard practice. We granted this transit stop
through the United States for President Chen on his way to Latin America,
and I believe to Africa.
We noted, on that basis, that our expectation was that Mr. Chen's
activities while in the United States would be private and consistent with
the purposes of transit, as has always been standard with transits in the
past. We certainly welcomed the decision by Taiwan to act consistent with
the purposes of transit.
I think we also discussed last week the fact that members of Congress
travel to Taiwan regularly, and have an opportunity to meet with the
president and other Taiwan officials when they are there. We welcome that.
We often facilitate such contacts. I think many members of Congress
understand and endorse the US government's approach on transits of Taiwan
senior officials, and that his activities that are private and consistent
with our longstanding approach to transit was what transpired on this visit
as well.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) specifically accused the Administration or
described the Administration as applying pressure. Did the Administration
apply pressure on the president - the democratically elected president of
Taiwan not to meet with members of Congress who have some authority under
the Constitution to play a role in foreign policy?
MR. REEKER: I think again, Barry, I just indicated Mr. Chen acted in
accordance with our shared understanding of what is a private transit.
QUESTION: How much (inaudible) did it take for him to come to that
understanding?
MR. REEKER: You'd have to discuss that with him. We granted, at their
request, a transit stop through the United States. That's what President
Chen requested. That's what we granted. It's a standard procedure, a
standard process. And we noted to Taiwan, as we always do, our expectation
that the activities while in the United States would be in line with a
transit, would be consistent with that, would be private in nature. And
that's exactly what occurred.
QUESTION: One of the Congressmen says that he did meet President Chen
last night.
MR. REEKER: I do understand that Congressman Rohrabacher did go uninvited
to President Chen's hotel in Long Beach and visited briefly with Mr. Chen.
At the time, Mr. Chen clearly stated that his limited time in Los Angeles
precluded the possibility of meeting with members of Congress. I believe he
greeted Mr. Rohrabacher briefly and returned to the private dinner that he
was having. And as I said, many members of Congress understand and endorse
our position, our longstanding approach on transits of Taiwan's senior
leaders, that being that these transits are private in nature. And that's
the purpose of the transit as requested.
QUESTION: But that didn't upset the Administration at all that Chen had
violated any sort of agreement by meeting --
MR. REEKER: I think, as I just said again, that Mr. Chen himself clearly
stated that his limited time in Los Angeles precluded the possibility of
meeting with members of Congress. We granted a transit stop, which is what
was requested, in accordance with standard practice. We noted to Taiwan our
expectation that the activities would be in accordance with that standard
practice. And we welcome very much the decision by Taiwan to act consistently
with the purposes of the transit. And I believe he has already left the
country to proceed with this planned trip.
QUESTION: Following up on the pressure question, or the understanding as
you called it, Richard said last week that the transit is granted for the
safety and convenience of the traveler. I think that's a phrase you also
just used now.
MR. REEKER: Safety, comfort and convenience of the traveler, yes.
QUESTION: Sorry, I left out comfort. If the US is saying meet with these
people and you won't be allowed to transit here again, that sort of belies
the concern at least for his safety.
MR. REEKER: I don't recall having said that.
QUESTION: No, that was my --
MR. REEKER: And I don't recall having indicated that anybody said that.
What I described for you was a request that was made for a transit. This is
a fairly standard thing. We've granted permission for transits over a
period of years to Taiwan officials. Again, transit for safety, comfort and
convenience in terms of travel, in this case en route to Latin America and
Africa. On the basis of that, we note to Taiwan our expectation that
activities are consistent with the purposes of a transit; i.e., private in
nature. And so any future requests for transit will be treated in the same
way and the expectations of the activities involved in that transit will be
the same.
QUESTION: Do you consider although he did meet Rohrabacher that, in fact,
he did act then in conformity with the practices you're talking about?
MR. REEKER: Well, as I indicated, my understanding is that Congressman
Rohrabacher went uninvited to President Chen's hotel and briefly visited
with him. Mr. Chen himself had stated that his limited time precluded the
possibility of meeting with members of Congress, and after his briefing
meeting with Congressman Rohrabacher he returned to the private dinner that
he was involved in.
QUESTION: So that's not -- what you're saying is that's not a problem?
MR. REEKER: I believe he's already moved on and is continuing with his
travels.
QUESTION: But it's not a problem for the Administration -- this
meeting?
