• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

[EXCERPTS] U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

MR. FOLEY: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department. I apologize for my tardiness; there's a lot of news today. I don't have any opening statements, so, George, let me go right to you.

QUESTION: Well, as you may have heard, President Yeltsin has fired his cabinet, and I'd like to know if you folks have any thoughts on that subject.

MR. FOLEY: Well, we've seen the reports that you have - that President Yeltsin has dismissed the Russian Government, including Prime Minister Chernomyrdin. We are following these developments closely.

The United States has worked productively with President Yeltsin's government to support the course of Russia's transition to a democracy and a market economy, as well as Russia's integration into the world economy. US policy remains one of support for Russia's transition to a market-based democracy and its integration with global and regional institutions.

Now, we've seen the reports in the press. I think the salient point for you today is that we have no reason to believe that a change in government presages any change in Russia's basic orientation either in terms of domestic economic reform or cooperation with the international community as we have seen these recent years. I would note that in any case, American policy towards Russia is not a function of personalities, but is a function of our search for common interests and common positions on major international challenges.

Finally, we have not had high-level contact with Russian authorities, to my knowledge, to date. But Secretary Albright will be meeting with Foreign Minister Primakov who, apparently, is continuing in that capacity tomorrow evening in Bonn. And in addition to discussing the Contact Group meeting, which will take place on Wednesday in Bonn, of course, this will be an opportunity for Secretary Albright to discuss with Foreign Minister Primakov the implications of the change of government in Russia.

QUESTION: Jim, in the Administration's opinion, is this the act of a healthy, rational leader?

MR. FOLEY: I think it would be a mistake to overdramatize a change of government in Russia. I think President Yeltsin spoke to this in a televised address, when he announced that he would be changing the government. I think he noted that he was thankful to Prime Minister Chernomyrdin for the hard work he had done and the successes he had achieved, but he believed it was necessary to give a new impulse to economic reforms.

I think that in a government such as Russia's, where there is not the separation of powers as there is in our system, you look at other democracies in the world - France, for example - where the president has the right to dissolve parliament that this is something that happens in democracies from time to time.

I think that at the time when the - (inaudible) - government was invited to submit its resignation, there were sort of dramatic interpretations being given at the time, which also were not borne out. So again, the United States sees no reason to anticipate any change of the basic Russian positions on both domestic and foreign policies. We certainly look forward to working with the new government that President Yeltsin will be naming.

QUESTION: Primakov's status remains the same as far as you know?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't know more than what you and I both have seen in the press. I think he has indicated, first of all, that he's staying on in an acting capacity, pending the formation of a new government. I believe he also indicated that he expects to be staying on in that capacity in the new government, but I suppose Secretary Albright will have an opportunity to find that out more directly with him tomorrow.

QUESTION: Did the US really become aware of this through the press? There's been no -

MR. FOLEY: We've been aware of rumors in Moscow of impending government changes over the recent weeks, but we had no advance notification of the formal decision.

QUESTION: Has there been any indication that Yeltsin intends to continue his policies? There was a lot of talk around the time of the Gore-Chernomyrdin meetings that the changes were now in place and you were secure in the fact that they were there and operating over a period of time. But doesn't this give you pause? Are you sure they're going to continue?

MR. FOLEY: Well, first of all, we have to go by President Yeltsin said when he made this announcement, that he remains committed to the program of economic reforms. Secondly, as I pointed out, this is not the first transition from one government to another under President Yeltsin in Russia.

We believe that Russia's new institutions are firmly anchored and that Russia's course, Russia's choice for economic reform, for market-oriented reforms and for cooperation with the West and integration into the global economic and political system is irreversible; first of all, because it is in Russia's interest to recover from the long decades of misrule and economic mismanagement that this transition is necessary and is in Russia's interest. And secondly, it is in Russia's foreign policy interest to work cooperatively with the United States and our other Western partners and again, we expect no change.

QUESTION: Will the Wisner, now the Gallochi talks continue on sales to Iran?

MR. FOLEY: We don't expect any change in our working relationship with the Russian Government to include that channel on that important issue.

QUESTION: Now that there's a counterpart change?

MR. FOLEY: I think that's too early to say.

QUESTION: To follow up on that, The Washington Post has a story in today's paper about Russian intelligence agencies recruiting Russian scientists for work with Iran on nuclear-related issues. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. FOLEY: I'm aware of that story. I didn't actually read it myself, so I can't address it specifically. But the Administration, as you know, has engaged the Russian Government on this issue that Betsy referred to, at the very highest levels. The Russian Government has made clear that it's policy is to abide by its MTCR commitments and not assist Iran's missile program.

We have worked the problem very hard with the Russian leadership. Our objective has been to cut off all links between Russian entities and the Iranian missile effort. On January 22, the Russian Government took a major step when Prime Minister Chernomyrdin signed an executive order substantially strengthening the Russian export control process, providing new authority to stop transfers of dual use goods and services to missile programs and programs of weapons of mass destruction. Putting this legal authority in place is an important step, as we have said over the last month, but our focus now is on implementation and enforcement. The United States and Russia are working together bilaterally to strengthen export controls, including implementation of the "catch all" approach in the January 22 executive order.

