Special Press Briefing by Deputy Spokesman James B. Foley and
Director of the Press Office Lee McClenny
Washington, D.C., August 13, 1998
MR. FOLEY: I didn't bring with me my normal pillars of support in the persons of Pat Kennedy and Johnnie Carson from the Bureau of African Affairs. So I don't have a lot of new information about all the aspects of the bombings that you're interested in. Lee McClenny has been coming out, I know, every few hours and giving you updates. But the questions about the investigation that are upper-most in your minds, I'm not going to be in a position to answer. The FBI, of course, did speak in Nairobi earlier today, and addressed some aspects of the ongoing investigation; but I can't do so.
I'd like to just -- I don't have any statements -- but just cover one subject that I very deftly began to address yesterday when other issues were forced to the forefront -- talking again about the status of our embassies. As I started to say yesterday, and then we did switch to the other topic, there has been misunderstanding and some erroneous impressions in terms of what the status of our missions worldwide is. We reported -- was it a couple days ago that Mr. Kennedy talked about temporary suspensions in some instances. That became interpreted in some subsequent reporting as being tantamount to closings. You continue to see it, even in this morning's press, reference to the fact -- or the allegation that our operations are shut down in up to half a dozen places in the world. It ain't true; and I'd just like to explain a little bit.
I can't really tell you specifically this mission is at this level of operation for security reasons; but let me give you just a sense, though, of what it means to say that we've made security adjustments at sort of the tactical level by ambassadors or chiefs of mission in response to the kind of shifting environment we've seen over the last days.
All of our embassies are operating in some fashion. At this time, to the best of our knowledge -- and I say to the best of our knowledge because, again, ambassadors and chiefs of missions can make on-the-spot decisions based on whatever information is immediately available to them. But again, all of our embassies are operating in some fashion. Two missions are operating with essential personnel only; one of these missions is providing just limited services. Again, these measures are taken at the discretion of the chief of mission for security purposes.
QUESTION: So that's down from five Tuesday.
QUESTION: The five weren't all in that category, were they?
MR. FOLEY: In which category?
QUESTION: Emergency functions only.
MR. FOLEY: No, no, it's a different snapshot every day.
QUESTION: No, I shouldn't have interrupted, but I'm pretty sure that factually you never said five or six were down to emergency operations. That was a special category of the category of embassies that aren't doing everything they used to do.
MR. FOLEY: Right. But emergency services, though, means that -- I'm sorry, did I use that term?
MR. MCCLENNY: No.
MR. FOLEY: I think you used that term, I didn't.
MR. MCCLENNY: Limited services.
MR. FOLEY: Yes, limited services. In each and every case, if we close a post, then we announce it, because it has implications and ramifications for a lot of things -- most notably, traveling Americans. It's a responsibility to get that word out. In every post where we have one around the world, we maintain an ability to service American citizens. Even if a post happens to be closed for a few hours on a given day, as is the case at night on a 24-hour-a-day basis, we have duty officers available.
In some of these posts where there have been security concerns, we're down to lower staff. Some staff may have been relocated; some are able to operate elsewhere; some are just doing internal embassy business. Again, it's a mixed picture. I just wanted to --
QUESTION: Can you bring us up to date on the request from the President for the State Department to come up with that priority list package?
MR. FOLEY: Well, the President just made that -- gave out that direction yesterday. He instructed government agencies -- in particular the State Department and OMB -- to put together a list of priorities and funding requirements.
QUESTION: Is there a standing list of this sort that you would --
MR. FOLEY: Well, there's an annual process by which the security budget is established; and Mr. Kennedy spoke to that at some length, I believe, two days ago so I'd refer you to his transcript.
But the President is reviewing estimates that we are in the process of preparing, and will begin consultations with the Congress perhaps as early as tomorrow. The President is exploring options which will include restoration of our operations in Kenya and Tanzania; enhanced security of posts where warranted by high security threats; and compensation for the victims of the bombings and their families.
That's all I have for you now, because -- and I've gotten lots of phone calls on this subject -- but it's something that we've been tasked with analyzing and putting together in the form of recommendations to OMB. We're consulting with Congress as we go. In other words, it's not a situation where we're going to just address this internally on the executive side and then show up to put something on Congress' desk. On the contrary, they've indicated that they want to work with us and they want to address this problem on an urgent basis. So we're consulting with them as we consult with OMB. But I can't give you details of something which is a work in progress.
QUESTION: Have you seen that $1 billion figure?
