U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #118, 97-08-18
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1001
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, August 18, 1997
Briefer: James P. Rubin
ANNOUNCEMENTS/STATEMENTS
1 Daily Briefing Schedule for Late August
ARMS CONTROL
1-4 Landmines: US to Participate in Ottawa Process Negotiations
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
4-7 Israel's Decision to Release a Portion of Palestinian Revenues
4,5-7 Palestinian Information Related to Explosive Devices in July
30 Bombing
8 November Economic Conference in Doha
9 Reports Chairman Arafat to Convene Meeting of Palestinian
Factions
LEBANON
8 Current Fighting in Southern Lebanon
CYPRUS
9 Prospects for Ambassador Holbrooke to Travel to Greece, Cyprus
and Turkey
13 US Assessment of Cyprus Talks
BULGARIA/SLOVAKIA
10 Reports SS-23 Missiles Stationed in Bulgaria and Slovakia
NORTH KOREA
10-12 Groundbreaking Ceremony for First Reactor Built in North Korea
by KEDO
11 Contributions to KEDO
BOSNIA
12 SFOR Action in Banja Luka
12-13 Ambassador Gelbard's Travel Plans
MEXICO
13 U.S.-Mexico Anti-Narcotics Cooperation
CHINA
14-15 ACDA Report Re China's May 11 Commitment on Cooperation with
Un-safeguarded Nuclear Facilities
PANAMA
14-15 Implementation of the Panama Canal Treaties
ARGENTINA
16 Falkland Islands Dispute
ARMENIA/AZERBAIJAN
16 September Elections in Nagorno-Karabakh
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #118
MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 1997 12:43 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Good afternoon, welcome to the briefing. I have no
announcements other than to say that we are going to try to give you a
schedule for the next two weeks later this afternoon.
In response to the fact that it is August, and late August, we're going to
shrink a little bit the daily briefing. I'm not sure which days we're
going to be on and off over the next couple of weeks, but if you can stay
in touch with the press office, we'll try to give you that information.
Barry.
QUSTION: Lots of subjects. Let me try you first on land mines. The
White House is announcing - you know the White House is up in Martha's
Vineyard, so you'll probably be getting a lot of questions that normally
would go there, like this one. The White House is sending a team to Geneva
on land mines. I wondered if you could go beyond their announcement and
tell us, is the Administration happy with the pace of deliberations in
Geneva?
Might you go a different route? I ask because the Administration's
interest in curbing land mines is well known.
MR. RUBIN: Yes, as you know, Secretary Albright has talked for many years
about this subject, and in her travels around the world has made a point of
talking about the damage that land mines in an uncontrolled environment has
done to millions of people, or hundreds of thousands of people around the
world.
The White House announcement is an important statement, and it's very
important. Let me try to go through it in some detail for you. The United
States has decided to participate in the Ottawa Process. Now, what that
means is our previous position had been that we were going to be an
observer in the Ottawa Process and leave the negotiation of a treaty to ban
land mines - ban their transfer, production, stockpiling - to the CD, the
Committee on Disarmament, in Geneva.
So the trip that is being taken, led by Deputy Assistant Secretary Eric
Newsom, including senior director at the NSC, Robert Bell and other
officials to Geneva is not about the CD process; it's about the Ottawa
Process. They will be meeting with some 17 countries, including Canada,
Norway, South Africa, some of our allies - Germany, France and the UK - to
discuss how the United States can propose changes in the agreement that is
emerging so that as it is negotiated in the month of September, we can be
in a position to support that agreement and sign that agreement.
So this is an important development and it shows that the President's
continuing leadership on land mines is making a difference. I would point
you to the fact that he made a decision some time ago to seek a ban on land
mines. The United States has gone to extraordinary lengths to change its
practices of the Pentagon so that the land mines that are known as dumb
land mines - that keep on killing long after they were intended to be used
- will be destroyed, and that we will spend extraordinary amounts of money
to destroy those and make sure that any land mines we do deploy are those
that self-destruct.
Now, they will be going to this meeting and participating in the
discussions, beginning September 1 in Oslo, on the treaty text with the
goal of seeking to achieve our humanitarian international objective to ban
land mines and ban their use and protect innocent children and innocent
people from their effects. At the same time, we are the United States; we
are a global power; we have global interests. They will be seeking to
reconcile our humanitarian objectives which are real and profound with our
national security objectives which are also important. Those include a
geographic exception for anti-personnel land mines in Korea.
