Return to: Index of 1994 Daily Briefings || Electronic Research Collections Index || ERC Homepage

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING DPB #41 TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1996, l2:56 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) .


 MR. DAVIES:  Welcome to the State Department briefing and a
special welcome to five Albanian citizens, each of whom is
a spokesman for a different, I think, political party, if I
have it right -- here under the auspices of the Soros
Foundation and other groups.  Welcome to the State
Department.  
 A couple of other things very quickly.  
 One, just to alert you that we are once again facing, as of
close of business this Friday, the possibility that we
won't have funding.  Our latest continuing resolution
expires on March l5.  We hope that by close of business
Friday legislation will be enacted to extend funding for
the State Department, but passage, of course, is by no
means a sure thing.  As a consequence, once again we have
to spend a lot of effort, a lot of valuable time and
resources this week, to prepare for another shutdown.  
 This comes at a bad time for us.  It's never a good time
but it is a particularly bad time, since we've got a lot of
things going on -- important things regarding Middle East
peace, Bosnia, what's occurring in the Far East, Cuba, and
elsewhere.  We've talked a lot about the adverse impact
that previous shutdowns have had on our employees.  We hope
that we get funding beginning this Friday and that
legislation is enacted quickly.
 Finally, on the Caucasus, just to alert you to a trip by
Deputy Secretary Talbott and Mr. Berger, the number two at
the National Security Council.  They are traveling to
Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan this week to discuss
regional efforts toward peace and Caspian energy issues. 
Deputy Secretary Talbott, of course, also traveled to
Moscow where the Caucasus was one of a number of issues on
the agenda.
 And with that, to your questions.

       Q     What do you hear from the Straits of Taiwan these
days?
       MR. DAVIES:  There are recent developments I can pass
on to you.
       We learned that live-fire exercises were going to take
place when they were announced by Beijing back on March 9
and not before.  We were aware for some time that the
People's Liberation Army was preparing for those exercises
in the Strait, but China didn't notify us in advance of
that.  I wanted to let you know that, since that was a
question asked yesterday.
       Just in the last few hours though, we've learned that
live-fire exercises began today around noon, Beijing time. 
They're scheduled to last until March 2l.  The United States
and other maritime authorities in the Pacific have issued a
notice to mariners to avoid the exercise area for the
duration of the exercises.  Thus far, nothing has happened
to cause undue alarm.  
       We're monitoring that situation near Taiwan.  And, of
course, yesterday Nick discussed what we're doing as a
precautionary measure:  dispatching extra assets to that
region, moving them from the Middle East.  The USS
Independence, the Aegis cruiser Bunker Hill, two
destroyers, and a frigate have been dispatched to augment
what we already have in that area.  
       We made the point before -- we'll make it again -- that
the United States objects to the use of military force to
intimidate Taiwan.  The chief purpose, it would appear, of
this current round of Chinese military exercises in the
Taiwan Strait is to intimidate Taiwan, the people there. 
We've made clear our objections to leaders of the People's
Republic of China, including their senior official -- Mr.
Liu Huaqiu -- who has been here and is leaving the United
States today after about a week's visit.
       Q     What are they firing now?  What sort of weapons
are launched now?
       MR. DAVIES:  I don't know what they're firing
precisely.  What we know is what they told us, which is that
they're firing live ammunition.  Whether these are rockets
or missiles, I just don't precisely know.  The longer-range
missiles, of course -- they fired three of them at the end
of last week.  My assumption is live-fire exercises mean
that the troops use the ordnance they've got, firing perhaps
on targets.  I'm just not sure.

