• 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: Tariq Aziz had a fairly fulsome news conference this morning, responding in part, at least, to President Clinton's remarks yesterday. His position doesn't seem to have changed. Are you aware of his remarks, and do you have any reaction?

MR. FOLEY: I'm aware of his remarks. I don't have a full text of what he said. I wasn't watching when he was on t.v., because I was preparing to meet you this afternoon. So we'll have to evaluate his comments. As I understand it, though - and of course, this really awaits Ambassador Butler's report to the Security Council tomorrow, so I'm not going to say very much about it at this stage - but it appears from what we have seen that Iraq is not budging from its refusal to allow access to the so-called presidential sites. But this is a matter that will be taken up in the Security Council tomorrow.

The President yesterday, here in the State Department, made it crystal clear that the UN Security Council resolutions call upon Iraq to provide full and unfettered access to all sites that UNSCOM deems necessary to inspect. And that certainly has the - Ambassador Butler has the backing of the United States and, we believe, the Security Council, in pursuing that.

QUESTION: I'm a little confused, because other inspections preceded. I don't know, maybe there's a contradiction here; maybe it's imaginary - but when he - when Iraq tried to keep out American inspectors, it was an all-for-one, one-for-all proposition, and off they went, if we can't operate unfettered - we don't take orders from Iraq.

Iraq won't let the inspectors see the palaces this time, and the UN says, okay, we'll just look at whatever you'll let us look at.

What's happening here? Does the US approve of this type of whatever you'll let us look at is okay, and we'll worry about the other stuff later?

MR. FOLEY: Well, Barry, I'm not aware that Chairman Butler, or UNSCOM or the United Nations has indicated, in any way, any kind of acceptance of a restriction on their ability to do their job in Iraq.

QUESTION: They're holding inspections on a restricted basis. They have been told they can't go X, so they're going Y.

MR. FOLEY: Well, Barry, they've been back a matter of weeks, and I believe that UNSCOM's initial purpose in returning to Iraq was to try to re-establish their baseline that had been interrupted and, in some degree, undermined by their absence. That was their initial focus.

I can't speak from this podium on behalf of Ambassador Butler. This will be his call as to where UNSCOM goes, and we'll have to see how the Iraqi authorities respond. But I think that you cannot assume that, in UNSCOM's view, any sites are off-limits. They have a mission; they have a mandate, and they intend to pursue it. And you'll have to see what they're going to be doing in the days to come, I think.

QUESTION: What does the Clinton Administration think should be the next steps by the Security Council?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not prepared to discuss hypotheticals at this point. We are going to hear Chairman Butler, first of all, and then we're going to discuss with him what his recommendations are for proceeding. We'll be discussing with our partners on the Security Council what steps we think are necessary. But today, Wednesday, I'm not in a position to talk about a report that Chairman Butler has yet to give, that he'll be giving tomorrow. I think we'll be able to say more in the following days.

QUESTION: So perhaps canceling the bi-annual review of sanctions, might that be an option?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I indicated I'm not prepared to talk about the options that we will be considering when we take this up in the Security Council. We will have steps; we will have measures that we will want to pursue with our partners on the Security Council. But let's hear Chairman Butler's report, first of all; let's hear his assessment; let's hear his recommendations. And then we're going to be consulting within the US Government, and then with our friends and allies to determine the next steps.

But I just can't foreshadow for you today, Wednesday, what those might be.

QUESTION: I assume you all had some sort of preliminary discussions with the other Security Council members. Can you say whether the Russians and the French are still standing with you on the way you'd like to proceed? Can you kind of --

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not prepared to discuss publicly what we've been discussing privately with our fellow members of the Security Council. We believe that there is unanimity on the Council that Iraq must comply fully with the resolutions, and must provide unfettered access. We have a problem on our hands to the extent that Iraq has not gotten the message and is not beginning to comply with that.

But let's wait for Chairman Butler to report tomorrow, and for us to consult formally with our allies.

QUESTION: Well, without divulging details, would you say there's unanimity on tactics?

MR. FOLEY: I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Again, I'm not going to talk about our private conversations to date. But I think you'll see more about that after we receive his report and the Security Council begins to meet and discuss the issue.