QUESTION: Has there now been any conversations between US officials -- Ambassador Collins or anyone in the embassy -- and anyone in the Russian Government about these changes?

MR. FOLEY: I can't speak to what contacts may or may not have occurred in the last hours. I did check on that subject, anticipating your question, and I was told that embassy officials had spoken with counterparts in the Russian Government, but I don't have specific names for you.

QUESTION: Do you know how those conversations came out - if they were --

MR. FOLEY: Well, I would prefer, as I sort of implied, that Secretary Albright have an opportunity to address that subject directly with the traveling media as a consequence of her conversation with Foreign Minister Primakov, because that will certainly be contact at virtually the highest levels of both of our governments.

QUESTION: Are you talking about tomorrow night in Bonn?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: So, you're saying that we need to wait another 24 or 36 hours until we -

MR. FOLEY: Well, I've said that our embassy has been in contact with Russian Government officials. I have not specified the level or the personality. But I'd rather let the two foreign ministers speak to their contacts when they have the opportunity to do so in Bonn.

QUESTION: Do you know if Vice President Gore has spoken to Mr. Chernomyrdin?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that. I heard before coming out here that there was a message that perhaps had already been sent from the Vice President, or a statement on the termination of the Russian Government; but I don't have a text before me.

QUESTION: So the message from Vice President Gore --

MR. FOLEY: I don't want to misspeak, Charlie, whether it was a message to Prime Minister Chernomyrdin or a statement concerning the end of his government.

A statement, I've been reliably informed.

QUESTION: Within this building, has Strobe Talbott or has Mr. Sustanovich had any conversations?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that they've spoken with counterparts, but as I said, I know that our embassy officials have been in contact with Russian Government counterparts.

More on this subject?

QUESTION: According to the Russian and American newspapers' report, Russia is preparing to sell a new group of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Armenia. And Azerbaijan President Heydar already wrote the letter to Yeltsin against this sale, which already is against the conventions arms agreement between the US and the other groups. Do you have anything on this subject?

MR. FOLEY: I couldn't comment on it, because I haven't seen that report. I'd be glad to look into it for you, though.

QUESTION: Prime Minister Chernomyrdin is very close to Vice President Gore, of course. They've had these regular meetings of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission. But also, Prime Minister Chernomyrdin is someone who's been looked on by the United States as a leading force for market reform within Russia and a leading force for the transition to democracy and a free market economy. So does the United States Government see it as - without commenting on the internal changes - does the United States Government see it in any way as a loss for the Russian Government's movement toward a free market economy; or just the mere fact that Prime Minister Chernomyrdin is leaving? Do they see that as a loss, a personal loss of someone who is a valued partner?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I think the Vice President may speak to that directly, and I wouldn't want to characterize his feelings on the subject. But without minimizing in any way the respect that we have for Prime Minister Chernomyrdin and the fine work that has been accomplished in the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission and channel, I would emphasize what I said at the outset; which is that our policies are based on our interests and our search for common ground and common interests with the Russian Government, and that is not going to change. This is not a function of personalities, as I said.

In a more general way, I think that we have to get used to the idea that Russia is, indeed, a democratizing country, with democratic institutions that are growing. I think we have to have confidence in the ability of Russians to work their way through political change within democratic channels. As I said, changes of governments are not unusual in democratic systems. This is not the first such change in Russia, and we fully expect that Russia's basic foreign policy and economic reform orientations will continue.

QUESTION: Thank you, Jim. Last week in Kurt Weldon's committee, General Alexander Lebed gave testimony to the -- illustrated that his assertion of nuclear weapons that were unaccounted for, especially backpack nukes, had been confirmed by the Russian Government in sort of an indirect way. He also said, in answer to a query, that the PLO may or may not have - he could not confirm or deny - the PLO had purchased two nuclear weapons sometime back in the early '90s. Is this government at all concerned about the PLO possessing terrorist weapons? And secondly, what do you think about Mr. Lebed saying that he was arrested when he went home and charged with giving away state secrets and --

MR. FOLEY: Bill, that's a mouthful right there. I'm not sure I'm going to cover all that ground or remember all the ground. But we certainly take any reports of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction extremely seriously. And we're not in the business of talking about intelligence reports on this subject from this podium, but I think I can say in a negative way that I'm not aware of any such reports such as you're indicating.

The gentleman in question, I think, has a well-deserved reputation for making statements that are provocative in nature. I would hesitate to speak to the particular issue about the suitcase issue, not having before me the text of what we stated at the time these reports first surfaced. This was many months ago, but we did certainly look into those reports. We did discuss the reports with Russian counterparts, and were assured that they were erroneous.

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

QUESTION: Have you reached any agreement in four-party talks in Geneva at all?

MR. FOLEY: Have we - I'm sorry, I didn't --

QUESTION: Have you reached any agreement?