       The point is that exercise has begun with live fire,
and we've taken note of that fact and want to repeat our
concerns that we expressed yesterday.  
       It may be that a little later on we can give you a
little more detail about what we've picked up, but that's
neither here nor there -- the precise ordnance they're
using.  The fact of the exercise itself in proximity to
Taiwan is what's important to us.
       Q     Glyn, what more do you hear about a possible
meeting between the Secretary and the Chinese Foreign
Minister, which Nick referred to yesterday, and --
       MR. DAVIES:  They, when they last got together, pledged
that they would try to get together again soon; and we're
working on that.  We'd like very much to hold a meeting with
the Foreign Minister of the People's Republic of China, Mr.
Qian Qichen, in the near future, and we're working on
possible dates.  But I don't have anything to announce today.
       Q     Now that you've got a little bit of feel for the
live exercises beginning, can you be any more specific in
terms of the types of accidents you might be most concerned
about and the level of responsibility you'll attach to the
Chinese for those accidents?
       MR. DAVIES:  I don't know that it's useful to speculate
on the various scenarios that trouble us the most.  I think
one can use one's common sense to imagine the difficulties
that could arise from various types of accidents that occur.
       We're concerned on one level -- call it the macro-level
-- about the fact that these exercises are meant for
political purposes to intimidate Taiwan.  Ordnance can go
astray -- there is shipping in that area, very important
commercial shipping.  There are 2l million people on the
island of Taiwan.  We're very concerned, obviously, that
there be no accidents.  
       It's not really useful for me to talk about the various
ways in which accidents could occur.  
       Q     To change the subject a bit, on this Achille
Lauro hijacker who escaped from Italian authorities, could
you bring us up-to-date on what the feeling is on how the
Italian authorities have handled this, including letting the
man escape; what the U.S. is going to do to try and get him
back?

       MR. DAVIES:  We've been in touch with the Italians in a
number of different ways to express to them our concern that
this has occurred, that this terrorist went walk about from
prison on a pass.  Italian officials, in response to the
concern we've expressed, have themselves expressed
understanding of our strong reaction -- it's been very
strong -- and it would appear that many Italians share that
concern, that strong reaction that we've had.
       I don't think there's any secret that this
disappearance doesn't help Italy's credibility, and we know
that Italian authorities are vigorously working on this,
trying to hunt this fugitive down.  We're working with them
as closely as we can in that effort.  
       And then just domestically, our understanding is that
the Minister of Justice has launched an investigation of how
this came about.  So we're also interested in the outcome of
that investigation -- how somebody of this stripe could go
off drinking cappuccino and then just disappear.  That's
very disturbing, obviously, to us.  
       But we're assured that the Italians are working on
this.  They're very serious about this.  They're concerned, 
they're looking into it, and we would expect that their
results will bear fruit soon.  We hope they will.  
       Q     There are reports that this terrorist may have
fled to Algeria; and since the representatives from Algeria
and Italy will be at this Summit tomorrow, is it expected
that Secretary Christopher will have a conversation with
them about terrorism and efforts to not have something like
this happen again or perhaps to pursue this person in
Algeria?
       MR. DAVIES:  I don't know if the Secretary will
necessarily raise this when he's out there.  Obviously, job
one on this trip for the Secretary, initially, is to work
with his colleagues to try to strengthen anti-terrorism
measures.
       This is something that may come up, but I don't imagine
that the Secretary will go much beyond what we've said
publicly about this.  We've made clear that the Italians
have to move effectively on the case.  We've heard what the
Prime Minister -- Prime Minister Dini -- has done, that he's
convened a high-level meeting.  He did that a couple of days
ago -- perhaps even just yesterday -- to discuss actions
that the Italians are undertaking.  
       We will continue to work closely with the Italians to
resolve this, and we hope to re-apprehend this individual.