QUESTION: Ambassador Butler appeared to suggest - at least in articles quoting him in the last few days - that there would be four or five weeks now before this issue of the presidential sites might come to a head. Does the United States accept that this can be allowed to slip that long?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not sure that we can set any kind of a timetable today, in advance of his report to the Security Council tomorrow, and what he intends to do.

Obviously he's had discussions with the Iraqis. We need to learn precisely what it is that they have told him, and what he is continuing to insist upon and, as I indicated, what his recommendations may be.

We have entire confidence in his commitment, his fidelity to his own mission - which is to get to the bottom of Iraq's programs of weapons of mass destruction. We have to keep our eye on the ball. I think the questions of tactics, the questions of timing are secondary to the essential issue, which is eliminating Saddam Hussein's programs of weapons of mass destruction. How we get there is something that we'll need to be discussing and deciding over the weeks to come. But I am not, certainly, in a position today to lay out any kind of a timetable for you.

Certainly the President made clear yesterday that Iraq has no hope of ever seeing movement in the direction of lifting of sanctions as long as Chairman Butler is not able to give Iraq a clean bill of health on their programs of weapons of mass destruction, number one. Number two, the President made clear that he's not ruled out any options. But we're not in the business of discussing those options, or even of discussing a timetable concerning those options.

QUESTION: I'm not wanting to belabor the point, but I would have thought that timing was of the essence, or could be of the essence, when you're talking about weapons of mass destruction that can be developed and put together in quite short spaces of time.

MR. FOLEY: Well, this has been a long-term effort, though. As you know, UNSCOM has been at work for six years. It has achieved a remarkable amount of progress in terms of identifying programs whose existence the Iraqis had denied; in terms of beginning to roll back their programs.

I would not sound the alarm over a question of days or even weeks. The main point is to keep the pressure on; to keep the international community united; and to make clear to Saddam Hussein that his attempt to divide the international community, his attempt to achieve a partial lifting of sanctions or an entire lifting of sanctions is completely unrealistic; and that he get the message that the only way, the only avenue toward sanctions relief comes with full, 100 percent cooperation.

I think, as I noted, we have a lot of confidence in Chairman Butler to determine the timetable of his inspections. The question was raised as to what sites UNSCOM may be seeking to inspect. We've not heard the last word on that, and certainly we have to hear what he has to tell the Security Council tomorrow.

QUESTION: But the President, even without Butler reporting back, didn't have any problem saying yesterday that he thought the exception to permit sales for food and medicine, he'd be happy to see it broadened. Is the US ready to do anything in the Council to give Saddam more room to sell more oil?

MR. FOLEY: I think the President was very eloquent in describing his personal feelings, and I think he spoke for the American public about our concern over the plight of the people of Iraq, the victims - the first victims - of Saddam Hussein's repression and policies. And the President made it crystal clear that Iraq has been the single most factor - the Iraqi Government - in preventing the provision of food and medicine to the Iraqi people.

We have indicated in the Security Council that we will look forward to Secretary General Annan's report, I believe next month, as he assesses the current oil-for-food program. And whatever adjustments or improvements he may recommend, I think we're going to take up in a constructive spirit.

QUESTION: So nothing before then, and no initiative by the US; you're waiting for the report?

MR. FOLEY: Exactly.

QUESTION: Yeah, but - all right. But you realize those heartfelt remarks of the President are indeed the main argument opponents of sanctions use against the United States -- that you're responsible, the sanctions are responsible for the death of thousands of Iraqi children. And Saddam knows that.

MR. FOLEY: Well, we think it's a false argument. I can repeat for you, Barry, what we've said many times, that we've tried to institute the oil-for-food program for quite some time.

QUESTION: Yes, I know.

MR. FOLEY: I believe it took Iraq a year and a half to agree to it.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. FOLEY: And they've delayed the pumping of oil. They have failed to cooperate fully with all the requirements for the provision of food and medicine.

We regard this as a false argument, as a hypocritical argument, and we're happy to help take this argument away from Saddam Hussein. We've always regarded the issue of the humanitarian plight of the Iraqi people and the sanctions regime related to weapons of mass destruction as separate; and we're willing to address the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. The President made that clear yesterday. And it's certainly in our interest and in the world community's interest to make sure that Saddam Hussein cannot hypocritically use this argument.

