State Department Deputy Spokesman James Foley briefed.

SERBIA/ELECTIONS -- Foley was asked about reports that the Helsinki Human Rights Committee will not be monitoring Serbia's presidential and parliamentary elections scheduled for September 21.

Foley acknowledged that the Helsinki Committee's concerns are understandable, given that the conditions in Serbia do not allow for free and fair elections.

"We obviously have had real concerns about the prospects for truly democratic elections in the FRY (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). We don't have high hopes for those elections," Foley said. Nonetheless, the United States will be sending election observers through its participation in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), he said.

It is important that the Serbian elections be monitored by outside observers, Foley explained, "if for no other reason than to remind the authorities -- including Mr. Milosevic -- that the rest of the world is watching what's going on there, and that we will continue to hold him and his regime to internationally accepted standards of democracy and human rights."

Solobodan Milosevic, the current president of Serbia, is expected to make a bid for the leadership of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which consists of the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro. The United States does not recognize the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as the successor to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Following are Middle East/South Asia excerpts from the unofficial transcript from Legi-Slate:

(Begin excerpts)

-- LAND MINES --

Q: Could you bring us up to date on the land-mine (status ?)?

FOLEY: Negotiations in Oslo are in their final stages. Discussion is intense because we're in the endgame in Oslo. And the conference participants are evaluating the U.S. proposal, I noted yesterday, and other states' suggestions for improving the treaty.

I am not in a position to give a play-by-play account. As you may know, we're in a pause right now to permit all participants to thoroughly consider the new proposals. The conference president has postponed the plenary session until tomorrow, Wednesday, September 17th.

So today is a day for discussions and for reporting back to capital, and I am not going to have a lot to say, I am afraid. But they reopen again tomorrow, and we remain hopeful that our proposals that we unveiled over the weekend, will find favor and that a consensus will be able to emerge around them.

Q: Is this a take-it-or-leave-it package, or are you negotiating around the edges or even in substance on the package you put forward at the weekend?

FOLEY: Well, as you know, we moved substantially over the weekend in an effort to modify our original proposals so that our humanitarian objective of achieving a global land mine could be achieved while nevertheless protecting our national security interests. We made this proposal in an effort to respond to the concerns of others while, again, maintaining our objectives.

I think that this latest proposal has elicited responses from other delegations. As I said, I'm not in a position to give a play-by-play account, but this is a diplomatic process and delegations are talking back and forth. And I can't tell you whether there are any new ideas that are on the table or not, but our bottom line, though, is as I've been describing it, one that achieves both our humanitarian and our national security objectives.

Q: It sounds like you're saying yes to both propositions -- (inaudible). On the one hand --

FOLEY: I'm saying that discussions are continuing. Clearly --

Q: But you won't accept --

FOLEY: -- we're anticipating tomorrow's resumption of the plenary talks. But I'm not in a position to talk about what private discussions may be addressing at this moment.

Q: But you also referred to the U.S. bottom line and the fact that you -- your analysis moved over the weekend and suggesting that that was it, you moved.

FOLEY: We moved in the way I described it over the weekend, yes.

Q: Are the Secretary and/or the President making any calls on this? Are they making any telephone calls?

FOLEY: The Secretary and her party had a grueling trip to the Middle East, as you know, and they came in in the wee hours of the morning. And I think that at least some members of the party, and, I would note, some members of the traveling press are recovering and recuperating today.

The Secretary is hard at work, however, and she's been on the phone all morning, as I understand it. I don't know if she's been addressing these issues. But as I said, in all capitals, this issue is being examined intently in view of the reopening of the plenary talks tomorrow.

Q: Could you find out if she has been personally making any -- doing any lobbying on this?

FOLEY: I could look into it. I'm not sure that in advance of the resumption of the session tomorrow, that I would have anything more to say, though.

Q: Jim, maybe you can clarify something on this nine-year deferral.

FOLEY: Yeah?

Q: The reports I see from Oslo say that what that really means is that the United States and other signatories wouldn't have to do anything about land mines obligatorily for 19 years, since there is a 10-year delay already built in.

FOLEY: I think there's some misunderstanding on that. This is a technical issue, and it is complicated. But the 10-year period that you refer to is in the text -- the 10-year implementation phase is in the existing text of the treaty. I'm not sure that in the event that we're able to sign the treaty and the implementation begins, that the United States would require anything on that order of magnitude.

As I understand it, our experts at the Pentagon believe that what is required is nine years -- and that refers to the deferral period I discussed yesterday -- to field an alternative. And that's what they're looking for.

Now in terms of the implementation element itself, there are different aspects to that implementation period. There are some elements that must be implemented basically immediately: the production ban, for example, and use. There are others that -- in which the 10-year period is covered, involving the clearing of marked fields. And in our case, we believe that the nine-year deferral period would be enough for purely anti-personnel land mines. Our concern has been over mines that, for example, are not necessarily in the ground, that might need to be deployed in the event of an attack.

So what I'm saying is that in the event that we are able to agree to implement the treaty within that nine-year time frame, that we would not require that lengthy implementation period, as other nations might.