MR. FOLEY: Any agreement in the four-party talks?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. FOLEY: Well, alas, not agreement in this latest round. First, however, I would like to thank, on behalf of the US Government, the People's Republic of China for chairing the session with a lot of skill; and the Swiss Government for its support and hospitality. Our negotiators went to Geneva in order to identify the concrete steps that the four parties could take to reduce tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

US negotiators proposed various mechanisms based on the already-agreed agenda to move the dialogue from sterile debate to more productive exchanges on concrete confidence-building measures. Unfortunately, the North Koreans were not prepared to consider pragmatic steps forward. The North Koreans insisted that the negotiations on the withdrawal of US forces from Korea and a separate peace treaty be placed on the agenda.

As you know -- because we have stated this often over the last months - the United States is willing to exchange views on any subject, including that subject. However, the 37,000 US troops on the Peninsula, vis-à-vis North Korea's 1.2 million-member army are not, in fact, a cause of tension. On the contrary, they have helped maintain peace and stability for 45 years. Their presence in Korea is, and will be, determined by the US and the Republic of Korea on the basis of our mutual security alliance. It is not a subject for negotiation with any other nation.

However, I can't say that we were altogether surprised by the results of the latest round of the four-party talks. We always expected the search for permanent peace to be long and difficult. So we're not - while being realistic about the short-run, we're not pessimistic about the long-run. As the Chinese chair of the four-party talks stated at their conclusion, the four parties will work out the timing of the third plenary session through proper channels. We expect this process, however difficult, to continue because it's so important to the four parties represented there.

Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry, one other.

QUESTION: What about the GAO report of suspected hackers into the State Department system; anything on that?

MR. FOLEY: Yes. The GAO conducted an audit of the Department's unclassified computer systems networks last year. This audit found some vulnerabilities in the security of these systems. We take the GAO's findings very seriously, and are currently working to improve the security of our unclassified computer systems. We believe we have corrected a number of the vulnerabilities. However, there were some errors in the press report that you're referring to.

For example, we have no information that there was a hacker who had access to the computer systems of two overseas posts or the State Department itself; and moreover, the report -- or the allegation that the Department shut down portions of its computer system last fall, purportedly as a result of the GAO's findings is untrue. As far as we are able to determine no systems were shut down.

QUESTION: When did you say, as far as you were able to determine, Jim --

MR. FOLEY: Well, we've looked high and low and we can find no evidence that any State Department system, central or local, classified or unclassified, domestic or overseas, was shut down under any circumstances in any way resembling what was described in the article. We can only conclude that this rumor or allegation is either simply erroneous or such an exaggeration that it is unrecognizable.

QUESTION: Can you say why the Department classifies their report, essentially completely?

MR. FOLEY: Well, the GAO report is classified. And so --

QUESTION: But the press reports say that that's the prerogative of the State Department. Why would you want to classify the entire report?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I'd be happy to look into to get you the right answer, but it seems to me, insofar that this is a subject that involves protection of our systems and whether it be classified or unclassified material, it's not something that we would want to be out there in a public domain for adversaries to be able to read.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a question about Iraq?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Can I do one more on this, before we move on?

MR. FOLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Are you saying that, then, that the descriptions, apparently of State Department officials having to hand carry communications around the world in order to avoid using computer that that part also was not correct or was that true?

MR. FOLEY: I'd have to look into that particular aspect of it, but the reports of this shutdown though, as far as we can determine, were erroneous.

MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: You don't deny the basic thrust of the article about the GAO report?

MR. FOLEY: Well, as I stated, the GAO audit, found some vulnerabilities that we are currently addressing.

QUESTION: But you - I mean, you're denying that you shut down portions of your international computer systems for two weeks last fall?

MR. FOLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: But there was no inside event that prompted this GAO report? Or was this in the course of a regular review?

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of what the genesis of the report was -- whether it was prompted by a particular incident or whether it was a sort of normal or regular audit of that nature. I can try to find that out for you.

QUESTION: You're saying that the GAO report uncovered some vulnerabilities, but you're saying that they were, that at no time were they ever taken advantage of; that no one ever -

MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware that, certainly. There was, apparently, in the article report about a hacker having access to computer systems of overseas posts or in the Department last fall; and we're just not aware of that.

QUESTION: There was no penetration?

MR. FOLEY: Not that we're aware of.

QUESTION: There was a lot of Iraqi officials sees the agreement of Kofi Annan after the presidential palace will be searched and they found nothing, the economic sanctions will be lifted. And there were some people in the UN who suggested the same thing. Is that the understanding of the United States?

MR. FOLEY: Well, you're talking there only about eight sites that are the so-called presidential sites across Iraq. My understanding and conviction is that the whole question, the question of lifting sanctions would only be considered when the IAEA and UNSCOM are able to give Iraq a clean bill of health; that the disarmament process has been completed countrywide, and not before that.

Thank you.

QUESTION: Thanks.

(The briefing concluded at 2:05 P.M.)

[end of document]