MR. FOLEY: I can't talk about figures. I don't have the information, but it's a work in progress.
QUESTION: Well, where did it come from?
MR. FOLEY: I don't know.
QUESTION: It was in yesterday's briefing.
MR. FOLEY: No.
QUESTION: The President wants a near-term and a medium-term list. He wants it in a few days.
MR. FOLEY: What the White House indicated yesterday -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Lee, because you've been following this more closely -- was they talked about emergency supplemental. We're talking about the elements of that.
QUESTION: So to Congress now.
MR. FOLEY: To Congress, yes.
QUESTION: You're not talking about a list; you're talking about the money itself to Congress right away.
MR. FOLEY: Well, the money would be not just dollars standing disembodied. They would be attached to specific plans and proposals.
QUESTION: So when you talk to Congress about the money, you say, we need money, you see, because -- right? Is that what you say?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. But meanwhile, the list is in preparation. The President said he wants it in a few days. Are the people going to work over the weekend, getting him the list? When will he get the list?
MR. FOLEY: Barry, I don't have people's work schedules.
QUESTION: You don't need people's work schedules. The President said --
MR. FOLEY: We've been working 'round the clock since last Friday.
QUESTION: You've been wrestling with the devil, I know that.
MR. FOLEY: The President has given out a directive to the State Department and OMB, and we salute and implement. We're working 'round the clock now; we'll have that list as soon as he wants it.
QUESTION: But you don't happen to know if it will be ready by the end of next week or by the middle of the week?
MR. FOLEY: I don't know.
QUESTION: Because he said several times, "in a few days."
MR. FOLEY: Yes, well, I'm told that he's going to be reviewing estimates as early as tomorrow. So I imagine that we will have at least a first crack at it for him, perhaps by tomorrow.
QUESTION: Now, probably this would be for immediate expenditures. This would not --
MR. FOLEY: Yes, in an emergency supplement.
QUESTION: This would not incorporate any requests for new embassies.
MR. FOLEY: I believe that's something that we'll be thinking about in a separate category.
QUESTION: What's the best office to call for --
MR. FOLEY: But also on a basis of urgency.
QUESTION: I've been asked to get the 1998 figures for embassy construction and security.
MR. FOLEY: How do you get it?
MR. MCCLENNY: Our web site has all the information for the 1997, 1998, 1999 --
QUESTION: 1997, too -- and 1998?
MR. MCCLENNY: 1997 expended; 1998 estimated; 1999 projected or requested.
QUESTION: Can I just clarify something you said? You said that resuming operations in Kenya and Tanzania, that that was an option. Is there really an option, or are you going to do it?
MR. FOLEY: No, that's not what I said at all.
MR. MCCLENNY: He means the location.
MR. FOLEY: I'm saying that it will take us time to build a new embassy elsewhere.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- resume operations.
MR. MCCLENNY: If you're question is whether we're going to pull up stakes and leave Kenya, the answer clearly is no. There is a US presence now; there will be a US presence until date X in the next millennium.
QUESTION: Can we fine-tune that a little bit? Almost certainly elsewhere -- because -- why not, if you're going to start afresh; or because of some of the things that Bushnell claimed to be distressed about?
MR. FOLEY: The reason we would build elsewhere is obvious.
QUESTION: Well, not yet, to me.
MR. FOLEY: The location is not one that meets Inman standards; and that we have made clear to have been the case since Friday right after the bombing -- that it doesn't meet Inman standards. If we're going to rebuild --
QUESTION: You might as well meet the standards.
MR. FOLEY: -- we're going to meet Inman standards. We've also, in our briefings since Friday, indicated that as we build new facilities, they are built to Inman standards.
QUESTIONS: Does that mean that other ambassadors who have sent in cables saying, I want to rebuild, that you're looking at these cables now?
MR. FOLEY: I'm talking about the emergency supplemental that will address the issues that --
QUESTIONS: But $1 billion?
MR. FOLEY: You keep throwing out that figure, and I'm not taking that bait. I've not spoken about figures.
QUESTIONS: No, but would you be looking at all these requests that have been coming in from other ambassadors?
MR. FOLEY: In answer to Betsy's question, I talked about the emergency supplemental as covering the areas I delineated at the beginning. A separate category that we will also address on an urgent basis but in a different context will be embassy security needs worldwide. That is a separate area of focus and work to be done that we'll be looking at. Right now, though, in the next days, as Barry was getting at, we're focusing on the emergency supplemental.