QUESTION: On the Middle East.

MR. FOLEY: Another question on Iraq? I'll come to you in a second.

QUESTION: You know this month, at the end of this month, Operation Northern Watch will be expired, and according to the Turkish sources, the new procedure, the US Government asking for more flexible rules of engagement. Do you plan to discuss this subject with the Prime Minister of Turkey when he and Albright meet in Washington, DC?

MR. FOLEY: Well, the Prime Minister is here on Friday for meetings with the President and other senior US Government officials. There's going to be a wide-ranging agenda, and undoubtedly, the situation in Iraq, the Northern Watch operation, the international efforts concerning the enforcement of sanctions in Iraq will be on the table. We look forward to a productive discussion.

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

QUESTION: Can we go to Iran? It seems that the comparatively warm and fuzzy rhetoric earlier in the week has given way to newspaper stories, at least, that call the United States, Iran's number-one enemy. They also say that if a dialogue is to proceed between the United States and Iran, it's up to the United States to do, among other things, unfreeze all the assets that have been languishing in the country. Any reaction to that?

MR. FOLEY: Well, we have called for a dialogue for a long time. The President reiterated that yesterday. Basically, we've called for a dialogue without preconditions. Insofar as the parameters of such a dialogue are concerned, we've only said that the representative from Iran should be authorized by the Iranian Government, and that Iran be prepared for such a dialogue to be acknowledged publicly.

But we don't accept preconditions as to the nature of such a dialogue. We have made very clear, as the President did yesterday, that we would address in such a dialogue our three areas of critical concern with Iranian actions in the field of terrorism; of violent opposition to the Middle East peace process; and to development of weapons of mass destruction.

But we also recognize that the Iranians may have issues that they want to raise with us, and that they would be free to do so. So in that sense, we don't accept preconditions, but we would be prepared to discuss the range of issues.

QUESTION: The President also said, on that topic, that the Khobar investigation is still unresolved. Perhaps you could explain why the United States is willing to meet with Iran when their role in Khobar is still in question.

MR. FOLEY: Well, Sid, I can't comment on that investigation. It's an --

QUESTION: Well, the President said yesterday it's still ongoing.

MR. FOLEY: That's what he said, and I can point you to his comment that it's ongoing. He was careful not to discuss the investigation. It's a law enforcement matter that's being handled very seriously by the FBI. It's not something we can comment on from the podium.

The offer of a dialogue with Iran is not a new offer. It's not something that was placed on the table this year or last; it dates back, at least, to the time of the Bush Administration. The President has reiterated that offer of dialogue with authorized representatives of the Iranian Government, in the context of some encouraging statements by the president of Iran concerning his desire to have an improved relationship with the American people and some moderate tone that we've seen in Iranian declarations in the last few weeks.

QUESTION: Well, some of the - a few of the families of the 19 servicemen who were killed in Khobar took note of what the President said yesterday, and have raised some objections about his mad dash to meet with the Iranians, as long as their role in Khobar is still unresolved. Can you explain, perhaps, for those handful of parents, what the Administration's thinking is on that?

MR. FOLEY: I reject that characterization. The President reiterated long-standing US policy of openness to a dialogue, an official dialogue, with authorized representatives of the government of Iran.

The investigation into the Khobar bombing is a very serious matter being pursued vigorously by the FBI. It's not something we can comment on.

QUESTION: We don't have the dual containment policy anymore?

MR. FOLEY: I was asked that question the other day. Our policy hasn't changed, Barry.

QUESTION: Could you say the words "dual containment"?

MR. FOLEY: Dual containment.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: What is the US policy?

(Laughter)

No, many of us have been asked by very independent, diverse sources.

MR. FOLEY: No, it's a serious question.

QUESTION: And I know it's taken seriously.

MR. FOLEY: Our policy has not changed. I've laid out, as the President did yesterday, three areas of serious concern with Iranian actions in the area of terrorism, violent opposition to the Middle East peace process, and development of weapons of mass destruction. And these are preeminent national security concerns on our part.