       Q     In connection with the anti-terrorist conference,
there's been some concern among Latin American diplomats why
Latin America was sidelined at this conference when
President Clinton in December l994 at the Miami Summit made
a point of stressing the global nature of anti-terrorist
measures, that this was the most serious security concern,
along with narco-traffic, facing the hemisphere -- and
particularly countries such as Argentina and Brazil, Panama,
who've been advised by the CIA apparently that there are
attempts by fundamentalists to infiltrate the Arab
communities in these countries -- why they haven't been
invited.
       MR. DAVIES:  The fight against terrorism --
narco-terrorism, terrorism in the Middle East, terrorism
elsewhere -- is a global fight.  There's no question about
it and it is on our agenda with all nations of the world.  
       This meeting at Sharm al-Sheikh on the Sinai Peninsula
is a meeting, really, about the Middle East, and it's about
the terrorist acts that have occurred in Israel over the
last several weeks and to discuss the peace process and how
the world community that's most directly implicated or
concerned with that area of the world is to deal with these
challenges.
       Certainly, no slight was intended in not inviting
others from around the world, but I think putting this thing
together on short notice, the notion was to extend
invitations to those who are more directly concerned with
the Middle East and with the particular challenge that the
world community faces there.
       It wasn't at all a question of drawing a circle meant
to exclude other nations.  It was drawing a circle that
would include those interested in this problem and able to
work on this challenge in the first instance.  Of course,
Latin America, which has problems in the narco-terrorism
field, I think has been, with some notably tragic
exceptions, free of really tragic events associated with the
Middle East.
       Q     Syria announced yesterday to not attend the
meeting of Sharm al-Sheikh.  What was the reaction here?
       MR. DAVIES:  I'm sorry, Syria?
       Q     Has announced to not attend the meeting of Sharm
al-Sheikh.
       MR. DAVIES:  I haven't seen a specific announcement
that they've decided ultimately that they won't send anybody
at all.  We knew that President Assad did not intend on 

attending, and we were hopeful that Syria might send some
representation.
       What's important now -- the summit is upon us in about
24 hours -- is to put the focus on the threat of terrorism
and on the battle against terrorism.  It's important that
all those who support the peace process come together at
Sharm al-Sheikh and confront this problem.  
       Syria has made a counter-proposal, which is that there
be some kind of a gathering to follow up the Madrid
conference that launched the Middle East peace process.  But
the point that we want to make, and the point that we're
making to Syria and others, is that Job One right now is
terrorism and getting at terrorism -- fighting that scourge
-- so that the peace process can go forward.
       Q     Have you also heard from Lebanon that it will not
be coming?
       MR. DAVIES:  I don't believe Lebanon will attend.  I
have nothing specific on that.  I did see an announcement
yesterday that they did not intend on sending any
representation, so we don't expect them to attend.
       Q     What does it mean in the U.S. view that Syria is
not attending?  What does it mean in terms of its commitment
to fight terrorism, if any?
       MR. DAVIES:  We wanted Syria to attend.  We invited
Syria.  We had hoped they would attend.  They've chosen not
to attend, and we take note of that.  It's not something
that really pleases us, clearly.  We'd like very much for
Syria to be there.  They've decided not to be there.
       Q     Does it tell you anything about Syria and the
fight against terrorism?
       MR. DAVIES:  I don't know that we're drawing any new
conclusions about Syria from their decision not to attend
the summit.  I mean, you'd have to ask them why they chose
not to attend.  We wish they were there, but they've decided
they won't be there.
       Q     In the view of the United States Government, does
this damage, hurt the peace process with Israel?  It
certainly is going to be taken in a negative way by the
electorate in Israel.  Would you care to comment on that
aspect?
       MR. DAVIES:  We've talked about what this means for the
peace process before.  What this means is that now the focus
really has to be -- everybody's focus has to be on 