MR. REEKER: What I indicated to you was that we were very pleased that
President Chen and Taiwan had decided to act consistent with the purposes
of the transit, and I think that's exactly what President Chen did.
QUESTION: Any new statement or expression from China since last week on
the subject?
MR. REEKER: Not that I'm aware of. I'd be happy to check into that, but
you'd probably know before I would.
QUESTION: No, no. I just wondered if they told the US Government thanks
for your efforts or something.
MR. REEKER: Thank you, Barry, for your editorial comment.
QUESTION: No, no. I mean --
MR. REEKER: Any more questions?
QUESTION: No, no, let's clarify. I'm trying to describe in a short way,
we know how they feel about him trans-shipping. The thing that happened
since was --
MR. REEKER: Trans-shipping?
QUESTION: Stopping in LA on his way for his comfort, convenience. But in
the meantime, this meeting with members of Congress had been sidetracked,
so I'm asking you in a shorthand way -- and maybe it wasn't clear, and I
apologize if it wasn't -- whether the Chinese have weighed in with any
expression of sentiment regarding the sidetracking or the shelving of this
meeting. That's what I meant.
MR. REEKER: I'm not aware of any communications from the Chinese
regarding the transit of Mr. Chen.
QUESTION: One quick one on this again. Was this, then, this whole
incident over the meetings and the cancellation, perhaps the case of a
"newbie" not understanding what goes on with the transit from your
perspective, this guy being new and this is his first time transiting the
US and he's thinking, well, I'll take a minute or two --
MR. REEKER: I'm guess I'm missing the gist of your whole point. We had a
request for a transit. We reviewed, as we always do, the basis of what a
transit is.
QUESTION: But was this a case of him --
MR. REEKER: And we welcomed the decision by Taiwan to act consistently in
accordance with the purposes of a transit. And that is exactly what they
did. So I don't see the premise of your question.
QUESTION: Well, just because they hadn't done it before, or he hadn't
done it before. I mean, obviously Taiwan leaders have done it before, but
this one hadn't, so maybe he thought --
MR. REEKER: This would in fact - I believe that is a fact that --
QUESTION: But, I mean, is this a situation maybe he just, from your point
of view, didn't understand that he's allowed to basically, as long as he
sticks to the hotel and doesn't see anybody, he's --
MR. REEKER: I think they did exactly -- they acted exactly in accordance
with a transit, and I think it's you that were speculating on what might
occur, and this was simply our position. This is a transit and this is what
we expect to happen.
QUESTION: Phil, the same restrictions, did they apply when he had this
visit of Lee Teng-hui, and obviously that was a little different situation
because there wasn't just transit. But were they the same restrictions
placed on the private nature of the visit, which of course was violated in
that case?
MR. REEKER: You'll have to refresh my -
QUESTION: When he came to give a speech. I don't recall the details.
MR. REEKER: In 1995, I believe.
QUESTION: And it created a furor because --
MR. REEKER: I'm sure we covered it at the time there. I think that was
not a transit, and I just don't have anything more to add on what happened
in 1995.
QUESTION: Was it the same type of restrictions in terms of meetings with
Congressmen and the like?
MR. REEKER: That was not a transit. That was a different situation. If
there's a different situation in the future, I'll be happy to outline for
you what that would be.
QUESTION: Could we move to the Middle East just for a minute?
MR. REEKER: Of course.
QUESTION: Please. It's timely, I suppose, because we're past the 13th now
so you have less than a month to the September 13th deadline. And without
getting into various reports which have familiar terminology like windows
opening and closing, and gaps narrowing and widening, it makes you wonder
not too hard who the senior official is. But there is some reference in
some of these reports to September 13th can be a hard shot, maybe the end
of September is the critical marker, because the set the deadline
themselves. But how does the Administration now feel about September 13th?
It was never written in stone but --
MR. REEKER: Well, exactly. I think if you'll recall - and, Barry, you
know this as well as anybody -- in the September 4th, 1999 Sharm el-Sheik
Agreement the parties agreed to conclude a comprehensive agreement on
permanent status issues by September 13th, 2000. Now, clearly the Camp
David summit produced significant progress on these issues, in fact
addressing in many ways for the first time some of these difficult
permanent status issues. And the Israelis and Palestinians have resumed
their direct discussions on this.
The issue is not one of deadlines or dates. The focus really has to be on
serious discussion of substance leading to decisions that can produce an
agreement. So without using -- with using some of the phrases that you
didn't want to repeat, there is a window of opportunity that won't remain
open for long, obviously. I think as the President said and Secretary
Albright has said many times, if the parties are ready to make decisions,
we are ready to support the process in any way possible.
