QUESTION: Jim, according to a report prepared by Chairman Butler, in addition
to the UNSCOM being turned away from an inspection site yesterday, there were
two other instances. I was wondering if you have any comment on the two other
times.
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen that report.
QUESTION: It's a brief, three-page report that -
MR. FOLEY: That he delivered to the Security Council?
QUESTION: Yes, detailing UNSCOM's activity from December 3rd to the 9th.
MR.
FOLEY: We had quite a discussion yesterday about the question of what kinds of
reports Chairman Butler makes to the Security Council and what effect they will
have and what debates they will occasion. As I said yesterday, Chairman Butler
issues regular reports. I'm told they're weekly interim status reports that are
rather dry. I think they're not elaborated upon. He simply reports on facts
without, I believe, commenting or characterizing them. I think that the latest
interim report was delivered, I think, last night in New York; and perhaps
that's what you're referring to.
The really important report that we are awaiting has to do with Security Council
Resolution 1194. Chairman Butler and the head of the IAEA will report on the
overall level of Iraqi compliance, and that has many components across the
board. That's really the big one, and we're going to eagerly await that report.
Then we, along with other members of the Security Council, will have an
opportunity to assess whether it's right to move forward with a comprehensive
review or not, based on those reports.
QUESTION: Okay, but what about your reaction to Iraqi officials saying that if
UNSCOM returns to the site that they tried to get into yesterday, that they will
be turned down again and again and again; do you have any reaction to that?
MR. FOLEY: Well, UNSCOM continues to exercise its full normal range of
inspection activities in accordance with its mandate. We expect Iraq to provide
full cooperation to UNSCOM in the course of its inspections. Without full
cooperation, there is no basis for a comprehensive review of Iraq's compliance
with UN Security Council resolutions. If, as is often the case with Iraq, they
are intent on building a record which harms their own case, as they've done so
many times in the past, that would not be terribly surprising.
Certainly, these kinds of actions and the failure to produce documents demanded
by UNSCOM are not such as to bode well for the achievement of Iraq's stated
desires -- namely in the first instance, a comprehensive review; in the second
instance, a relief from sanctions. I'm afraid that is not a new story.
But we've been very careful over the last week -- and you won't be surprised if
I continue in this vein -- to not make a definitive judgment at this stage
because, according to the Security Council resolution, Chairman Butler and the
IAEA must make a report on their assessment. We're not going to, at this stage,
substitute an American assessment for their assessment. That is very important.
That's their job to conduct the inspections, to elicit Iraqi cooperation; and
they will report on the success, or lack thereof, of their efforts based on
Iraqi cooperation, or non-cooperation as the case may be.
When we get that report, we will judge that report.
QUESTION: But this is not a good sign?
MR. FOLEY: I already said that. It doesn't bode well.
QUESTION: You called just a minute ago for full Iraqi cooperation. What do you
mean by full? Is that 100 percent or overall? What is full in this instance?
MR. FOLEY: Full is full. Full is not partial; full is full.
QUESTION: But, if there is not cooperation on three days out of five or even
three days out of hundred, is that, in the Administration's view, full or is
that overall cooperation? I mean, are you calling for overall cooperation or
are you calling for full cooperation?
MR. FOLEY: We're calling for full cooperation. Again, I'm going to resist your
efforts to have me make a judgment before we get Chairman Butler's judgment.
We'll arrive at our own conclusions, but those conclusions will be significantly
informed by Chairman Butler's feelings and assessment as to whether he's gotten
the cooperation that he needs, the cooperation that he must receive, according
to Security Council resolutions.
QUESTION: Jim, the worst you seem to be threatening at the moment is that this
comprehensive review won't go through. Can you go further than that? Are all
options open, including the military option?
MR. FOLEY: I think you need to understand that these are not necessarily the
same things we're talking about. On the one hand, the questions I've been
receiving about Chairman Butler's report and the question -- comprehensive
review; on the other hand, the question that you're alluding to, involving
other measures. And let's be honest, you're talking, I think, about the
potential use of force. Both Secretary Albright in Paris, and I believe
Secretary Cohen here, both today have stated emphatically that the use of force
remains an option.
Insofar as your questions tend to attempt to draw me out on what might occasion
such an option on our part, that's the last thing in the world that I or any
other spokesman can talk about in a public forum - for obvious reasons. We're
not going to signal our plans in that regard.