QUESTIONS: How much does it cost, roughly speaking, to build a new embassy? If you want to talk about Nairobi, particularly, but a major --
MR. FOLEY: Well, I told you I came without Pat Kennedy today --
QUESTIONS: Yes, but you've built embassies. I mean, first of all, there are countries popping up all over the world -- and maybe there will be more. (Inaudible.)
MR. FOLEY: The answer, of course, depends on many, many factors, including the nature of our bilateral relationship; the size of a projected US Government presence; the size of the country; a whole range of factors. I wouldn't go into it because I think, as Mr. Kennedy has indicated in one of his earlier briefings, that we have different kinds of embassies in different countries -- some small and some quite large. So I can't give you a generic figure.
QUESTIONS: Well, I asked about Nairobi -- (inaudible) -- too specific for you. I just meant a large country -- (inaudible) -- and not the (inaudible)
MR. MCCLENNY: We're trying to get some figures. There are 27 Inman embassies that have been built; this isn't exactly what you're looking for. We're trying to get numbers --
QUESTIONS: Okay, what do they average?
MR. MCCLENNY: I'm trying to get those numbers. We have the list of embassies; we're trying to get those numbers. Then you can look at them and say, well, Botswana's like -- et cetera. We're trying to get the numbers as quick as we can; we're trying to crank them out right now.
QUESTIONS: Good, thanks. Great.
QUESTIONS: So there are 27 that have been built since 1986?
MR. MCCLENNY: 27 that have been built since 1986.
QUESTIONS: Along Inman standards?
MR. MCCLENNY: Along Inman standards.
QUESTIONS: Have any been built that are not along Inman standards?
MR. FOLEY: My understanding is that new embassies have been built to Inman standards.
MR. MCCLENNY: That's my understanding.
QUESTIONS: Is Tanzania up to Inman standards?
MR. MCCLENNY: We actually have a list in there. Can I --
MR. FOLEY: No, I think we've indicated no. It was built before the Inman --
QUESTIONS: If we're going to rebuild it, we ought to talk to the Israelis -- how to build embassies.
QUESTIONS: Do you have the list of 27? Can we get that list from you now?
MR. FOLEY: I think we can find it. You're looking for it?
MR. MCCLENNY: I actually think I have a list.
MR. FOLEY: Okay, let's check after the briefing. Other questions?
QUESTIONS: Do you know if the Secretary is concerned at all about the fall-out of this Bushnell thing? Has she been looking at cables that she might have received from other ambassadors or other security requests?
MR. FOLEY: I think Mr. Kennedy made very clear yesterday that we have one problem when it comes to meeting our security requirements around the world; and that problem is resources. Because we have limited resources, we have to make choices and the only rational and responsible basis on which to make choices is based essentially, given limited resources, on prioritization of threats. It would be very irresponsible to ignore threat levels and threat assessments in making those determinations about how to allocate scarce resources.
What the Secretary is committed to doing is trying to work with Congress, as the President has indicated he plans to do, in order to obtain more resources.
QUESTIONS: On that point, I think you pointed out yesterday that dozens of ambassadors had put in -- communicated to the State Department, saying that the set-back problem required them -- or made them feel like there were some major security problems. Do we know a real figure on that? Do we know who they were; what embassies they were; when they were?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I don't know that this is something we'll necessarily discuss publicly -- and certainly in a laundry list format. We made it very clear that except for new embassies that we've been able to build to Inman standards, that we have security deficiencies that need money to be addressed. But to sit here and stipulate which are those places would be very irresponsible.
QUESTIONS: Now, there are 260 US Embassies worldwide; is that correct?
MR. FOLEY: Well, posts -- diplomatic posts, embassies, consulates. We can get you the exact figure.
QUESTIONS: Had previous US ambassadors to Kenya also requested a new embassy, based on security concerns?
MR. FOLEY: I think you have to go back to the Inman Report in the mid-'80s, which did a comprehensive assessment, as I understand it, of all posts around the world to determine which did not meet the standards that they themselves -- the Inman Panel -- stipulated were necessary. Ipso facto every embassy in the world that didn't meet those standards, didn't meet those standards. And we have been working off of those standards ever since in an effort to utilize limited resources to help our facilities improve their security posture.
QUESTION: So was Bushnell the only one from Nairobi who --
MR. FOLEY:Again, I would refer you to -- oh, I thought you were asking worldwide.