I think you would have noted the Secretary of State's remarks yesterday, before the North Atlantic Council, in which she described, for example, the issue of weapons proliferation as really the number one international security threat facing us as we move into the next century.

So these are extraordinarily important issues, and we have not seen changes in Iranian actions in these critical areas of concern.

QUESTION: Yes, some of us - those of us consigned to a side room at the Council on Foreign Relations because we're scrubby reporters, remember hearing her, just a few months ago, saying without any hesitation, nothing's changed. She was asked if it was time to talk to Iraq; she said, nothing's changed.

I guess I would ask you how the President's proposition varies from what the Europeans were doing, that you also strenuously objected to. They said, only by talking to these folks could you hope to change their behavior. They may have had an economic incentive or two, but they were making the case that diplomatic contact is the way to affect change. Isn't that what Clinton is proposing?

MR. FOLEY: We have very stringent sanctions in place against Iran, in light of their actions in these areas of concern. And until we see changes in actions, we're not talking about changing those policies. But what we are saying and have said, really, for many years is that we are open to a dialogue, that, as the President termed it yesterday, that the estrangement between our two peoples is tragic. It's an historical aberration, and it will be inevitably overcome over time. And the President made clear that he was encouraged by the comments of the Iranian President. We have been interested in the possibility of an evolution in Iranian policy, since the election of President Khatami. We would like to see reflected in the foreign policy sphere the move towards change and reform that he's talked about within the country. But we believe that a dialogue is one that would address all of the areas of concern that we've had all these years.

QUESTION: Okay, so our policy hasn't changed, but we'd like to talk to them.

MR. FOLEY: That's right.

QUESTION: The subject of the Iranian President's speech - on Monday you said you were going to take a closer look at it, once you saw the text. Have you had a chance? Do you believe that he is speaking for the Iranian Government, or is he speaking for himself and a faction?

MR. FOLEY: Well, he's the President of Iran; he speaks as the President of Iran. And as I've noted before, he's made interesting comments on a number of issues - on the rule of law, on the role of women in modern society, about dialogue amongst civilizations - that we think represent a change. We're hearing things come out of Iran that we haven't heard in 20 years.

So I think it would be futile for me to try to analyze the internal political situation in Iran. It's clearly in ferment and we can only ultimately base our policies on Iranian actions.

QUESTION: Some of the reporting - he said that Iran objects to the Arab-Israeli peace process, but respects the rights of other countries to take their own views about it. Is that not a weather change in your point number two that has to be changed?

MR. FOLEY: I think that I was asked that question the other day, yes, and I noted that it may be a nuance change in a positive direction.

The President yesterday, I believe, noted that the United States does not dispute the right of any country, including any Islamic country, to have its opinion on the Middle East peace process, including an opinion that differs with ours. Where we draw the line, where we can be only uncompromising, as he said, has to do with the actions, with support of terrorism to undermine that peace process.

QUESTION: Well, the question is, does this not represent a weather change on the part of the Iranian Government, which in part would satisfy the requirements of the United States?

MR. FOLEY: It is a rhetorical nuance that represents language that we haven't heard, I believe, previously; and in that sense, it is positive.

But support for terrorism and violent opposition to the Middle East peace process are questions involving actions. At the end of the day, we're looking for change in actions.

QUESTION: Also on the subject of dual containment, is the United States also eager to set up a dialogue with Iraq?

MR. FOLEY: I think what we want from Iraq is crystal-clear. There is really no point in speculating or expanding beyond the bottom line, which is, full, 100 percent compliance with the UN Security Council resolutions. They have to deal with Chairman Butler, with UNSCOM and their mission, and they have to cooperate with it. Anything else is really a sideshow and irrelevant, as far as we're concerned.

QUESTION: Back to Iran. Are there any dividends from the conversations, from the dialogue - I forgot the Europeans' quaint phrase for it - critical dialogue? I guess a special rapporteur must have attended; but the critical dialogue they call it, they've been having lo these many months. Has anything happened as a result? Have the Iranians changed? Is his - what you were just talking to Jim about, is that a product of some very persistent diplomacy by the Europeans? Or is it just a cover for business?

MR. FOLEY: In the three areas of concern that we have laid out, that the President repeated yesterday, we've not seen changes in actions.

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