• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

................

QUESTION: Could we do China? Do you have an evaluation on Secretary Pickering's meetings?

MR. FOLEY: Well, he put out a statement in Beijing prior to departing. I don't know if you've seen it; we can make it available if you'd like. Do you want me to draw from it briefly and then tell you what more I know?

This is not me speaking, this is Ambassador Pickering: At the request of President Clinton, I came to Beijing to meet with senior officials of the Chinese Government in order to present our explanation of the causes of the accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade on May 7, 1999. I came with the delegation to fulfill President Clinton's promise to President Jiang that a full investigation into this incident would be conducted and that its results would be presented in Beijing. Also I delivered a letter from President Clinton to President Jiang Zemin. Our delegation consists of representatives from the National Security Council, Department of State, Department of Defense and the intelligence community.

We've offered to provide payment to the injured and the families of those killed, with the details to be worked out diplomatically very soon. We look forward to further productive discussions with China in the mutual interests of the two countries.

That was Ambassador Pickering's departure statement from Beijing earlier today. In terms of my own knowledge of the results of his visit, I would say in a sort of pre-ambulatory way - if there is such a word - that Ambassador Pickering is headed to Europe now; he's going to be with President Clinton for the G-8. Undoubtedly we'll see Secretary Albright in Europe as well. So he's going to be providing a direct readout or debrief to his authorities - Secretary Albright, President Clinton - directly, and I would expect him to provide more detailed information to them than I am in a position to provide to you at this point.

What I can say, though, is that the meeting was, from our perspective, a serious meeting - excuse me one second - excuse me. It was a serious meeting; it was one in which the Pickering delegation was treated with tact and courtesy. The Chinese listened carefully to the explanation; they regarded it as a serious report, a thorough report, a detailed report. I think you've seen Chinese spokesmen on television this morning indicating that they were not fully satisfied with the report. I would like to point out, though, that from our perspective, we believe that the information Ambassador Pickering provided is sufficient to demonstrate that the bombing was a terrible mistake. While the Chinese can speak best for themselves, they continue to express concerns about the event. Our discussions, including regarding issues relating to personal losses and property damage, will continue following his visit, through normal diplomatic channels.

QUESTION: Do you know a dollar figure on the compensation effort?

MR. FOLEY: No, not to my knowledge. I don't believe he got into that level of detail. As his statement indicated, he made a commitment, though, which is important, to provide payment to the injured and the families of those killed. I think that is, as I said myself, is going to be worked out through diplomatic channels.

QUESTION: There have been suggestions that the problem on May 7 went beyond the problem of the old map. Do you have any information on that?

MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry; I didn't quite understand.

QUESTION: There have been reports that the problems which led to the mistaken bombing went beyond one mere old map and that there were other factors involved, as well.

MR. FOLEY: Right, that's a wholly legitimate question. We have committed to providing a detailed explanation to the Chinese authorities; President Clinton promised President Jiang that. And that's what Ambassador Pickering did yesterday in Beijing - he fulfilled that promise to provide that kind of an explanation.

Secondly, we've also committed to providing information to the Chinese people, and we've committed to providing this explanation to the American people. I hope we'll be in a position to do that soon. I think, first things first: Ambassador Pickering is going to go report to President Clinton and Secretary Albright in Germany. I hope we'll be in a position soon to release the report - release the main conclusions of that report. That will happen; I can't tell you exactly when it will happen.

QUESTION: So it's very clear that the Chinese are not satisfied with Mr. Pickering's friends. So they use very strong words for - and what next step could be for the United States? Don't you have any -- (inaudible) -- send Mr. Pickering to China?

MR. FOLEY: Well, as I indicated, we believe the information we provided is sufficient to demonstrate that the bombing was a terrible mistake. It is a fact that the Chinese authorities, since day one, going back to May 7, had maintained that this was not a mistake, that this was an intentional bombing. I think it would have been unrealistic to expect - and we certainly did not expect - that the Chinese authorities would change their mind merely upon the presentation of this report.

I would note in a positive vein, though, that Xianhua has today published, I'm told, a detailed, accurate summary of the report. So they are giving the Chinese people, themselves, an opportunity to have this information and begin to analyze the information.