QUESTION: No, no, Bushnell. I'm talking about Kenya. Is she the only one who -- (inaudible) -- standards?
MR. FOLEY:Every ambassador -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Lee -- is obligated on an annual basis to assess security needs and requirements and make recommendations. Insofar as the Nairobi Embassy, as other embassies around the world are below Inman standards, that would necessary be reflected in any such annual security report.
QUESTION: Every year, then, there is a request from Kenya for a new embassy based on security standards?
MR. FOLEY:I didn't say that. I said that --
QUESTION: I know but I'm trying to get at the question.
MR. FOLEY:Every year ambassadors are required to assess their security situation.
QUESTION: Do you know of a previous request?
MR. FOLEY:I'd have to check.
QUESTION: Jim, would you say that these blasts (inaudible) particularly -- or the situation with the building in Nairobi has triggered a closer probe now or set off a closer probe to your embassies like the one in Nairobi?
MR. FOLEY:I don't understand the question.
QUESTION: This embassy was very vulnerable, however it was in a low-threat area, as Mr. Kennedy said over and over again. You all have hammered home the fact that limited resources require you to prioritize certain embassies over others. The question then being has the situation in Nairobi -- and Tanzania, too, but we're focused more on Nairobi because you've talked so much about the building itself. Would you say it's triggered or it's going to set off a really -- a serious -- a more serious probing of embassies like the one in Nairobi?
MR. FOLEY:Probing of embassies?
QUESTION: Looking into -- really taking a different look every year on the State Department's part? Every year you look at security for buildings overseas, or posts overseas. Is this going to make you look at the security in a different light?
MR. FOLEY:I still think it comes down to a question of resources. Our security professionals are indeed professional. They assess our needs in all posts everywhere, and they apply very rigorous standards.
QUESTION: The standards aren't going to change?
MR. FOLEY:The standards, to my knowledge, won't change. They were set out in the mid-1980s. But it's not a question of ratcheting up standards. We would like to elevate all of our posts to the maximum degree, resources permitting.
QUESTION: Don't you think that those standards have, however, changed since the mid-'80s given the number of other terrorist incidents that have happened? I mean, in some ways they could've changed or have gotten stricter?
MR. FOLEY:Betsy, that's question for experts to answer. As I've said, I've come here without my security blanket as it were.
QUESTION: You're here naked.
MR. FOLEY: So I hesitate to answer definitively. I think in terms of the -- certainly the terrorist picture changes over time -- the tools at their disposal, their modus operandi, things of that nature. But it's my layman's understanding, though, that the basic premises of the Inman approach that had to do with distance versus proximity and the protection that distance afforded is still the critical element. Of course, we've indicated in previous briefings that short of rebuilding and moving and relocating embassies, we've endeavored to upgrade security everywhere around the world and apply Inman recommendations as we can in terms of fortifying embassies, protecting perimeters and better reinforcing them.
QUESTION: But even in your new embassies, you don't apply all the Inman recommendations.
MR. FOLEY:Well, again, in each and every case, with a certain budget, you have to make decisions on which embassies are going to be rebuilt and what the trade-offs are between applying standards here and not doing as much there. I can't comment generically more than that; I'd have to see specific cases.
QUESTION: The point is that Inman standards -- are you saying that Inman standards are the goal throughout at every American Embassy? Because I can think of several that you would have a heck of a time trying to impose Inman standards -- the Tokyo Embassy, for example or the one in Beijing. Those are right on the street and --
MR. FOLEY: We look at many different factors, and we're sort of recovering ground that Mr. Kennedy has spoken to, not yesterday so much, but the day before and the day before that, about the different factors that are taken into consideration. Threat assessment is also a critical ingredient.
QUESTION: Jim, do you know if the Secretary is thinking about traveling to Nairobi and Dar es Salaam?
MR. FOLEY: She said, when she met with the African ambassadors the other day, that she wanted to go soon. That's something that she really would like to be able to do for the reasons that I mentioned in my briefing two days ago. But she also said that we have to take first and foremost into consideration the need to not burden the massive efforts that our embassies and personnel are undertaking at the moment. So I can't tell you when it's going to be, but --
QUESTION: She's still thinking about it?
MR. FOLEY: Yes. It's something she hopes to do soon.
QUESTION: Could I ask you a couple of questions about Kosovo? I saw the statement about the all-party executive. But it looks like the situation on the ground is going from bad to worse, with the Serbs wiping out villages and starting what appears to be another offensive. Are you planning anything in response to that?
