• 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: Yes, could you comment on the Baghdad assertion that they would not start oil exports under the third phase until some of their needs under the second and first phase were met; that is, they are claiming that the US and other parties are delaying the food and medicine that they sold the oil for originally, and therefore they don't want to export oil? Do you have any instructions on that?

MR. FOLEY: Instructions?

QUESTION: Well, any comments?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we find this statement and their position bizarre and really hard to believe, and especially astonishing in view of their professed interest in meeting the humanitarian needs of their own people.

Their logic seems to be that they don't have enough money, through the sale of oil, to buy sufficient humanitarian goods; and therefore, they're going to try to solve the problem by refusing to earn any further income to buy humanitarian goods. Its' wholly illogical. It only makes sense if you understand Saddam Hussein's track record in this area, which has been one of erecting roadblocks in the way of the UN's humanitarian effort.

You'll recall that it took many years for the international community to get Iraq to agree to this program; that there have been Iraqi interruptions in the flow of oil; and that at the end of the day, it's clear that for Saddam Hussein, this whole humanitarian question is one which he exploits in order to stir up opinion in favor of his prime, and I think, sole objective, which is the lifting of sanctions without having complied with the UN Security Council resolutions that describe his obligations, which could, if fulfilled, lead to the lifting of sanctions.

I can comment, if you wish, on Iraq's track record and our track record, the international community's track record regarding the oil-for-food program. Iraq, for example, has claimed that there are as many as 80 contracts currently on hold. We believe the numbers are closer to 60 or so, since the inception of the program. But even if their numbers were accurate, this still represents less than 5 percent of all applications that have been submitted for consideration. They total somewhere between 1,600 and 1,800.

Now, among those that were blocked, they fall into three categories: first, commercial items that are not humanitarian; secondly, dual-use items - those that could be used for military purposes; and third, contracts involving problem companies that have a history of sanctions violations. So virtually all the holds are for purposes of obtaining additional information on end-user and uses before approval. We can make final decisions on these applications as soon as the requested information has been provided.

Now, action was taken in the Security Council yesterday, and we welcome the unanimous passage of the resolution, 1143, which permits Iraq to sell up to $2 billion worth of oil in two 90-day periods to finance purchase of humanitarian goods. We are willing, as the resolution indicated, not only to find ways of improving the implementation of the humanitarian program, but also to consider additional resources which may be needed to meet the priority humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq. We are going to await Secretary General Kofi Annan's report in that regard.

It's clear in our view that to the extent that the humanitarian crisis exists in Iraq, it's principally the result of Saddam Hussein's own actions.

QUESTION: I want to follow up on that. Would you give us a lot more transparency on exactly how much has been delivered; what is being held up; the methods by which it's been delivered; and so on? Is there a briefing paper you could give us on that which would clear up - because there are a lot of claims and counterclaims, both by the French and Russians and the Iraqis on this whole matter.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think that probably your best source would be the UN itself in New York. They can give you that information, since it's their program, I would assume.

QUESTION: With the OIC summit in Iran coming up, in the Administration's view, would it be a violation of the ban on the travel of Iraqi diplomats for senior Iraqi officials to attend that?

MR. FOLEY: I'd have to take the question, Sid.

QUESTION: Would you take it, please?

MR. FOLEY: Pardon me?

QUESTION: You'll take it?

MR. FOLEY: Yes, I will, yes.

QUESTION: Any comment on the fact that some of the Arab heads of government are going to show up in Tehran for the conference?

MR. FOLEY: Well, this is a - OIC is a long-standing organization, with many members - nation state members. It meets frequently, and we've had a long-time excellent relationship with the OIC and its members, and we applaud its role in articulating the concerns of the international Muslim community. So we have no problem with the OIC, and think that it does good work.

We certainly hope that the conference participants will support and reaffirm common policy goals which we and the OIC members share.

QUESTION: Do you have the Secretary's schedule for the weekend? There seems to be a gap.