Secondly, we have just presented the report, and it is detailed. We would expect the Chinese will have an opportunity to study it further -- again, going back to my initial point that we did not expect there to be a change in their attitude merely upon the presentation of the report. I think this will take time. We will have to see where we go from here. As I said, diplomatic channels will remain open. We will be discussing the issues of the payment and of other related issues with the Chinese through diplomatic channels. We do very much believe that it is in the interests of both China and the United States to re-engage on a range of issues of importance to both countries, and we hope that both countries will be in a position to move forward on the relationship as time goes on.

QUESTION: On this report, since this was a NATO operation in which this unfortunate accident happened, are the offers of compensation - is that just from the United States, or would this be a NATO-wide contribution to them? Will contributions be offered also to the Spanish and to other embassies that were damaged?

MR. FOLEY: On your last question, I don't have the answer on that. I'll have to take that question. I've not seen or heard anything on the latter aspect. What Ambassador Pickering announced, though, was a US commitment to provide payment to the families of those killed and to the injured. That's a United States commitment. But in terms of other embassies, of other nations that were damaged, certainly I don't think there was a destruction of an embassy as occurred with the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. But I'm sure that issue is being discussed either bilaterally or through NATO channels; but I just don't have that information.

QUESTION: So is the Chinese bombing being treated just as US-Chinese issue, or is NATO, the organization, going to somehow become involved in this issue?

MR. FOLEY: I'll have to check on that. To this point, certainly, this has been a US undertaking. The investigation of the accident, the report that we put together has been presented, obviously, by the United States, bilaterally to China. That's all I'm aware of to this point.

QUESTION: Are you all going to put out the actual report?

MR. FOLEY: I'm told it's a summary. I've also been told that it's accurate.

................

QUESTION: Did the question of Chinese compensation for the damage at the US Embassy come up? Did you address that?

MR. FOLEY: Ambassador Pickering did tell the Chinese that we're also willing to discuss the issue of the damage done to China's Embassy in Belgrade, and we expect that to be pursued subsequently through diplomatic channels at perhaps an expert levels.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a question that's really a hard one? Do you think the Chinese sincerely believe the US intentionally bombed their embassy? Do you think it's a sincere argument, or is it just - or are they trying to -

MR. FOLEY: Speaking here in a very official capacity, we talk about our policy, what we're doing, why we're doing it. I don't think it's appropriate for me to try to extemporaneously read the minds of the Chinese leadership. I think that's not appropriate.

Certainly from our perspective, we've stated not only that it was an accident, but that it would have been unthinkable for it to have been anything but an accident, for all kinds of reasons having to do with our bilateral relationship with China, having to do with the ongoing air campaign and the need to bolster international support for what we were doing in Kosovo. It made no sense; it was truly an accident. We presented a detailed, thorough report to the Chinese leadership explaining why it happened, how it happened, that it was indeed an accident. It's for them to explain their views and their thinking. As I said, we didn't expect there to be a sea change merely on the basis of the presentation of the report.

QUESTION: Furthermore --

MR. FOLEY: Did I get the question wrong?

QUESTION: Yes, will there be compensation to the United States for the damage?

MR. FOLEY: The issue did come up and that, too, will be discussed in further diplomatic contacts.

QUESTION: They agreed to continue talking about that, as well?

MR. FOLEY: They acknowledged that that is an issue that we will continue to - or that we will discuss subsequently in diplomatic channels.

QUESTION: There's a fundamental fact, I think, missing here, Jim. Isn't it logical that if the United States meant deliberately to attack the Chinese and to disrupt the function of their embassy, we would've bombed in the daytime when there were people in the building?

MR. FOLEY: Well, Bill, the whole idea from our perspective is absurd - that we would have deliberately done something so tragic and so --

QUESTION: That's what I mean. Isn't it unreasonable that we would bomb at night rather than --

MR. FOLEY: There are all kinds of reasons why this was a mistake and not deliberate, and you can add to them if you want.

................

(The briefing concluded at 2:15 P.M.)

[end of document]