Korea is a place where the United States deploys forces in response to the
fact that the war that went on there for a long time, our defense treaty
with South Korea, the fact that North Korean forces are on a high state of
alert and there is always a risk of attack from North Korea. Our planners,
our defense officials, believe that anti-personnel land mines are required
in order for us to fulfill this, frankly, United Nations' responsibility to
protect the Korean Peninsula.
So that exception we will seek, and we hope that other countries understand
that when you seek a ban and you want to achieve a ban, you have to be
logical and thoughtful about what the exceptions might be. It strikes us
as a perfectly reasonable exception, as one where you have a United
Nations- generated force in a unique situation where there are unique
dangers and that anti-personnel land mines at this point are the only tools
that our officials, our Pentagon and our military believe can protect us
from that genuine danger in the Korean Peninsula.
We will also be seeking to improve the treaty's verification provisions,
particularly in the area of information exchange. The long and the short of
it is that we are now going to be working very hard in this group led by
Deputy Assistant Secretary Eric Newsom and including Bob Bell from the NSC
to try to put the pedal to the metal and see whether we can negotiate the
kind of treaty that will meet the humanitarian concerns the President and
the Secretary have and also reconcile them with the important national
security interests of the United States.
QUSTION: On the exception - is that the only area of exception?
Somehow Cuba is in my head, but maybe I have it confused.
MR. RUBIN: I am not aware of a Cuba exception. We also will be trying to
ensure that the land mines that are banned are anti-personnel land mines,
and that there are no provisions that prevent - in the treaty, the
definition of the treaty - that would apply to systems whose primary
function is something else, such as protecting a particular location from
jeeps or tanks or things like that.
So we will be looking to have an exception in the definition - not an
exception --
QUSTION: Geographically?
MR. RUBIN: Not geographically, but an exception that will ensure that the
anti-personnel land mine ban is about anti-personnel land mines. We will
not be seeking an exception - contrary to a lot of reporting on this - for
so-called smart land mines. We are seeking a treaty that bans land mines,
anti-personnel land mines; and we're not seeking an exception for
self-destructing, so-called smart land mines.
Yes.
QUSTION: But Jamie, like many of President Clinton's proposals, it looks
good at first blush but once you peel back the covers, it turns out to not
be at all what he was talking about. This is not a ban on land mines; this
is a ban on land mines that the United States doesn't want to use anymore.
How would you defend that?
MR. RUBIN: Well, first I would categorically reject your characterization
of President Clinton's habits and proposals.
But getting to the specifics, we believe that the United States has taken a
leadership role on land mines. We do not believe that U.S. policies - the
U.S. land mines that we produce for these purposes - are the ones that have
caused the damage around the world that we've seen about on television, in
newspapers and in the reports that the government has put out. It's not
our land mines that are causing the grave damage to the limbs and lives of
little children around the world; it is the land mines of other countries.
So in thinking about how to approach an issue like this, we have to bear in
mind where the problem is. The problem isn't American land mines; the
problem is land mines in other countries. Now, because that's the problem,
we are taking the high ground and offering to give up a weapon that we do
not believe has caused the problems that we all know about and gone to
extraordinary length to pay the cost to adjust our policies so that we have
a greater chance of getting other countries - the ones whose land mines are
exported, or whose weapons are the ones that have caused many of these
problems.
I'm not saying this is going to be an easy negotiation. I stated quite
clearly that the exception for Korea is one we believe very strongly in,
and it is an exception. But we believe the situation on the Korean
Peninsula is such that having an exception like that is justified by the
fact that -- let's remember why we're there. We're there in support of an
international mandate from the United Nations. That strikes us as a
reasonable exception to a treaty that is designed to prevent land mines
from exploding years and years after they were used for a military
operation in Angola or in Mozambique or in Cambodia or Bosnia.
That doesn't mean that this is going to be easy. There are a lot of other
countries that will have their questions about this.
But the purpose of sending this team over there is so that we can explain
to them that we have made the decision to go for an early ban on land
mines, even though many of the countries that we're concerned about - such
as China and Russia and India and Pakistan and others - are not part of the
Ottawa Process. They are in the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva.