I would --

Q: (Off mike.)

FOLEY: Yeah?

Q: Just -- you're right; it is complicated. But as put forward by the United States, would the implementation period begin after the nine-year deferral or during that nine-year period, or when?

FOLEY: Well -- (pauses) -- the period would begin from the moment of implementation. Remember, we, as I discussed yesterday -- and I can state -- restate what I said yesterday: that we would require this nine-year deferral period to address a number of concerns that we have involving, obviously, the question of security on the Korean Peninsula and involving our efforts to field an alternative to anti-personnel land mines.

And it is the assessment -- and let me say that it is the consensus assessment of our government that our national security concerns are fully addressed and satisfied with this latest proposal that we've made, that allows for this nine-year deferral period. On that there has been some press reporting indicating that perhaps there had been a difference of views, that there had been some contentiousness surrounding the elaboration of our latest proposal. And those reports are not true.

And I can say, on behalf of Secretary Albright, for example, that as much as she has been a leader around the world in the push for a global ban on anti-personnel land mines, I think there are few people in our government who have personally witnessed to the degree that she has -- and understood -- the concerns that our military has over this issue. She has been to the Demilitarized Zone in Korea. She understands and appreciates our military's concerns and the fact that that U.S. military has unique responsibilities around the world.

So there really is a strong and unified approach on this issue within the United States government. I'd like to make that clear.

Q: Well, let me try that question from a different perspective. Absent political and military change on the Korean Peninsula -- in other words, assuming the status quo -- when would the United States begin -- and if this treaty would be adopted in the form the U.S. is proposing -- when would the U.S. begin clearing land mines on the Korean Peninsula? After the nine-year period is up?

FOLEY: Well, the nine-year is a deferral period that any signatory can avow itself of.

Q: Right.

FOLEY: It's not a mandatory nine-year. Nine-year is the -- would be the maximum period. And at any point in that period when the United States deemed that it could implement the treaty, it would announce its willingness to do so and commence to make that operative.

Q: So it's that period plus however long it would take to --

FOLEY: Well, as I said in reference to Jim's question, we don't believe that we would need a ten-year implementation period. That's in the text of the treaty. That's I think agreed by treaty drafters around the table. But the magnitude of the time involved we don't think we would need to avail ourselves of to make the treaty operative.

Q: (Inaudible) -- any other signatories of this treaty could take that long, it could take 19 years. I mean, they could chose to take the maximum deferral period of time, let's just say nine years, and then claim to require ten years to de-mine.

FOLEY: I'm not sure -- not being an expert on the issue, I really would hesitate to venture into such un-chartered territory but I would be surprised that many or even any of the countries present in Oslo would face such a problem. I think, as I said, major parts of the implementation would be immediate with -- upon signature and other elements involving the clearing of mines marked in fields would perhaps take, theoretically, ten years. I'm not aware, though, that there are nations present in Oslo that have such landmines deployed. I think that these are issues that involve perhaps conflicts or latent conflicts in certain parts of the world and I'm not sure where those issues are relevant, whether the countries involved are present in Oslo.

-- MIDDLE EAST/ALBRIGHT TRIP --

Q: -- Secretary is back in the United States, can you talk about the Middle East?

FOLEY: Well, in principle, yes. But I have to say that I have not spoken yet to any of our experts who were on the trip, and so I really hesitate to characterize much of what occurred and much of what was accomplished on the trip itself. And I think I would leave that for Mr. Rubin when he resumes his place at the podium tomorrow.

Q: I have a specific issue --

FOLEY: Yeah?

-- MIDDLE EAST: JEWISH SETTLERS/EAST JERUSALEM --

Q: -- which is separate from that. Do you have any reaction to the Jewish settlers moving into dwellings in Arab east Jerusalem? And do you have any views on what impact that might have on the whole complex --

FOLEY: Well, we think it would have a negative impact on the overall process. The Secretary spoke clearly on her trip about the need to avoid unilateral actions or actions which tended to undermine confidence; the fact that both sides ought to be treating themselves as the partners that they recognized each other to be in Oslo. And I believe she may have said, on the flight back last night, something to the effect that this latest move in east Jerusalem was unhelpful and detrimental to the peace process.

But I would also note that Prime Minister has basically said the same thing himself. And we think that all efforts ought to be concentrated not towards undermining, but rather towards restoring confidence in each other, and we've made our views clear on this to the Israeli government. But again, our understanding is that Prime Minister Netanyahu shares this concern.

And I would make just one final point on the issue. From our perspective, especially at this critical point in the Middle East peace process, and in view of the crisis of confidence that we've seen occasioned by the terrible bombings that occurred and by the lack of progress on the political front, that what is important in this particular instance is not really the question of what is legal and what is not legal; the question is what can restore confidence and promote movement towards a settlement, which can meet the party's needs? And we believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu understands the problem in that light.

Q: But he hasn't done anything. In fact, the settlers remain. I mean, a cynic might say he's having it both ways; complaining about the action, but allowing facts on the ground to be created.