fighting terrorism, and we've got to get that solved.  We need
a collective effort.  We need an international multilateral
effort to try to solve that problem.
       The Wye talks, which were underway, of course, were
suspended because of what occurred in Israel -- the
tragedies that occurred there.  That, of course, is a
challenge to the peace process.  There's no question about
it.
       We prefer to look forward and to look toward a day when
we can solve the problem of terrorism together and the
parties can get back on track with the peace process and
once and for all create a regional peace that gives Israel,
for the first in its history, security with its neighbors.
       So for now we're going to get at the problem of
terrorism, and then as soon as it's possible to turn to the
peace process, we would hope the parties will turn to the
peace process.
       Q     Is there any explanation from Syria to this
government that you can share with us?
       MR. DAVIES:  I'm not going to share the substance of
our diplomatic conversations with Syria, no.
       Q     Glyn, given that the Syrians are not attending
this conference or at least not at any senior level, what
prospects are there of the Wye talks resuming any time soon?
       MR. DAVIES:  All I can do, really, is just repeat what
I've said:  That we would hope that sooner rather than later
we can get the peace process back on track, going again.  We
expect that that will happen, but first we have to
concentrate on the problem of terrorism.
       I'm not going to predict when we'll be able to get back
to the table, but we hope it's soon.
       Q     Are you predicting that same format -- Syria and
Israel talking --
       MR. DAVIES:  Just don't know.  I don't know, Jim. 
We'll have to wait and see.
       Q     Is there a U.S. response to Syria's
counter-proposal for a Madrid-like conference?
       MR. DAVIES:  I don't know that we've responded formally
at this stage.  I also don't know that it would be a good
idea to put out in public what it is we think about it or
want to do, beyond again -- to repeat what I've 

said -- that right now we've got to get together on terrorism
and attempt to solve that problem and get back to the peace
end of the equation just as soon as we can.
       But I think I'll forego commenting specifically on what
we'll be saying to the Syrians in reaction to their proposal.
       Q     Bosnia.  There are two individuals that the War
Crimes Tribunal is seeking to interview, and they're being
held -- I'm not sure if it's in Serbia or if it's in Bosnian
Serb held territory.  Can you give us any update on how The
Hague is doing and whether there has been more compliance by
the parties in terms of war crimes investigation?
       MR. DAVIES:  Are you talking about the two who were
picked up --
       Q     They were picked up last week, I think.
       MR. DAVIES:  Right.  My understanding is that Assistant
Secretary John Shattuck, who's in the region, had something
to say about that.  I saw some reports on the wires just in
the last hour or so that would indicate that the War Crimes
Tribunal will be granted access to those two individuals,
which is what we've been calling for.  So that's a positive
development.  We'll have to see what the War Crimes
Tribunal, which is the proper authority in this instance,
develops in their conversations with those two gentlemen.
       Q     So would you say, then, that compliance was
improved with these countries or with the Serbs and Bosnian
Serbs?  Overall, I mean, have you seen a general improvement
in compliance?
       MR. DAVIES:  I wouldn't say that we've seen an overall
improvement in compliance.  I think it's a positive
development just on the narrow issue of those two and the
access that's been granted to them, if these press reports
are correct.  That's good.  It's important that people who
have information about atrocities that have occurred in
Bosnia be connected with the War Crimes Tribunal.  The War
Crimes Tribunal needs to talk to them in order to do their
work in developing information about what occurred over the
four-and-a-half years of bloodshed in that country.
       But I don't think it makes sense to extrapolate from
that to make some larger comment that all of a sudden
there's sweetness and light coming out of those countries on
the whole issue of the War Crimes Tribunal.  There's a lot
that remains to be done.  There are now, I think, 53
individuals indicted by the War Crimes Tribunal who haven't 