QUESTION: How does this case differ from previous cases? In previous cases,
you haven't been deferring to Butler and his lengthy report; you've been judging
on a prima face basis as events unfold. Why does it differ this time?
MR. FOLEY: It doesn't differ. I very carefully and deliberately, in response to
your previous question, made crystal-clear that we're talking about two separate
matters. One is Iraqi compliance and how that is determined to affect the
willingness of the Security Council to proceed with the comprehensive review.
The other is Iraqi compliance and how that might affect US action in the event
that Saddam Hussein is not meeting the commitments he solemnly agreed to in
November. On that question, I refuse to be drawn out on the US response, except
to repeat what Secretaries Albright and Cohen have said today, which is that
force remains an option. We're not going to signal our punches. It would be
certainly very imprudent of Iraq to test our resolve in that regard.
QUESTION: Why aren't you signaling your punches? I mean, you've done so in the
past.
MR. FOLEY: Because you're asking questions - no, we have not; we've never
signaled that the timing or even the decision concerning the use of force.
That's not something you want an adversary to have advance knowledge of.
QUESTION: You have said that if Saddam Hussein doesn't comply, there will be
military strikes, there will be air strikes.
MR. FOLEY: I stand - I was asked this question yesterday, and I addressed it
yesterday - that it's even in extant Security Council resolutions that Iraq will
face severest consequences if it does not comply with UN Security Council
resolutions.
I would point you also to a statement yesterday that was put out by the GCC
states that indicated that Saddam Hussein alone was responsible for the plight
that his people are going through. He's responsible by failing to comply fully
with Security Council resolutions and demands. And he alone will bear the
consequences - or bears the responsibility for any consequences that may ensue
from his failure to comply.
QUESTION: Can you explain, because it seems fairly cut and dry that either
Saddam Hussein lets inspectors into the sites that they want to get into or he
doesn't. Yesterday he didn't.
MR. FOLEY: What's your question?
QUESTION: My question is, either he is allowing them in or he isn't allowing
them in. And isn't that part of what the UN Security Council resolution and,
actually, more recently in November, what the United States was saying that
either Saddam Hussein allows inspectors to do their job or else? So they're not
able to do their job.
MR. FOLEY: I agree with your premise 100 percent and I would add to it that
either Iraq is providing documents requested and demanded by UNSCOM or it is
not. We've not seen that, yes. But if you're asking me what are we going to do
and when are we going to do it, I am, for obvious reasons, not going to answer
that question.
QUESTION: All right, you were yesterday after the Iraqis prevented access to
the Bath Party headquarters --
MR. FOLEY: However, let me add, it would be a severe mistake, as I said a few
minutes ago, for Saddam Hussein to underestimate our intentions in this regard
and our capabilities and our resolve to follow through on the President's
statement in mid-November. Secretary Cohen, Secretary Albright were very clear
on this earlier today.
QUESTION: Well, I still - a lot of us, obviously, think that the State
Department's posture has changed.
MR. FOLEY: How is that; explain yourself.
QUESTION: Sure, it's very simple - 24 hours ago when the Iraqis refused to
allow the inspectors into Bath Party headquarters, instead of being denounced
by Secretary of State Albright, Albright said, hey, sometimes on the first
attempt, they don't let them in; we've got to see what happens; you never know,
it's a little early --
MR. FOLEY: Barry, I have to - I'm sorry, I can't --
QUESTION: That's what she said.
MR. FOLEY: No, I can't let you go forward.
QUESTION: That's what she said -- we cannot make a judgment based on a first
attempt because sometimes you have to wait and see what will happen.
MR. FOLEY: Barry, I'm going to interrupt you here.
QUESTION: Want me to go get the words?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, go get the words; I've seen them. She said that she was not
aware, as often happens when we're standing - Jamie and I are standing here at
the podium. We get a report. She said spontaneously - "I hadn't heard that; of
course, sometimes they let them in the second time." She wasn't in a position
to give a definitive answer not having heard - not having knowledge of the
report.