FOLEY: Judd, first, I wouldn't accept that characterization. And second, I wouldn't venture down that road in any case so soon after the event. I think we have to give the parties time to work this out.

Q: He, himself, said that the Israeli government was powerless --

FOLEY: No, we understand that the Israeli government understands that this is a problem, and that given the equities involved in the peace process, that it needs to be resolved in a satisfactory way. But it's not our job, and certainly not mine from this podium, to try to tell people what specifically they need to do. This is, I think, something that he recognizes is a challenge and a problem, and that we trust he will find a way to work out.

Q: But should the Israeli government, and Mr. Netanyahu in particular, decide to move the settlers, the Jewish settlers out of the area, would that be a decision that you would characterize as wise and productive?

FOLEY: We rarely, if ever, answer hypothetical questions, as you know. But we do hope that the issue can be resolved in a way that is helpful to the peace process, because certainly that is in Israel's interest as much as anyone's interest in the Middle East.

Q: Netanyahu has said that he has no power, apparently, to move these settlers out of these houses. But Ha'aretz is reporting today that U.S. officials have, you know, demanded that Israel do this. Is there any truth to that report?

FOLEY: I believe we've been in communication -- I said so -- with the Israeli authorities to communicate our views. I'm not aware, and I would be surprised that we are, as I said a minute ago, trying to micromanage the prime minister's actions and agenda. Again, we think that we see eye-to-eye on the problem that this represents. But I think we have to give him the leeway and the time to work it out.

Q: Can you say definitively, though, that no one -- that no senior official in this government has advised Netanyahu to act to move these people out of these houses?

FOLEY: I couldn't comment on it. As I said at the beginning, I haven't been in touch with our experts at this point because, as I said, they returned literally in the middle of the night. But I think our representatives, though, on the ground have been seized of the matter.

-- SYRIA/SCUD MISSILES --

Q: One was Syria. As you know, yesterday I asked a question on the Syrian Scud missiles that was right across the southern Turkish border. I was wondering if you could find any information on it? And what's the U.S.' position, attitude, towards such deployment?

FOLEY: Well, we have no information suggesting this activity has occurred, so I can't comment on something that the state of our information indicates that this has or has not occurred.

-- CYPRUS --

Then, on Cyprus, Secretary Albright yesterday, said she welcomed this focus on core issues. I remember just a month ago, when the issue was raised and the State Department spokesman said that the United States supported U.N. efforts, which was basically sidestepping the core issues and focusing on more humanitarian issues, the more softer issues; could this new approach be a reflection of the realization that the calendar is running out, time is working against all parties involved? How do you explain this perceptible shift in policy?

FOLEY: Well, I don't see a perceptible shift in policy or an imperceptible shift in policy by definition. (Laughter.)

Q: That was my question. (Laughter.)

FOLEY: I see a positive step that the Secretary of State was pleased to be able to announce yesterday, that we think is novel and that points the parties in the right direction. There are serious security issues between them that need to be discussed, and the fact that they have now expressed a willingness to do so is wholly positive. And I would salute in this respect the efforts of our special Cyprus coordinator, Mr. Tom Miller, who worked with President Clerides, with Mr. Denktash and the U.N. envoy Mr. Saisso (sp).

Q: But you don't agree that, just a month ago, the State Department was favoring the U.N. approach of tackling such issues as the -- finding the missing persons and other humanitarian issues, first, before proceeding to more serious core issues like security?

FOLEY: We support the U.N.'s efforts in this regard to address all the issues of concern that surround the entire Cyprus problem.

-- ISRAELI/SYRIAN MEETING --

Q: Yet on Syria, there was a report, I think, that Israeli and Syrian representative are going to see each other next week, I believe, in New York. Are you aware of such a meeting?

Q: In Washington.

Q: Oh, in Washington.

FOLEY: No, I've not seen that report. I do know that the Secretary will be having a meeting with Prime Minister Levi in New York, and also with -- I'm sorry, with Foreign Minister Levi and with Foreign Minister Shara separately in New York on the margins of the U.N. General Assembly. But I'm not aware of this latest press report.

-- TURKEY/IRAQI KURDS --

Q: Last week the two -- one of the Turkish and Kurdish Iraqi group was in town and they met with the State Department official. Do you have anything on that? What was the subject, and who was it?

FOLEY: Yeah. It's true that -- I believe it was last week -- that -- well, as you know, first of all, it was last month that the PUK leader Talabani visited Washington, and then last week Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch had useful talks with an envoy of KDP leader Barzani in Washington. We've been in regular contact with the two main Kurdish parties, and these contacts are part of our ongoing effort to help consolidate the cease- fire between the parties worked out last October with the involvement of the UK, British and Turkish governments and to further the goal of political reconciliation.

Q: Any new effort to bring the two -- the Iraqi, Kurdish leader, bring to town and prepare some kind of summit-kind meeting?

FOLEY: Well, we are working with our British and Turkish partners to further the discussions between the parties on cease-fire and reconciliation. I don't have any further details or anything to announce from the podium today.

(End excerpts)