-- the vast majority of them have not been brought to justice
--- brought to the War Crimes Tribunal.  We want to see
those people brought to The Hague and want to see those
cases prosecuted.
       Q     Move back to the escape of Mr. al-Molqi from the
Italian authorities for one second.  I mean, this type of
escape -- this type of person from the Italian authorities
is not exactly a new thing.  Is there a level of concern or
investigation on behalf of the U.S. into the motives or
actions of the Italian authorities who seem to have let this
happen?
       MR. DAVIES:  The Italian authorities are looking into
this, and we think seriously, and we take them at their
word.  I mean, they have, themselves, expressed concern
about what's occurred.  They've expressed an understanding
of our concern, and they've launched some probes into this. 
So I think what we will do is work with them as they
investigate what's happened, and we look forward to the
results of their inquiries.  But we're not, ourselves,
launching any kind of a separate or parallel investigation
of what's occurred.  That's not warranted.
       Q     Are there preliminary explanations or excuses
similar to the explanations that you've gotten from them on
previous escapes?
       MR. DAVIES:  I don't have much information about
previous escapes, but everything that I know about this has
appeared in press reports in terms of what the Italians
initially said when word came out that he was missing. 
Obviously, we read that with some interest and got back to
the Italians and expressed our concern, and now we're at, I
think, a stage that's a bit further along, where they,
themselves, have expressed concern.  
       They've launched an investigation at very senior
levels.  They've given us assurances that they'll look into
this with all means available, and we in turn have pledged
to help them, because we have a real interest in this.  Leon
Klinghoffer, the American citizen who was brutally murdered,
should not have died, and the individual who is now gone and
no longer in custody was responsible for that, and he ought
to be re-apprehended, and we've made that point.  The
Italians know how seriously we view this.
       Q     Also on terrorism, do you have any readout of
yesterday's luncheon with the European Union
representatives?  Did Secretary Christopher make any
converts?

       MR. DAVIES:  The readout I have closely parallels -- it
won't surprise you -- the preview that Nick gave you
yesterday on what occurred at the lunch.  He gave a lunch
for European Union Chiefs of Mission, Ambassadors and others
yesterday, and they talked about a number of things -- not
just terrorism, but they talked about our interest in moving
forward on the transatlantic agenda.  They talked about
peace implementation in the former Yugoslavia, preparations
for the summit at Sharm al-Sheikh in Egypt, and they also
had a brief discussion of what's occurring now in the Taiwan
Strait between China and Taiwan.
       But I don't have any news flashes in terms of
individual conversations the Secretary might have had or the
reactions of the Chiefs of Mission.  I think I'll leave it
at that kind of a general readout of what occurred.
       Q     Nigeria.  There's a story in The New York Times
today that the United States would like to move towards an
international embargo, but is getting a cool response from
the Europeans.
       MR. DAVIES:  The story -- while otherwise, I guess, a
good story -- was perhaps a bit overdrawn on that point. 
What's true is that the United States has been engaged very
closely with the international community and, of course, the
Europeans are key here on the full range of issues and
options that relate to Nigeria.  That process of review
continues.
       We, of course, in the wake of the execution of Ken
Saro-Wiwa, went ahead with a number of unilateral measures
to respond to the Nigerian action.  We continue to consult
with our allies, with other African nations, on ways to go
forward.
       On the question of sanctions, some sanctions work
unilaterally; most sanctions don't.  Most sanctions need a
multilateral united front to succeed, and I think the oil
sanctions, which are the principal sanctions at issue here,
fall into that category.  It really doesn't work to
unilaterally impose sanctions on an oil producer that size
unless you have a united front of oil consuming nations to
do that.
       That said, all of the economic and non-economic options
that we were considering before remain on the table.  We
continue to believe that multilateral measures are the best
way to go, and we're working with our partners to try to
come up with some further measures.
       One final thing I could go into briefly on Nigeria is
just to tick off for you quickly the things we did:  the 