Originally what we had said was because those are the countries whose
practices caused the most risk, that we ought to focus on those efforts.
Now, that is going slowly and in order to try to advance the process and
make it quicker and earlier that a ban on land mines takes place and make
it less likely that people's little children's legs are going to be blown
off around the world, is for us to move the focus of attention to Ottawa
and see whether the kind of treaty that we think fits our national security
interest can be negotiated.
QUSTION: Just to clarify, the U.S. will not be seeking an exception for
self-destructing land mines?
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
QUSTION: Okay.
MR. RUBIN: Any other questions on land mines.
QUSTION: On another subject?
MR. RUBIN: Yeah.
QUSTION: Do you have any comment on the Israeli decision to release about
30 percent of the appropriated tax funds which were being withheld?
MR. RUBIN: We welcome this decision. We believe this is a step in the
right direction. As I spoke to the Secretary this morning, and I think she
is comfortable with me saying to you today that we feel a little better
today than we did yesterday about the prospects of getting the peace
process back on track.
The fact is that we believe that there is now a process in place.
Palestinian and Israeli security officials met on Sunday night with U.S.
Government participation and discussed a variety of security issues. We
understand the Palestinians turned over information related to the
explosive devices in the July 30 bombing of the Jerusalem market. This is
a positive step. We're moving in the right direction. There's a lot more
that needs to be done in order to re-establish the confidence on the part
of the Israelis that the Palestinian Authority is doing all it can and
should do to fight terrorism and to cooperate on the security area.
But there has been follow-through on the mechanism we established, and
that's important. We want to see more progress and the more progress we
have in that area, the greater the chance that we're going to be able to
move forward on the tough political decisions.
QUSTION: But what kind of information did the Palestinians have about the
types of bombs used?
MR. RUBIN: I do my best to try to get you enough. I push the edge of the
envelope from our experts to try to get you something that's real. When I
get to a level like that, they tell me I can't talk about it from here, so
I can't talk about it.
QUSTION: And are you pressing the Israelis to release the other 70
percent?
MR. RUBIN: We have made clear that we do not believe that measures
unrelated to security, such as the withholding of funds from the
Palestinian Authority, is a wise step. We believe that that is
counter-productive. We would like to see them lifted, and we have made
that clear to the Israeli Government.
QUSTION: Jamie, I know that you say push the envelope.
But did they - can you tell us if the Palestinians discovered this
evidence, this information, what they know about devices after the bombs
went off and didn't know about it beforehand?
MR. RUBIN: In order to get into that question in any intelligent fashion,
I need to talk on the basis of intelligence, which I can't do.
QUSTION: I know it's sort of intelligence. But the whole area is
intelligence. And when the Secretary demands destruction of the
infrastructure and Dennis works out some cooperative arrangement, the
question is whether we are in a quid pro quo on both sides now. In other
words - first of all, do you want - is it the State Department's position
that the Israelis should release all the tax payments? Or is it all right
with you that they make partial release in response to movement on
security?
And secondly, how can the Palestinians discover this new information and
not have had it before? Are they going to come clean on terrorism only to
get something?
MR. RUBIN: Let me try to do the best I can with those questions, Barry.
On the first question, we have made clear since the announcement was made
that Israeli Government was going to withhold tax revenue from the
Palestinian Authority that we thought that was not a wise move. We thought
it was counter-productive.
We still believe it is counter-productive. Therefore, we think the money
should be released.
Now, we think that that is not the best way to encourage cooperation.
But let's bear in mind the reality. The reality is that the Israeli
Government has a different view, and the process that we have now helped
put in place seems to be working -- that there is cooperation that Israeli
Government believes is significant enough for it to choose, under its own
policies, to release the 30 percent of the funds. We, as I said before,
would like to have seen that money not taken in the first place - or not
suspended in the first place.
So they must believe that progress has occurred. Again, at the end of the
day, the progress is about not only the hard, cold reality of deterring and
preventing terrorism, but the confidence that is created by security
cooperation. I think it's fair to say that today we are better off than
they were yesterday.
As far as your second question, I am sorry. I think you are going to have
to repeat it.
QUSTION: Well, you know, if you can't answer it because of some
intelligence consideration, there's no point beating on it. But I'm
wondering if the Palestinians have discovered something new that they are
willing to yield --
MR. RUBIN: Oh, yes --
QUSTION: -- in response for something from the Israelis?