MR. FOLEY: I think probably I should start by just talking about our understanding of what the situation on the ground is. Heavy fighting continues in the Decani area today. After several days of fighting, the town of Drenica is quiet. Although there is no definitive information, reports indicate that 13 Albanians were killed there -- Kosovar Albanians. The town of Likovac, which was taken by Serb forces and then abandoned, is also reported to be calm.
Let me add that we are outraged at the ongoing attack in Junik. The town of Junik has been under siege by Serb forces for over a week, and is now reported to be under heavy attack.
QUESTION: What town is that?
MR. FOLEY: J-u-n-i-k. The Kosovo diplomatic observer mission teams have been denied access to this area. We expect Serb authorities to grant full access to this area. Reports indicate that the Serbs have mined paths around the village and refugees from the Junik area, and entering Albania and have been treated for injuries consistent with anti-personnel land mines. Refugees also report that up to 1,000 civilians remain in the town of Junik, which is under heavy fire from surrounding Serb forces.
The United States strongly condemns the indiscriminate use of force by Serb forces against the town of Junik and the mining of civilian areas.
Let me update you on the humanitarian situation, too and then I'll get to your question. The humanitarian situation remains dire, with many thousands of displaced persons still unable to return to their homes or areas accessible to aid agencies. Internally displaced persons will not come out of the woods and areas of refuge until there are secure conditions for their return. While there are reports of continuing returns, the pace is far too slow. We will continue to measure progress by actual events on the ground.
At the same time, we condemn action that produces additional refugees and internally displaced persons -- which is occurring even while Milosevic makes promises to facilitate their return. We condemn any actions, including food blockades, denied access for humanitarian organizations and violence against civilians, that jeopardizes the well-being of civilians and further exacerbates the humanitarian crisis. The Kosovo diplomatic observer mission is monitoring the welfare of displaced persons in conjunction with humanitarian and assistance organizations.
We expect the Serbs to provide full access for the Kosovo diplomatic observer mission and other groups assisting internally displaced persons. Time is running out to avert an even greater humanitarian disaster in Kosovo. Immediate action is needed by Serb officials to stop the growth in the numbers of internally displaced persons and create safe conditions for their return.
Now, in answer to your specific question, you've seen the statement that we've put out in which we welcomed the announcement by Dr. Rugova today of the formation of the Kosovar Albanian negotiating team. We think this is an important development, but clearly the continuing Serb offensive and the effect that Serb military action is having on civilians in Kosovo runs counter to President Milosevic's professed desire and professed commitment to sit down at the negotiating table.
QUESTION: At what point does NATO move?
MR. FOLEY: We believe that the fact that Dr. Rugova has been able today to announce the formation of a Kosovar negotiating team puts President Milosevic in a position where his willingness to negotiate will now be fully tested. Until this point, while efforts were under way to put together a Kosovar Albanian negotiating team, the prospect of negotiations was one that was hypothetical. Now we have a Kosovar Albanian negotiating team on the one hand; we have Milosevic's stated willingness to negotiate on the other hand; and the time for testing is now upon us -- we need to move to negotiations. Clearly, in order for them to prosper and succeed, there has to be peaceful conditions. So the entire focus of the international community, and NATO nations notably, will be on President Milosevic. So we expect to see him show a willingness not only to negotiate, but to create the conditions necessary to make negotiations succeed.
As you know, I'd refer you to NATO itself -- I believe Secretary General Solana issued a statement -- I think it was yesterday, was it -- indicating NATO's resolve; and we know that military planning has, in some areas, been completed. There's ongoing military planning for different operations and different contingencies; I'd refer you to them as to the status of the planning. But that moves forward. We hope that it's possible to achieve a negotiated solution, a diplomatic solution, to this conflict and that the use of force will not be necessary. But the onus now is on President Milosevic.
QUESTION: Jim, the negotiating team announced by Rugova doesn't contain any KLA people. So is it going to be able --
QUESTION: Is it going to be able to represent the ethnic Albanians?
MR. FOLEY: We expect that the negotiating team will enjoy the broad support of the ethnic Albanian population of Kosovo who want to resume their normal lives and see the political process move forward. And we certainly hope and expect that the UCK and other armed factions will also see that a political solution is the only answer. But, as I indicated, we realize that the formation of this Kosovar Albanian negotiating team and the resumption of talks are only the beginning. The process will not be easy as long as violence continues. So it is essential now that both sides sit down at the negotiating table and accept responsibility for ending the violence in Kosovo.
