U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #114, 97-08-11
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
544
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, August 11, 1997
Briefer: James P. Rubin
PEACE PROCESS
1-4 Dennis Ross' Trip to the Area /Meetings
1,2 Prospects for Travel to the Region by Secretary Albright
2,3 Chairman Arafat's Comments Over the Weekend
BOSNIA
4-6 Assessment of the Gelbard/Holbrooke Trip/Meetings
8 Prospects for a "Radio Free Bosnia"
NORTH KOREA
6-8 Food Aid and the Four-Party Talks
CAMBODIA
8-9 Cambodia and Prospects for ASEAN Membership
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #114
MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1997 12:36 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Good afternoon. Week two. I have no announcements; I have no
introductions; I have no travel warnings. First question, George.
QUESTION: Have you got anything on Ambassador Ross' travels?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. Ambassador Ross met with Prime Minister Netanyahu a
couple of times, now. He spent a long, long meeting last night with
Chairman Arafat. He reported in a couple of hours ago to Secretary
Albright. They are now engaged, as I understand it, in a meeting in which
the professionals - the security experts, the people who need to get down
to business in order to stop the terrorists from destroying the peace
process - are going through in great detail what needs to be done to make
an 100 percent effort to stop this wave of, or the specific possibility of,
terrorism.
So, Ambassador Ross told me that he regarded it as a step in the right
direction. Of course, in the Middle East, like in a lot of places, the
proof of the pudding is in the eating. This is a meeting, and what we're
going to be watching for after this meeting and other meetings is to see
whether the commitments made are commitments kept and to see whether the
security cooperation that we have been looking for continues.
Right now, however, he regards it as encouraging that the experts are
getting together. They are talking in a trilateral meeting. That's what's
going on right now.
QUESTION: Jamie, is this enough for the Secretary to make her trip? I
mean, what you've seen so far - is that enough?
MR. RUBIN: When the Secretary has decided to go, we will make an
announcement. As you know, she said that provided some progress was made in
the area of security, that she was prepared to go at the end of this month.
We did not regard that as a minimal standard, as some did. But when we're
ready to make an announcement of that trip, we will.
QUESTION: They may be meeting, but the public comments from the
Palestinian side still seem to be that they do not intend to cooperate on
the ground until at least the economic sanctions are lifted.
MR. RUBIN: Let me say this about public comments. There have been a lot
of public comments in recent days by the people in the Middle East, and
many of them we've regarded as not particularly constructive. The time is
right to tone down the rhetoric, to focus on the substance, and to meet the
requirements that the people have been demanding, which is to make some
tough choices and make the peace process a reality for the people in the
region who want to live in peace.
So there have been a lot of comments, and very few of them have been
constructive that have been reported. I guess they don't report the ones
that are constructive. But it's our view that now is not the time to
ratchet up the rhetoric; now is the time to get down to business.
QUESTION: Jamie, how do you reconcile, though, Arafat's conversations
with the Secretary and his promises and pledges, rather, to the United
States that he's committed to 100 percent effort this time around -- things
are going to be different -- with the comments that were made over the
weekend that he's prepared to confront the Israelis by any means necessary,
which suggests all out war, if you will. I mean the comments aren't -
they're very acrimonious. How do you reconcile these two different
tones -- the one he's giving the United States and the one he's giving
the folks back at home?
MR. RUBIN: It's up to Chairman Arafat to explain his own position. What I
can tell you is this, is that we haven't seen one 100 percent effort. We
haven't seen a consistent 100 percent effort or a sustained 100 percent
effort. That's what we're looking for. That's not something we're going to
be able to declare today or tomorrow or the next day because it's
specifically intended to be a standard that is met over time. Because 100
percent effort one day and less than 100 percent effort a week later is not
consistent with the effort that we believe people and leaders who want
peace to be a reality need to take.
So he has now met with Ambassador Ross and some experts from the Israeli
side for a lengthy, lengthy meeting last night. I gather it went on until
the middle of the night and we're going to judge his actions by his actions
and not by the words. The rhetoric, good or bad, is not what is going to
determine what happens in the Middle East. It's going to be actions.
QUESTION: What would be a significant benchmark of improvement for the
Secretary's trip to you? I mean, to her? What would she consider a
significant improvement for her?
MR. RUBIN: Well, again, I'm not going to declare specifically what it is
that will cross the threshold for her. What I have said to all of you last
week still holds, is that Ambassador Ross will return very shortly. He will
report to the Secretary. We'll take a look at what's happened. We'll take a
look at what we think we can contribute and on that basis we will have
announcements to make about a trip, if that's her decision.
As far as what security cooperation means, she laid out very clearly in her
speech that it means no revolving doors. It means taking apart infrastructure.