QUESTION: Yes, what I'm emphasizing is not whether she had a full report;
you're right. What we're discussing is --
MR. FOLEY: She wasn't in a position to -
QUESTION: What we're discussing is her position -- which I found unusually
different -- that one doesn't make a judgment about that compliance based on a
first attempt; that frequently or often you find out later on that they are
cooperating. Similarly, the President called off a missile attack based on a
promise there would be full cooperation from Iraq. Do you need to get a report
from Butler to figure out whether Iraq is fully cooperating? When they say you
can't come in, does that sound like full cooperation to you?
MR. FOLEY: No, it does not.
QUESTION: Then what do you need to know? What do you need to know to know that
Iraq is not fully cooperating? What else do you have to know? We're asking why
the US position has changed, and you're saying it hasn't; we have to hear from
Mr. Butler. When Iraq says you can't come in here, is that full cooperation?
MR. FOLEY: Concerning the comprehensive review and whether the Security Council
will agree to do that, we are going to await Chairman Butler's report. That's
what's in the Security Council resolution. A second separate - I repeat for the
third time - issue is what the US is going to do potentially unilaterally --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- Iraq is doing?
MR. FOLEY: And I've already said that -
QUESTION: I don't expect you to say that we're going to hit him.
MR. FOLEY: -- we expect full cooperation. In answer to Andrea's question, I
said that refusal to allow access to sites is not full cooperation. Refusal to
provide all documents is not full cooperation. We've been very clear on that.
QUESTION: Jim, I have two questions -- one on Burma and one on China. There
was an AFP report yesterday that the Japanese Foreign Ministry has said that it
would be willing to resume aid to Burma. This seems to contradict a statement
that the Japanese Foreign Minister Masahiko made to Secretary Albright last
December, I guess. I was wondering whether you had anything on that.
MR. FOLEY: I don't; I've not heard that. I'll take the question.
QUESTION: Okay, and then on China, I was wondering whether you have any comment
at all about the report in today's papers that Hughes has been found, I guess by
DOD, to have helped, in some sense, China's missile program with its report on
the launch failure.
MR. FOLEY: Yes, we have something on that from yesterday; if you'll give us a
few minutes, I'll come back to it.
QUESTION: There's a report circulating in East Asia that the United States has
asked the government of Thailand to arrest three Khmer Rouge officials. Is that
true?
MR. FOLEY: I had something on that yesterday that I did mention - I don't know
if you were here; it might have been just after the briefing. We queried the
Thai authorities on this question, and we were informed by them that those
senior Khmer Rouge leaders remain at large. They're not, apparently, within
anyone's reach. So, that's the only information I have on that. I don't know
if it's moved in the last 24-hours.
QUESTION: But you didn't ask that they be detained or -
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of what precisely we asked, but we learned that they
weren't apprehendible, if there is such a word.
QUESTION: Now that Pol Pot is gone, are you still interested in bringing his
henchmen to justice?
MR. FOLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Are there any developments in the talks between --
MR. FOLEY: I have nothing to report. I'm sorry, I don't know.
QUESTION: On Venezuela, regarding the President-elect Chavez, the State
Department said that the US is prepared to take necessary steps to address any
visa request. I wonder if you have received a request for the visa. And
second, he said in Venezuela, I think yesterday, that he will be coming to the
United States. I wonder if you can elaborate on that. Third, there is a note
in the newspaper that says the United States wants incoming minister as
president. I wonder if you have comments on that, too.
MR. FOLEY: I have a very poor memory, and I've already probably forgotten. Let
me try the questions one by one. Number one, I don't believe that there's been
a visa request.
QUESTION: But, does he need to request a visa in order for him -
MR. FOLEY: If he's not an American citizen or legal permanent resident, he needs
to apply for a visa.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. FOLEY: Second, you'd have to ask Mr. Chavez whether he's planning to visit
the United States.
QUESTION: No, he's planning, but I wonder if, through the diplomatic channels,
you have more information.
MR. FOLEY: I don't have more information on that.
QUESTION: Could you have it eventually or -
MR. FOLEY: Well, if there is an intention to come and there's discussion with us
about his coming, then I'll learn about it and share that with you if that
happens. But I don't have anything for you on that at least today.
QUESTION: And The Washington Post story?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, we are encouraged by the conciliatory statements that Mr. Chavez
has made since he was elected President on Sunday. We want to have a
cooperative relationship with Mr. Chavez and his administration, continuing the
traditionally strong ties we have with Venezuela. We expect that he will govern
and institute change consistent with Venezuela's democratic traditions and as
required by the Venezuelan constitution.