QUESTION: After the UN Security Council extension of the UN peace forces
in Cyprus and the Turkish side takes some precautions, and they stopped
cooperation with the UN forces. Do you have any reaction on this subject?
MR. REEKER: I don't. I'm not aware of developments in that situation.
QUESTION: Also, that Richard Holbrooke said in some Greek newspapers, he
said that he will personally be involved the next step, the next phase of
the Cyprus invited to the talks in New York.
MR. REEKER: I'm not aware of that, either. I can refer you to Ambassador
Holbrooke's office. As you know, we're very supportive of the UN talks
regarding Cyprus, but we've also agreed with the UN and with the parties
that we won't discuss those talks while they go ahead, and I believe
they're scheduled to resume early in September.
QUESTION: Is Mr. Walker talking about water in Turkey, which is an issue?
It could be consistent with briefing.
MR. REEKER: I don't have a rundown, Barry, on issues specifically. He was
briefing countries in the region on the Camp David talks.
QUESTION: But Turkey has special significance.
MR. REEKER: I don't have any specifics on those talks.
QUESTION: Do the Russians remain intransigent in the matter of Captain
Pope, whose health we understand is deteriorating quickly? I'm sure that
the State Department is doing everything diplomatically possible, but I
mean what in the last analysis can be done to get the Russians to allow
this American citizen to see an Embassy doctor or receive other care he
needs?
MR. REEKER: As we discussed at length last week, the Russians do have the
responsibility for protecting the welfare of American citizens who are
detained in Russia. I don't have any positive news to add to what we
discussed Thursday and Friday. As you know, we had our ninth consular visit
with Mr. Pope on August 10th, which was Thursday, and we remain extremely
concerned about his health, which appeared in that visit to have deteriorated
sharply during his incarceration since April.
We have protested, and continue to do so, to the Russian Government at very
high levels over their refusal to allow our Embassy physician to see Mr.
Pope, and we continue to press them for access for our doctor, but also for
an independent specialist to have access to Mr. Pope. We've also requested
copies of the Russian medical records on Mr. Pope, so that we could review
those in terms of learning more about his condition.
So again, we've made very clear to them that they bear responsibility for
that. This refusal, which continues -- at least until I came out here --
the refusal to allow the access calls into question our ability to protect
the health and welfare of American citizens traveling or living in Russia.
It's our right to act to ensure that they are protected by the Russians, as
they're obliged to do. So we're examining implications of that, and what
that may mean.
QUESTION: I think that we're getting to what I wanted to ask, and that is,
over and above protests at the highest level, can the United States do
something that would put pressure? Now, from what I understand, I'm
inferring from the last thing that you said, that perhaps Americans could
be discouraged from traveling there, passport restrictions, that sort of
thing?
MR. REEKER: Well, I'm not going to speculate on what steps might be
taken. I think you can obviously do that independently in your reporting.
But as I've said, this is a very serious matter because Russia, or any
country, has the responsibility for protecting the welfare of an American
citizen who may be incarcerated there.
And we need to take action to ensure that that protection comes about. And
this refusal so far calls into question the ability to actually do that. We
will need to examine the implications of that, and what that does mean for
Americans traveling or living in Russia. We'll continue to do that, as well
as continue to make our strong protest to the Russian government.
QUESTION: Has Russia officially notified the US about the circumstances
of this submarine, what happened, was it an accident, whatever?
MR. REEKER: Again, I think the Pentagon is in a better position to give
you any details on that. I'm trying to check -- as it is an evolving
situation -- I tried to check before I came out. We were very much aware of
their reports of this Russian nuclear submarine at the bottom of the
Barents Sea and understand that, based on the reports, that the submarine
is not carrying any nuclear weapons.
I believe a Russian navy spokesman was quoted as saying that no radiation
leaks were reported, and the nuclear propulsion plant was shut down on that
submarine, that also reportedly has over 100 men on board. I believe just
looking at the news reports that rescue operations are underway, but I
don't have a lot of further details. Again, I think it's something the
Pentagon would be able to address more fully.
QUESTION: But there's been no country-to-country communication on --
MR. REEKER: I wasn't aware of anything specifically this morning, other
than the reports that we'd seen that were public in terms of this.
Other issues? Thanks.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:25 P.M.)
|