visa restrictions we placed on Nigerians, the fact that we
banned arms sales to Nigeria; that we terminated all aid
except humanitarian and democratization aid; we suspended
consideration of Nigeria's application for OPIC and Ex-Im
financing.
       Those of you who attended our drug certification
briefing know that Nigeria was decertified.  So we've taken
a number of steps, and we'll continue to look into further
steps that might be taken.
       Q     Can I turn to the Inter-American agenda again and
its relevance to this Middle East focus on terrorism?  I
recall that several months ago two of your own officials
testified before the House Foreign Relations Committee on
the ongoing investigation in Argentina -- the two explosions
that left about 200 dead -- and the explosion on a
Panamanian airliner.  In both cases your officials mentioned
that there were connections to Middle East -- to groups in
the Middle East, to terrorist groups in the Middle East.
       MR. DAVIES:  That's correct.
       Q     And you have just pointed out that there are
meetings with the Europeans.  The Europeans will be present
in Egypt.  The question that constantly arises is if the
omission 
f certain Latin American countries or the omission of the
region's representation is not a kind of a relic of Cold War
mindset; that it's just -- it eludes people -- they don't
focus.
       MR. DAVIES:  That's a big question.  I don't think that
the decision to invite the 30-some countries and actors that
were invited -- the list that was drawn, which was a list
drawn up not unilaterally by the United States, but in
conjunction, obviously, with the Egyptians who co-host this
-- there was no slight intended in excluding other nations,
certainly not Latin American nations.
       They do have a stake in the fight against terrorism,
and they have suffered on a couple of tragic occasions from
terrorism that may well have been linked to that region of
the world.
       Nobody did any redlining on the map as this meeting was
hastily brought together.  It was simply a case of deciding
which countries would most directly benefit from being there
and could bring the most to the table in the first instance,
and I'm certain that as we go forward we will brief all of
our diplomatic partners, and perhaps now with special
emphasis on Latin America, about what occurred and what
steps are to be taken.  And we would hope they would 

associate themselves with any steps that they might usefully
associated themselves with.
       Q     Thank you Glyn .  I'd like to go back to China
for a moment.  Something interesting -- I think it's
interesting.  Qian Qichen in his news conference, referring
to some in the U.S. Congress, is quoted as saying, "They
must not forget that Taiwan is a part of China's territory
and is not a protectorate of the United States."
       Another quote here in the wires this morning:  "Our
position remains constant that Taiwan is an integral part of
China, and that the current issue is an internal matter for
the Chinese people."  This was not a Chinese diplomat.  This
was the spokesman for Russia, Mr. Karasin.
       I understand that the Russians and the Chinese are
growing closer in their relations, as the relations cool
with the United States.  Could you comment on that?  I
believe Mr. Yeltsin is going to be in China soon.
       MR. DAVIES:  I don't have anything particularly for you
on the relationship between those two nations, beyond saying
that the world is better off if they get along.
       Q     Glyn, on Latin America and Cuba, the President
signed the Helms-Burton bill this morning.  I asked the
other day, and I haven't seen an answer, doesn't this result
in a secondary and tertiary boycott, and are those not at
least -- if not illegal, at least in contradiction to U.S.
policy elsewhere in the world?
       MR. DAVIES:  The President did sign Helms-Burton this
morning.  Helms-Burton is a complicated piece of legislation
with a number of provisions in it.  We have to now move to
implement Helms-Burton and decide precisely how that
legislation will be applied.
       I think it would be a bit premature for me to comment
on how that's going to happen in each instance.  We've
spoken many times in the last week or so about that
legislation, about the Title III provision of the
legislation which creates a right of action allowing U.S.
citizens whose property was confiscated to sue in U.S.
courts.
       We've noted as well, and I'll do it again, that that
provision contains a waiver of authority for the President,
so that when the legislation comes into force at six monthly
intervals, the President can make a determination, if he
sees fit, to waive implementation of that Title III
provision.

       We'll simply, I think, have to see how this pans out. 
A number of nations have made plain to us that they have
objections to the legislation, and we want to work with
nations that will be affected to explain our action and to
discuss with them as we work through the implementation end
of it exactly how it will affect their citizens,
corporations and governments.
       Q     Didn't you just say for sanctions to succeed you
need a multilateral front?
       MR. DAVIES:  I think what I said was for sanctions to
succeed against a major oil producing nation, you need a
united front.
       Q     Wouldn't work with a sugar producer?
       MR. DAVIES:  With a sugar producer?
       Q     Yes.
       MR. DAVIES:  We've voted with our taste buds on sugar
in Helms-Burton.
       Q     Do you have any conversation with Asian allies
about Taiwan Straits problem?
       MR. DAVIES:  I'm sorry?
       Q     Do you have any conversation with Asian allies --
Japan or South Korea --
       MR. DAVIES:  Sure, of course.  We're in constant
communication with them.
       Q     Would you tell us about the content of the
conversations?
       MR. DAVIES:  I can only note for you that we're in
daily communication with those governments, especially the
Government of Japan, which is a key partner of the United
States in that part of the world.
       They know why we're taking the action we're taking in
moving the military assets.  They know a bit about our
exchanges with the Government of China, and for the rest of
it, I think it's best not to go into the substance of our
diplomatic exchanges.  But we are in close consultation with
all of our partners in the region about what's occurring in
the Taiwan Straits.
       Q     Secretary Christopher going to meet Japanese
Foreign Minister in Egypt?