It means making sure that terrorist groups are not supported. There are a
series of steps and the experts know what it means on all sides.
QUESTION: Jamie, General Williams, in command of the American 6th Fleet
who are visiting Israel now, made a visit yesterday to the occupied Golan
Heights and the surrounding areas including the Hamma District. Does that
have any significance at this time when peace talks are taking place?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I just got off the phone with the Pentagon public
affairs people and they didn't make a point of that, so I doubt it. I think
that it's probably a routine trip in which many people who are involved in
the security situation in Israel and the security situation in the Middle
East go to the Golan Heights because it's a place where you can understand
some of the security problems if you go there and see it.
QUESTION: I know you don't want to go into details about what's being
discussed, but can I ask you, are you suggesting by the tone of your
remarks and the comments that there's a difference between what Arafat is
saying in public as public rhetoric and what he's telling Ambassador
Ross?
MR. RUBIN: We try to chose our words carefully here at the podium. So let
me choose these particularly carefully. Dennis Ross, Ambassador Ross, was
encouraged by his meeting last night. The fact that security experts are
getting down to the nitty-gritty today in a professional meeting, where
professionals are detailing what needs to be done, is a step in the right
direction. But the extent of that progress will be determined by actions
not meetings.
QUESTION: On the meeting of the security experts, you say it's trilateral.
Are American experts sitting in? Who are they?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not in a position to get into detail as to who participates
in these meetings, but they're experts. I don't believe that there's any
dramatic personality whose name you would recognize.
QUESTION: And one other interest -- his wit was to focus exclusively on
security issues. What happens when Arafat says, I'm going to talk about
this; I want to talk about the settlements; I want to talk about the tax
receipts not coming through? What does Dennis Ross do then?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I haven't gotten a written account of the meeting. But I
think when I've seen this occur in the past, what tends to happen is that
Ambassador Ross makes clear that the focus of his trip, what he's trying to
accomplish, where he's able to bring some new thoughts to bear and
hopefully some ideas that help things happen, is in the area of security.
But he has been there many times. During those past trips, he's shared
many ideas on matters unrelated to narrow, anti-terrorist security
cooperation and talked about the political dimension.
I am sure that he will remind them as appropriate of what our positions and
ideas and thoughts are on political matters, but make clear that if there
is to be a political discussion that's useful, that's constructive, it
needs a security underpinning and that it will come in the Secretary's trip
if that security underpinning has been created.
One more on this subject? Carol?
QUESTION: When is he due back? When is Ross due back?
MR. RUBIN: I think it's a matter of a very - one or two more days,
probably; not too much longer than that.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: A follow-up concerning --
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Does that mean that nothing will be done about the measures on
the Palestinian people -- two to three million people are held hostage,
more or less, now - not even fishermen are allowed to fish -- until Mrs.
Albright go the area?
MR. RUBIN: That's not what it means. As you know, our position has been
that those steps are counterproductive and we've been making that
clear.
QUESTION: On Bosnia, I'd be interested in your assessment of Holbrooke's
trip, because, face it, it looks like he failed on the major issues.
MR. RUBIN: I would disagree with that assessment.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: That doesn't surprise me.
MR. RUBIN: And I'm certain that Ambassador Holbrooke would, too. We have
to look at Bosnia as a motion picture and not a snapshot. If you go back to
the beginning of the second Administration and to the review that President
Clinton conducted in which a decision was made to intensify our efforts
across the board, and you follow that with the Secretary's speech on the
Intrepid, the Secretary's trip to the region and the multilateral diplomacy
that we've conducted since then and look hard at the details of Dayton, we
see a pattern of progress. We see that progress has been made - significant
progress.
But in Bosnia, no matter how much progress you make, you still have a long
way to go; and we have a long way to go. We've been very candid and frank
about that. But if you look at the trip, the people who followed this issue
for a long time tell me that they had never seen anything resembling the
cooperation between President Tudjman and President Izetbegovic at Split;
and that a series of very concrete commitments were made and that the
spirit of cooperation was new between those two leaders. They believe
that part of the reason for that is that President Tudjman has come to
understand that we are going to use our leverage; we are going to use
linkage; we are going to use the possibility of entering Europe -- the
possibility of getting assistance through international financial
institutions -- to get our policies accomplished.
I think if you look at the Croatian- Bosnian cooperation, you see progress.
As far as the question of Bosnia's concern, Bosnia itself, it is frustrating.
It is frustrating to all of us that one has to spend hours and hours
negotiating which ambassadors go where or exactly what the picture on a
coupon would look like for currency. That's very frustrating, and it
doesn't say all that many encouraging things about some of the leaders
there. But at the end of the day, it was agreed and the ambassadors
were broken up, a ratio was established. As far as the meetings in
Banja Luka was concerned, we think it was very important to have a signal
sent that the leaders and the municipalities that are cooperating with
Dayton are going to get assistance.
