U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

Briefer:  Philip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman

MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2000, 1:45 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

QUESTION:  No.  All right.  My question concerns the Iraqi
Government's letter that had been circulated to the UN, around
the UN, about US and British war planes in 18,000-plus sorties
killing 311 Iraqis and 927 wounded by these air actions.  What is
the US response to that accusation?

MR. REEKER:  I am not aware of the specifics of a letter, but
let's take this opportunity to review the issue of the no-fly
zones.  As I think many of you know, and we have discussed at
great length, the no-fly zones in Northern and Southern Iraq were
established to carry out the vital UN Security Council
resolutions, in particular 678, 687, 688, following Iraq's use of
military aircraft in support of large-scale repression of its own
civilian population.  Following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991,
which was following Iraq's own invasion of Kuwait, those no-fly
zones remain in place to monitor Iraq's compliance with
international community requirements, as reflected, again, in UN
Security Council resolutions, and to deter repetition of the
Iraqi repression against their own people.

The coalition strikes in the no-fly zones are only taken in
self-defense in response to Iraqi threats to our forces which are
enforcing and patrolling those no-fly zones.  If Iraq would cease
its threats, coalition strikes would cease as well.  We make
every effort to avoid civilian casualties and damage to civilian
facilities.  Iraq often positions their air defense equipment
near civilian areas in their own effort to make civilian
casualties more likely.  And again, if Iraq would cease
threatening our aircraft, which are there to enforce UN Security
Council resolutions, then our aircraft would not need to threaten
their sites.

QUESTION:  Phil, a quote from the letter once again says, "We
would hold all Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti regimes fully
responsible for the prolonging of the most comprehensive blockade
in the history - in the world," it says, "and for repeated
barbaric attacks against Iraq," which sounds like a direct threat
against Saudi and Kuwait again, once again, going back to the
reasons that there was a war in the Gulf:  the threat of Iraq to
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.  Is that correct?

MR. REEKER:  I am not familiar with this letter.  I am not going
to try to start commenting, and I just don't think we want to
take up everybody's time to look at what the Iraqis have to say
in another one of their sort of lengthy commentaries on the
situation.  They know very well the situation.  They understand
what they need to do.  If they want to have sanctions removed,
they need to comply with UN Security Council resolutions.  It is
as simple as that.

QUESTION:  Are you saying that this letter - this particular
tactic - should be discounted generally?

MR. REEKER:  Again, I am not aware of the letter.  I think we
have said all there is to say in terms of the position of the UN
and the isolation of Saddam and his destructive regime.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:40 P.M.)