       MR. DAVIES:  I don't know.  I do not know if that
meeting will be arranged.  It's just a day that they're
going to be together, and there will be some 30
representatives of nation-states and regional actors.  So I
don't know if we'll be able to do that.  I'm sure the
Secretary will have a full schedule and will conduct as many
meetings as possible, but I don't have his schedule in front
of me.
       Q     Glyn, can you get more on this trip to the
Caucasus that you announced earlier?  What's the U.S. agenda
-- the Caspian Sea pipeline?
       MR. DAVIES:  Let me see if I've got a little bit on
that --  the trip by Deputy Secretary Talbott.  I do have a
little bit more, not a lot.  It may not meet your needs, but
let me see.
       No -- only that they'll be going to those three
countries -- Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan -- to talk
about regional efforts toward peace, and then Caspian energy
issues -- which means, in that part of the world, oil and
the flow of oil certainly.  And that Deputy Secretary
Talbott will be going to that region from Moscow, so he'll
have fresh in his mind his exchanges with Russian officials
that are occurring in a broader context:  our strategic
stability talks with the Russian Government that occur
periodically.  
       What's perhaps best on the Caucasus is to sort of wait
and see what comes out of it.  So you might imagine they'll
be having meetings with leaders in that part of the world
and talking about the issues there.  
       But let's, in a couple of days, see if we can give you
a readout of what they accomplish.
       Q     Did you see the story this morning about the visa
denial concerning the former Stasi official from East
Germany?
       MR. DAVIES:  Markus Wolf?
       Q     Yes.
       MR. DAVIES:  Yes -- right.  Was that a subject that
came up yesterday?  I don't know that it was.  
       Yes.  We made a determination that Mr. Wolf was
ineligible for a visa under a provision of the Immigration
and Nationality Act that states that aliens who have engaged
in terrorist activity are not available for visas.  

       Markus Wolf was the Deputy Minister of State Security
for East Germany and also Head of the Ministry's Foreign
Espionage Branch.  The East German Ministry of State
Security -- or Stasi -- actively abetted and fostered
terrorism, state-supported terrorism and international
terrorism.  So he is the number two person in the Stasi, in
our view, who was in a decision-making position and
participated in determining that Ministry's goals and
policies, and therefore was responsible for the actions
resulting from policies and goals.
       And that's the basis for the decision that we took to
deny him a visa.
       Q     Can you elaborate on the kind of terrorism that
he was promoting -- where it took place, that sort of thing?
       MR. DAVIES:  I can't.  Not at this stage.  We can
perhaps get you some detail on that.  
       I don't think there's any secret that the Government of
East Germany was involved with supporting a number of
terrorist organizations, and Mr. Wolf is the number two
official in the Stasi who would have been intimately
involved in designing that nation's policy to support
various terrorist organizations.
       I think much of that has been made public since the
fall of the Berlin Wall; but that's perhaps something we
could get a little more on for you if you'd like, George.
       Q     Before you break up, I want to refer to your
gracious introduction of your guests from Albania and to
make sure that they know before they leave that an eminent
son of Albania is running the prestigious Neiman Program at
Harvard -- Bill (inaudible)  I don't know if they've been to
Cambridge, but I'm sure he would very much enjoy meeting
them.
       MR. DAVIES:  Thank you for that.  Perhaps you can give
them some particulars.
       Great.  Any other questions?
       No?  Thank you very much. 
       (The briefing concluded at l:35 p.m.)
(###)
To the top of this page