Now, in response to your specific question, the answer is no. President Clinton
sent a congratulatory message to Mr. Chavez that was delivered by our
ambassador. In that letter, the President congratulated him on his election
victory and expressed his confidence that Mr. Chavez will address the challenges
facing his administration in a democratic matter. President-elect Chavez
responded positively to the letter and said he looks forward to a solid and
productive relationship. Our ambassador described his meeting with President-
elect Chavez as a very positive and upbeat meeting.
QUESTION: Does this election - insofar as the visa question goes - does the
fact that -- if it doesn't change the legal situation, does it, in a practical
sense, have any impact on his eligibility to come here?
MR. FOLEY: Well, Barry, there were a few days when you weren't present for some
of the briefings I think earlier in the week when we addressed this. The answer
that I gave is that our practice is to issue diplomatic visas to heads of state.
QUESTION: You don't know if the President invited him to the United States?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of that, no. That does not mean that there won't be
some kind of a visit. I just have nothing for you on that today.
QUESTION: So does the Administration think Venezuela will be kept on a
democratic track because I believe -
MR. FOLEY: The President expressed his confidence that that will be the case.
QUESTION: So even today you would say only the non-democratic government south
of US water is Cuba, right?
MR. FOLEY: Mr. Chavez was elected in a democratic election. His election was
very much reflective of the will of the Venezuelan people.
QUESTION: Another Latin American visa -- what do you have to say about the
refusal to give a visa to Mr. Gabeira, of Brazil?
MR. FOLEY: I'll have to take the question.
QUESTION: Do you know about this?
MR. FOLEY: No, I don't.
QUESTION: He's a member of Congress.
QUESTION: According to Mr. Tom Miller, who is in Cyprus today, is working on
the plan for the confederation of the Republic of Cyprus. Any comment?
MR. FOLEY: I'm sorry, I'm not aware of that. I did provide information
yesterday on his travel plans and itinerary, but I have no information on his
specific meetings.
QUESTION: Any response to my pending question, do you recognize the Greek-
Turkish land borders?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not aware that there is any kind of dispute in that regard,
so I have nothing to say on the subject.
QUESTION: Costas Simitis, Theodore Pangalos -- (inaudible) -- are in agreement
now that the S-300 missiles should not be deployed in the Republic of Cyprus.
Mr. Pangalos actually proposed it could be deployed to the island of Crete. The
Cypriot President, Mr. Clerides, however, disagrees to the point that the island
is totally defenseless. Could you please comment on that?
MR. FOLEY: I can comment by restating our position that it would be a mistake
for Cyprus to deploy those missiles, and that we hope that that decision is
reversed. We are also opposed to any kind of threats involving this issue. We
trust that the government of Cyprus will make the right decision in this regard.
QUESTION: Any comment on the NATO decision to send 1,700 troops in Skopje via
the Greek port of Thessolaniki?
MR. FOLEY: Well, the United States is a member of NATO. We certainly support
very much the deployment of the extraction force to Macedonia.
QUESTION: And one last one - anything on reports that Italy is going to allow
the leader of the Kurdish National Liberation Front, -- (inaudible) - Abdullah
Ocalan to fly to Iran? It was a report today.
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen that report, but we've been working very closely with
Italian authorities, as well with Turkish and German authorities, to promote the
bringing to justice of Ocalan, and that is our bottom line. There are different
ideas currently being discussed. But whatever option is eventually chosen, it
is our view that it must be an option that brings him to justice. The prospect
that you raised does not fall into that category.
QUESTION: Jim, the Secretary's coming home a little early, canceling her
intention to go to that human rights event. Is there any particular reason for
this?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, she has a very limited window of time here in order to help
prepare for the President's and her trip to the Middle East. It is a rather
time-compressed moment for her. She's coming back a little early, but
nevertheless arriving this evening and then turning around Saturday morning to
go to Israel and the PA. So she starts the day tomorrow, as you know, very
early with a press briefing at the White House. This just was something she had
to do in order to be able to do a little advance work on the trip.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- announcing the expanded travel by her in the Middle
East?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not aware of expanded travel, except that I believe on maybe the
last day of the President's visit, she'll be making a brief visit to Jordan
herself for a matter of hours to visit with the Crown Prince. I believe that's
the sum total of her extra trip while with the President.