Or have they been able to help the Israelis all along and didn't choose to
help them?
MR. RUBIN: As I understand this information, and I am treading on some
tricky territory here --
QUSTION: Right.
MR. RUBIN: -- what we are talking about is the investigation of what
happened on July the 30th, not any --
QUSTION: On generic material.
MR. RUBIN: So the Palestinians, as you know, felt that in light of the
steps that the Israelis had taken were reluctant to provide the cooperation
that we had urged from this podium and that the Secretary had urged. But
it is our understanding that information related to the explosive devices
that went off and killed so many innocent people on July the 30th has now
been exchanged and that signals a willingness on the part of the
Palestinian Authority to provide the kind of information that the Israelis
believe is the bare minimum needed to get the process moving.
QUSTION: But you can't rule out that they knew that information two weeks
ago?
MR. RUBIN: After the bombing?
QUSTION: After the bombing but not - I mean, before Saturday, or
whatever?
QUSTION: How could they have known about - anything about the bombing
since the explosion since all the parts of the bomb are in the hands of the
Israeli investigators?
MR. RUBIN: Again, to answer these questions - and I think if you look
back and look at stories about investigation into bombs, you will see that
the question is not just what material but who else has such material?
Where does that material come from? Who is commonly the owner of such
material?
So you could have a situation in which the Palestinian Authority wasn't in
possession of the actual explosive material that was used in the bombing,
but would have information related to the explosive material that might be
useful.
QUSTION: Jamie?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUSTION: Would you say that since these funds have been sort of released
to the Palestinians - even though it's not - it seems to be on an
incremental basis - would you say that the Palestinians are moving down a
path to a more aggressive cooperation on security now?
MR. RUBIN: What I would say is that we welcome the decision to release
the funds. We welcome the fact that the process and the mechanism we put
in place seems to at least be beginning to work. We think things are
moving in the right direction, both in terms of Palestinian cooperation on
security and the Israeli willingness to return some of the funds.
QUSTION: But security is not supposed to be dependent on - the Secretary
said in her speech security should be paramount, no matter what's going on
in the region.
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
QUSTION: And that the Palestinians need to focus on that.
But it seems as though since a little bit of the money is released, they're
going to take a more aggressive approach on security.
MR. RUBIN: On the contrary, I think if you look at the situation, it's
the Israeli decision to release the money that followed from the
Palestinian Authority's decision to provide information and work through
this mechanism. The Israeli position, I can assure you, is as ours - that
there is no linkage between the two.
Yes, Sid.
QUSTION: Is there any truth that the Palestinians moved towards economic
embargo on Israeli products?
MR. RUBIN: We think over the long term, that peace would best be achieved
by commerce and economic interchange between the peoples of the region. We
do not want to see a situation develop where the peace process gets to such
a point that the basic elements that make peace viable - that is, improving
the lives of the people - start to be affected.
We don't have a specific position on this decision other than to say that
it obviously reflects the Palestinian concerns about the steps the Israelis
have taken, and hopefully this whole issue will become moot in the coming
days as the security cooperation increases.
QUSTION: (Inaudible) the fact that the Yemenis have withdrawn their
observer ambassador from Israel in protest of what's going on with the
peace process. There's indications that other countries that have
established such a presence in Israel are going to do the same thing.
They're supposed to - the Islamic nations are supposed to meet in the
coming weeks to agree on a unified position about the economic conference
in November. Can you comment on either of those?
MR. RUBIN: Well, Secretary Albright, as the able Nick Burns announced
some weeks ago, is intending to lead the U.S. delegation to the Doha
Summit. We believe that that summit and other multilateral activities of
that kind are the way in which a future for the people in the region can be
secured - a future that includes not just the absence of war, but the
prosperity of peace.
So we would like to see that kind of conference take place. We would like
to see the peace process get back on track sufficient for that kind of
conference to be a success. As far as the question on the ambassadors is
concerned, the Secretary was quite clear - we have a crisis of confidence
in the Middle East. One of the aspects of that crisis of confidence has
been the break down in bilateral negotiations and the suspension of Israeli
success in developing a more normal relationship with its neighbors.