Finally - and then I'd be happy to entertain a follow-up question - the
meetings in Belgrade. President Milosevic is someone that we've known for a
long time has significant influence on this process. That is why he was the
signatory for Dayton. We believed - the Secretary believed that sending
Ambassador Holbrooke along with Ambassador Gelbard might wake President
Milosevic up to the fact that if he doesn't change gears, if he doesn't
start implementing - seeing that Dayton is implemented, he's going to be
left out of Europe.
We believe that the fact that Mr. Krajisnik withdrew his opposition to two
World Bank loans; he made an important accession on the design of the
currency coupon; he made important commitments on the restructuring of the
police, on how we would get refugees returned - these are positive steps.
They reinforce the momentum. But again, we're not pikers when it comes to
Bosnia. We know that a lot of things get said in meetings, and what we look
for is implementation by the people at the local level. That's what
we're going to be watching for.
QUESTION: But the Secretary and Gelbard have both said that dealing with
the war criminals issue remains a core issue in Bosnia, and without
resolving that issue, there can be no peace there. From what's being
reported in the region, it sounds like Holbrooke basically gave Milosevic
and the Bosnian Serbs a period of grace again on the question of Karadzic
and whether or not they should deliver him to The Hague for prosecution.
What can you say about that discussion? What was the U.S. message
about Karadzic?
MR. RUBIN: I can assure you that Secretary Albright would not have wanted
Mr. Karadzic to feel any grace. He shouldn't feel any grace. He belongs in
The Hague. He's an indicted war criminal, and that's our view. That's her
view.
War criminals is another area where we've had progress. If I were an
indicted war criminal - either openly or thought I might be indicted
secretly - I'd be concerned. We had people picked up unexpectedly and
brought to The Hague. So we've moved forward on that. We made quite clear -
Ambassador Holbrooke and Ambassador Gelbard made quite clear that it's
their responsibility to bring these people in. If they don't do so, it will
affect their ability to participate in Europe, to have the outer wall of
sanctions lifted. There's been no change in that as far as going there
to tell them that they're off the hook. It doesn't resemble any report
that I've heard.
QUESTION: Did you get any sort of commitment from Milosevic or any of the
other leaders that Karadzic would be rendered either impotent politically
or be brought to The Hague?
MR. RUBIN: We received commitments that they would try to live up to the
agreement by which Karadzic will no longer play a role in public life, will
not be seen publicly, will not act on behalf of the Bosnian Serb entity.
That was repeated. That was stated. That's the minimum required for Dayton
to proceed. But as far as anyone promising us that we were going to see
him in the back of a car with his hands tied behind his back, delivered
to The Hague, we didn't hear that.
QUESTION: And I just have one more question. In Holbrooke's conversation
with B-52, I understand that he encouraged them to participate in the
upcoming elections. There are a lot of analysts in this town, at least, who
think those elections are basically phony and they're not going to work and
they're not going to be legitimate. Is it the position of the U.S.
Government that B-52 and other groups should participate in those
elections?
MR. RUBIN: We want to see a democratic process in Serbia. We believe that
the promise of democracy that seemed so bright for a few days there has
flickered and it's not looking so bright anymore. We are going to try to
insist on outside observers. We would like people to participate in the
democratic process. But unfortunately, together, as the Secretary says, is
not together. That's a problem. So I don't have any specific statement
prepared on each of the groups and what we're asking each of them to
do. But as a matter of policy we want democracy in Serbia and we want
free and fair elections. We want observers to make sure that they're free
and fair, and we want the people's voice to be heard and we don't believe
it has been.
QUESTION: Can we do North Korea?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Have you seen their statements about -- they want food aid as
the price for opening up the four-party talks?
MR. RUBIN: The question?
QUESTION: Have you seen the statement?
MR. RUBIN: I haven't seen it specifically, but I think I'm familiar with
their position. We have said for some time now that we do not believe that
these talks should be conditioned on anything. President Clinton and
President Kim, in proposing these talks, made clear that the proposal was
an unconditional one. We have consistently rejected the idea that there
ought to be linkage. These talks are designed to improve stability on
the Korean Peninsula. They're designed to improve the situation for
the people on both sides of the divide in Korea. So we don't think they
ought to be linked to other issues.
At the same time, we have made a very large number of donations to the
World Food Program in response to their appeals. We have an excellent
record of responding to those appeals. The United States will continue to
believe that when we're talking about starving children and starving men
and women who are suffering because of no reason but their leader's
mistakes that we should try to do what we can. We've done that and will
continue to do that. If we get another appeal we'll take a good, hard look
at it.