MR. FOLEY: Well, she's going, as you know, to Geneva to meet Chairman Arafat tomorrow. I believe she's returning to Paris sometime Saturday or Saturday evening, and is in Paris until her departure - I think on Monday - for Africa. But she has planned bilateral meetings with senior French government officials on Sunday in Paris.

I believe that meetings with Foreign Minister Vedrine are confirmed. There may be others with senior French officials.

QUESTION: If this question has been asked, I apologize. But how do you feel about Egypt sending Amre Moussa to this OIC summit?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I kind of answered the question in the sense of --

QUESTION: Did you answer that specific question about Egypt?

MR. FOLEY: No, not on the Egyptian Foreign Minister's travel. But I think that often these meetings have taken place at ministerial level. I wouldn't read anything negative into that. I explained to George -- I think, who asked me the question - that we've had a long-time excellent relationship with the OIC, and we've supported its role in the international community previously. So I wouldn't really care to characterize his trouble there any further.

QUESTION: But more generally, I mean, the whole idea of this meeting taking place in Tehran and a lot of - you know, bringing together a lot of leaders to Iran that hadn't been there in quite a while, doesn't make you uneasy in terms of Iran's sort of re-acceptance into --

MR. FOLEY: No, I wouldn't read anything more into it. The fact is that it's being hosted in Iran, and so it's not surprising that OIC members would go there. I don't see that as any fundamental shift in Iran's position in the world, no.

QUESTION: Are you at all concerned about reports that some of the Arab leaders will be pushing to urge the US to lift sanctions against Libya at this meeting?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I wouldn't want to assume the outcome of the OIC meeting before it takes place. As I mentioned a moment ago, we do hope the conference participants will support and reaffirm common policy goals that we and the OIC share. So let's see what they do.

QUESTION: Iraq is complaining again about the oil-for-food program, and I wondered, the Secretary and her top aides said during the last trip that the United States would support efforts to try to make the existing program more efficient, and I wondered where that stood.

MR. FOLEY: Well, I answered, to some painful degree, perhaps, that question when you were out of the room, Carol. We've said that --

QUESTION: I'll look it up in the transcript.

MR. FOLEY: I think it's important, and Jamie Rubin has done so from this podium, to distinguish between the sanctions on the one hand, and the oil-for-food program on the other hand. And we don't retreat one iota from our commitment to the UN Security Council resolutions and the belief that Saddam Hussein must comply 100 percent and provide complete, unconditional, unfettered access to those sites.

On the humanitarian side, though, we've long been concerned about the plight of the Iraqi people. We had great difficulty in getting the Iraqis to agree, after many years, to the oil-for-food program. We recognize the Secretary General's statement earlier this week that there are problems in the program, and that he's going to come forward with specific proposals, perhaps at the end of January, early February, to address those problems. And he can expect our support when he comes forward.

I think there's nothing more to say at this point, except we have the really bizarre announcement that I referred to when you were out of the room, by the Iraqis, that they are not going to pump oil in the meantime; in other words, to again demonstrate their cynical manipulation of the plight of their own people, in order to pursue political goals which we are determined to block.

QUESTION: My question is regarding the KEDO program. Yesterday, the Japanese Foreign Minister, who is visiting in this city, met with Sandy Berger in the White House, and he asked them to supply some amount of money for the light water reactor, the project.

I know that Mr. Rubin said the other day, the whole situation has not changed. But it's very likely for Japan or South Korea to give pressure to the United States to give some amount of money to that program. The position of the United States is the same?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't have before me the figures -- I had them the other day - about the very significant American contribution to this program over the last several years. And I couldn't speak to Mr. Berger's meeting with the Japanese Foreign Minister; I'd have to refer you to the White House.

I can repeat what Mr. Rubin said here this week. We believe that our partners in the program are committed to meeting the contributions, the obligations which they shouldered. They've not indicated to us that they don't intend to meet those obligations. On the contrary, they have confirmed that they will meet those obligations.

Any other questions? Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:40 P.M.)

[end of document]