QUESTION: Jim, on Libya, the Foreign Minister has made some remarks concerning
the fact that new arrangements would have to be discussed concerning the lifting
of sanctions, in terms of handing over the Lockerbie suspects. Do you have
anything to say on where things stand and whether you're considering at this
point withdrawing the offer to Libya?
MR. FOLEY: Well, we haven't reached that conclusion. We're obviously not going
to wait forever; we're not going to wait very long, either. After all, the
victims' families have been waiting far too long. It's been almost 10 years
since their loved ones were murdered. Their demands for justice cry out. We're
stymied for so many years in trying to bring the suspects to justice. The
Libyan Government itself proposed the idea that the suspects be tried in a
Scottish court in an international venue. We took up that proposal that was
their proposal, and probably surprised them in doing so. They've been
struggling with the fact that we called their bluff - we and the United Kingdom
- and are confronted with the results of their own previous proposals.
Obviously, they're having a hard time coming to grips with it.
We and the UK stated very clearly that this was a non-negotiable proposal.
We've seen reports that the Libyan legal team will return to New York to consult
with the UN Secretary General's representative on legal and procedural matters
relating to Security Council Resolution 1192. Again, this would not be a
negotiation; it would be for purposes of clarification only.
We've also seen reports that the Libyan Peoples' Congress has referred the issue
of the Pan Am 103 suspects to so-called "popular committees." It's not clear
what actually this means and what actually they have decided. But what is
crystal clear is that they have not decided to comply with UN Security Council
Resolution 1192. That's what we're looking for, and our patience is not
unlimited.
QUESTION: Can I ask you just a follow up? Why are you adamant that if the
suspects are tried, that they would serve their sentence in a Scottish jail? I
mean, what's the difference between that and a prison in the Netherlands?
MR. FOLEY: Because this goes to the integrity of the US-UK proposal. The
Security Council resolutions call for trial of the suspects in either the United
Kingdom or the United States courts' judicial systems. The proposal that the US
and the UK came forward with is a novelty in that we proposed that a Scottish
proceeding - an entirely Scottish proceeding -- take place in The Hague. But,
nevertheless -- and we made this clear -- this is a Scottish judicial
proceeding, and that has to be respected. That would involve, in the event of
convictions, their being subject to Scottish incarceration.
QUESTION: Just to follow up, so what options are left for the United States,
other than keeping sanctions in place against Libya. How would the US then get
what it wants, which is these two Libyans to be tried in a court?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I suppose if this were an easy decision for Colonel Qadhafi, he
would have simply rejected the US-UK proposal out of hand. The fact of the
matter is that his country has suffered under sanctions. He desperately wants
the sanctions to be lifted. Therefore, he is caught on the horns of a dilemma.
Certainly any hope that sanctions will be eased or suspended or lifted are
illusory if he doesn't hand over the suspects.
So, I think that's got to weigh very strongly in his calculation. As to what
further steps and stronger steps we might be proceeding, I'm not here to
announce anything today because, as Carole indicated, we haven't said that our
proposal has been definitively rejected; but time is running out on the
proposal. I wouldn't attach a specific date that we would say would have to be
a date for a final resolution. We carefully did not specify a deadline when we
and the UK announced this initiative; but our patience is not unlimited.
QUESTION: Is it credible to you all that these two Libyan intelligence agents
were acting on their own in this attack, that there was no - are you satisfied
that the indictment goes far enough in casting a net for those involved in this?
MR. FOLEY: I'd have to refer you to law enforcement authorities, judicial
authorities who developed the indictment and the evidence to support it.
Speaking as a layman and certainly not as a lawyer or a prosecutor, I would have
to think that that would be one of the purposes of a trial would be to determine
the truth.
QUESTION: Jim, were you able to find that statement on the Chinese missiles and
the Hughes report?
MR. FOLEY: Yes, first of all, this is a Department of Defense report on a
satellite launch failure investigation authorized by the Commerce Department
and, therefore, I recommend that you contact those agencies for comment.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: While you're still on Asia, another question about North Korea but
not having to do with missiles -- there was a horrifying report in today's New
York Times based on a World Food Program survey about malnutrition, starvation
are endemic of North Korea, hitting particularly young children. In view of
that apparently authoritative survey, do you have any doubts about the US food
supply of being diverted, or do you have any plans to change the mode by which
it is being distributed?