QUESTION: It seems to me there's a lack of urgency here. When the violence started at the end of February there was a foreign ministers' meeting of the Contact Group within nine or ten days; and there was a real sense of urgency in those days. The situation has deteriorated dramatically over the past six months. And you see editorials quoting what the Secretary was saying back in March -- Milosevic won't be able to do in Kosovo what he can no longer do in Bosnia and so forth. I'm just wondering, what happened to the urgency of March?
MR. FOLEY: Our sense of urgency has not diminished; but I think you'll acknowledge that our efforts in recent weeks have been focused on getting negotiations started. We have not abandoned hope for getting negotiations started. On the contrary, we have bit of good news today. We do not want to have to use force if diplomacy can prevail. I think that's generally true around the world. But clearly, diplomacy that's not backed by force is less effective, and we've indicated that the ongoing Serb offensive increases the chances of NATO military intervention.
We think that President Milosevic himself has to understand that there is no military solution to this conflict. It is true that Serb forces have scored victories in the last weeks against the UCK at horrendous human costs; and there is concern that that may foster illusions on President Milosevic's part. We believe that continued military action will only further radicalize the situation and make it all the harder to achieve a negotiated solution which is, in fact, in the FRY's interest. We think they ought to halt -- that Milosevic ought to halt it immediately and we'll be looking to that in the days to come.
QUESTION: North Korea -- a North Korean official -- anonymous -- was quoted by the usually reliable North Korean Central News Agency today as threatening to allow the 1994 nuclear agreement to lapse unless economic sanctions were lifted. There was also a reference to an upcoming mid-August meeting with the North Koreans.
MR. FOLEY: Well, we don't acknowledge that the framework agreement is contingent on extraneous issues. This is an agreement that was entered into on all sides seriously; it's something that the United States takes seriously; we take compliance with its terms seriously. The range of bilateral issues between the United States and North Korea are a separate matter. It is true, as reported, that US-DPRK bilateral talks are scheduled for August 21 in New York. A special envoy for the Korean peace talks, Ambassador Charles Kartman, will head the US side. The head of the North Korean delegation will be Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gye Gwan, and this will be the latest in a series of similar meetings that have been held over the past several years. The last such meeting was held in March in Berlin.
As in previous meetings, the full range of bilateral issues will be discussed, including implementation of the 1994 US-DPRK agreed framework to which we remain resolutely committed. But we're hopeful that in this session and in others that we'll be able to make progress in the bilateral relationship.
QUESTION: Is this your first announcement of this meeting?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Iraq is apparently resisting again. Apart from what's going on in New York, are you able to add anything to what we know or understand will happen?
MR. FOLEY: I understand the Secretary General's representative is in Baghdad today. I don't know if he's spoken publicly; and we'll certainly have to await the report of his visit and his return.
The IAEA and UNSCOM are now unable to conduct the range of activities that are inherent to the kind of monitoring provided for UN Security Council Resolution 715. Iraq has chosen yet again to try to dictate to the United Nations Security Council the terms of Iraqi compliance with Security Council resolutions. The seriousness of this breech of resolutions is reflected in the letters sent to the Security Council president by UNSCOM Chairman Butler and IAEA Director General Mohammad El Baradei. I think, perhaps, you've seen those letters; I can quote them if you're interested.
These actions by Iraq are unacceptable. Until Iraq fully complies with all UN resolutions, the sanctions will remain in place.
QUESTION: And going down the list of other nice guys -- Burma? I see that they apparently are harassing Aung San Sui Kyi.
MR. FOLEY: Yes, it's deja-vu all over again. Aung San Sui Kyi and her party remain blocked on the road to Pathein -- that's P-a-t-h-e-i-n -- at nearly the same location where she spent six days last month in a similar standoff with the security forces.
The United States Embassy in Rangoon has asked to visit the site to observe the situation and speak to Aung San Sui Kyi. This request is still pending with the Burmese authorities.
In light of the government's abysmal treatment of the NLD leaders two weeks ago, we are gravely concerned about the health and safety of Aung San Sui Kyi, and hold the Burmese authorities responsible for ensuring her health and welfare. Apparently there is an associate of her also in the same car -- we're concerned about both of their health and welfare. We support her right to travel freely in Burma and we urge the government to address the situation through dialogue.
Any other questions?
QUESTION: Thank you.
[End of Document]