QUESTION: Korea?
MR. RUBIN: Korea. Yes?
QUESTION: Yes. The North Koreans said today, Mr. Rubin, had some very
harsh words about the talks last week. They basically said that the U.S. is
using food as a weapon. They say that they're not going to be satisfied
until the U.S. will put on the agenda the withdrawal of US troops from
Korea. Sounds like what Mr. Hwang has said about their negotiating
strategy. What is the State Department's read on that?
Mr. RUBIN: Well, we have been quite pleased with what happened in New
York last week. We have a new date -- I believe it's the week of the 15th --
for another preparatory session to get to all the details resolved, to have
four-party talks.
We have said - and we said in the negotiations and I will say here today --
that we want the agenda to be general. We want it to be about stability,
about security, about confidence-building measures. We are prepared to talk
about the reasons why we have deployed so many American soldiers to defend
our South Korean allies. But if we make those kind of proposals as agenda
items, which are clearly non-starters for withdrawal of those forces,
we're just going to create a prescription for the talks bogging down
later.
So what we'd rather do is explain to the North Koreans and, hopefully, they
will go back to Pyongyang and get some new instructions that will permit
them to understand that they can bring up these topics. We're not saying
that there are subjects that are off limits, but that's not the same thing
as saying that an agenda item ought to be a proposal that is a non-starter.
That's what we don't want.
QUESTION: Does North Korea appear to be stalling?
MR. RUBIN: As I said last week, the people who work on this issue have
developed a strong stomach, and they are a bit like marathon runners. They
are in for the long game, and they're not feeling like there is an
unexpected delay.
QUESTION: This is a North Korea question. Do you want to --
QUESTION: No, I want to go back to Bosnia for a minute.
MR. RUBIN: Let's do North Korea, then we'll go back.
QUESTION: Kofi Annan today apparently made a statement calling for more
food aid for North Korea, saying that the response hasn't been enough. I
was wondering if you were expecting a new appeal by the World Food
Program.
MR. RUBIN: I asked the question this morning and the answer was, we
weren't imminently because apparently they are somewhat over-subscribed
from their last appeal. But again, if there was such an appeal, we would
take a good, hard look at it. We have a very good record in this regard.
Bosnia?
QUESTION: One specific question on Bosnia. Does the State Department take
a position on whether there should be a Radio Free (Bosnia) sponsored by
the United States, for using this - I think it's called a commando plane,
an orbiting plane, which would defeat any jamming possibilities?
MR. RUBIN: I don't know the answer to that, but I will get it for
you.
New subject.
QUESTION: I have two questions, one on China and one on Cambodia. First
on China, do you have a response to China's accusations that the CIA is
supporting a separatist movement in Xinjiang based on recent Uighur
killings? And the second is, your position on Hanoi blasting the U.S. --
our position in actions regarding Cambodia, that Cambodia - they are saying
that Cambodia should be in ASEAN, et cetera?
MR. RUBIN: On the first question, I haven't seen that specific charge. I
don't know atwhat level it was made. But certainly we're not - we believe
in one China, and we have said that from this podium many times. We still
believe that. That is a public position, a private position, and a covert
position.
(Laughter.)
MR. RUBIN: As far as Cambodia is concerned, we had taken the view in the
past that it's up to ASEAN to decide who joins this grouping. We look
forward over time to having this group of ten be the regional organization
that it was envisaged to be. After the trouble and the use of force in
Cambodia earlier this summer, we said that we welcomed ASEAN's decision not
to allow Cambodia to enter at this time. So we have said that we are
looking towards a decision by the leadership on both sides to allow
free and fair elections, to allow the parties to operate freely, to
respect the Paris Peace Accords. When we see progress along those lines, we
have said, then we would look at our assistance programs and perhaps return
to where we were prior to the use of force.
So similarly, we would hope that ASEAN would use a similar standard. We
have worked very closely with them. Our diplomats have been in close touch
with them. Our envoy Desaix Anderson visited Phnom Penh over the weekend.
He met with Ung Huot, and his purpose was to inform Ung Huot of the U.S.
decision to extend indefinitely the suspension of aid. He reaffirmed the
principles that are guiding our decisions. He also met with ASEAN
ambassadors there and human rights representatives. He then left for
Singapore, which is where he is now.
Again, he met with Ung Huot because we believe that we have to work with
people there. We have made clear that we regard his ascension to being
first prime minister as having occurred undemocratically. On the other hand
we think we have to meet with him in order to move forward. Yes, any more
on Cambodia? New subject?
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. RUBIN: Thanks.
(The briefing concluded at 1:03 p.m.)
(###)
|