MR. FOLEY: Well, the full report is not out yet for our review, but drafts of
the findings we've read certainly match other international agencies'
assessments that food shortages persist in North Korea. It's based on these
independent findings that the US determine to donate an additional 300,000
metric tons to the World Food Program's 1998 appeal. In light of the continuing
humanitarian need, we urge other nations to contribute as well.
Now, in terms of our assessment about whether the food aid we provide is going
to intended recipients and has not been diverted, I am happy to restate our
position on that, which is not going to be news to you because we've said it
before, but I'm happy to do so. In August of 1998, three congressional staffers
released a report that they wrote after their visit that month to North Korea.
They concluded that international food aid clearly saved lives. They stated
that food assistance is feeding nearly every child under the age of seven. Most
US Government assistance is directed to children 12 years and under.
One World Food Program high-level official recently stated, "I can guarantee
that the vast majority of resources channeled through the WFP is put to proper
use in North Korea." While monitor access and the tempo of operations are
improving, we would, of course, like to see greater openness regarding the food
situation. We would like to see the number of monitors increased and their
freedom of access further expanded. We have made clear to the North Koreans the
importance of this matter; in fact, the DPRK recently issued visas to additional
World Food Program monitors and agreed to a 1999 PVO consortium program.
QUESTION: Well, my question is, in light of this survey, which appears to be
much more authoritative than three congressional staffers running around, is the
United States going to do anything differently?
MR. FOLEY: Well, under our arrangement with the World Food Program, monitoring
the food assistance is required. No US aid is distributed if it cannot be
monitored. The World Food Program and the US private volunteer organization
consortium - this PVO I mentioned - monitor the distribution of US food aid in
the DPK. No significant diversion of US Government assistance has been
detected. So that really is our assessment, Jim.
With the recent announcement of an additional 300,000 metric tons of food
contributed by the US, the number of monitors will increase. We continue to
believe that the present monitoring situation, while considerably less than
ideal, has allowed our assistance to reach those for whom it is intended.
QUESTION: What would you say about the leadership of a country that allowed its
children to starve to death, as we saw in the pages of the newspapers today -
skin and bones in classrooms, malnourished, mal-developed, brain abnormalities
as a result of it. What would you say about a government that would allow that
to go on while still maintaining a million-man army - a well-fed million-man
army? And what about the $5 billion going to, perhaps, feeding its people
instead of building nuclear reactors? What about them building suspect
underground sites rather than feeding their people?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I really couldn't quarrel with anything that you just said,
Sid. Your points reflect our views about the nature of that regime, about its
dysfunctional economic system, about its choices on how to allocate its
resources. We have profound and fundamental differences with this regime. At
the same time, we have made it very clear as a policy decision and as a
reflection of what we stand for as a people, that we're not going to impose
political criteria when it comes to helping to feed innocent people who are
victims of some of the facts and policies that you describe.
QUESTION: New subject -- the decision to freeze Pinochet's assets, does that
affect you at all?
MR. FOLEY: We're aware of press reports that the Spanish judge has called for a
worldwide freeze of Pinochet's assets, but we're not aware that any formal
request of that nature has been submitted to the US Government. The issue of
asset freezing, I'm told, is not treated uniformly throughout the world. I'm
not a lawyer, but that's my understanding, given the differences in legal
systems. We note that in the US, legal authority for asset freezing would exist
only in a limited category of situations, typically in connection with a US
civil or criminal case or in emergency situations.
QUESTION: You mean not do it if -
MR. FOLEY: I'm not in a position to answer that now, because we have not
received any kind of formal request I'm aware of at this point.
QUESTION: Clarification, please, in your statement that you give diplomatic
visa to the head of the state. Is this valid for president-elects as well?
MR. FOLEY: Well, if Mr. Chavez, as president-elect, were to apply for a visa,
then we would give it due consideration. We haven't, as I said, received
request.
QUESTION: Okay, you are given consideration. You don't say that you want to
give the visa.
MR. FOLEY: I've given you my answer.
QUESTION: But president-elect puts him in a special category.
MR. FOLEY: We would give it due consideration.
Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:05 P.M.)
milnet@milnet.com