That's not something that we want to see happen. It's part of the reason
that the crisis exists - is that there are actions and counter- actions by
each of the parties. But if tomorrow is as good as today, as opposed to
yesterday, we will be in a position where we're moving closer and closer to
restoring the necessary pre-requisite - security cooperation - for the
Secretary's trip to go forward in a way that can achieve movement towards
re-establishing the political discussions, without which none of these
subjects can successfully be achieved.
Yes.
QUSTION: New subject?
MR. RUBIN: One more.
QUSTION: One more in the Middle East.
MR. RUBIN: Yeah.
QUSTION: Have you seen the report that several rounds of artillery fire
fell on the town of Sidon*. I think there were eight people killed.
MR. RUBIN: Yes, we've seen the reports of the fighting in Lebanon. What
we can say about them is that we're tracking them very closely. We condemn
these kind of attacks on civilians.
We urge the parties involved to go to - to act with maximum restraint and
to not let civilians be the result of these military conflicts.
We want them to return to the April 1996 understanding. We hope there will
be a meeting, and we think there will be a meeting of the monitoring group
this week, which has been successful in the past in diffusing these kind of
situations.
QUSTION: The Lebanese think that the artillery rounds originated in the
area held - the Israeli-occupied part, which is mainly populated by the
SLA. Does that track with what you have?
MR. RUBIN: We're still trying to determine the exact location, but it
seems - repeat what you said.
QUSTION: The Israeli-occupied zone, but in a portion of that zone which
is held by the SLA.
MR. RUBIN: I got in a lot of trouble last week when I made what seemed to
me like an obvious point about something violating that agreement.
Apparently it caused an extra two hours worth of negotiating in Lebanon for
us to have pre-decided something that seemed obvious to anybody. So I'm
going to duck that question.
Thank you.
One more on the Middle East, yeah.
QUSTION: There are some disturbing reports from the BBC wire service and
also in The Washington Post about the increase of the popularity of an
organization such like Hamas, and the disappointment of the Palestinians,
especially in Gaza, with Arafat not delivering statehood and prosperity as
promised by the Oslo and Madrid accords. Do you have any comment on this?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we want to emphasize that our objective is to see that
the promotion of the economic well-being of the Palestinians is kept in
mind. It's an unfortunate fact that economic hardships create a climate
that extremist groups can exploit.
That group in particular is one that we do not believe is a supporter of
the peace process, that we do believe is a terrorist organization.
So it can't be a good thing for peace for the opponents of peace to gain
strength.
QUSTION: On that point, Chairman Arafat is getting ready to convene a
meeting of all the Palestinian factions. And apparently he intends to
invite both Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The Israelis aren't very happy about
that. How do you all feel about that?
MR. RUBIN: We understand the need to try to keep the Palestinian people
on the side of peace. We don't have a lot of detail on what that meeting
is designed exactly to do. But we don't see that it can serve the cause of
peace to have the enemies of peace there.
Yeah.
QUSTION: On Cyprus, I'm wondering that Mr. Holbrooke stated that he is
not going to visit Greece, Cyprus and Turkey in the first days of
September. Do you have anything on that?
MR. RUBIN: Well, it's the middle of August and I have not heard that he
has an imminent trip planned. So if the question is not before September
1, that sounds about right to me, yes.
QUSTION: There's a story in The Washington Times about SS-23 Soviet
missiles still being stationed in Bulgaria and Slovakia.
It quotes UN reports. My question is, can you tell us something more about
the response of these governments to the U.S. request to destroy these
missiles? And are you confident they will be destroyed? And will the
response of Slovakia and Bulgaria have any bearing on the application to
join NATO?
MR. RUBIN: Missile non-proliferation is a top priority of this
Administration. As that reporting indicated, we pursue energetically many
different ways to reduce the threat of proliferation.
We believe that the kind of missiles involved here are missiles in the so-
called Category I missiles, under the MTCR. We believe they're inherently
capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction.
So we have discussed with a number of foreign governments - including
Bulgaria and Slovakia - the importance of eliminating such missiles.
These discussions have been conducted as part of our normal bilateral
security and non-proliferation dialogues. We think these kind of steps
we've taken in the past have resulted in success in other cases like
Hungary and Argentina and elsewhere.
I'm not in a position to state the responses of these governments, and
that's - I welcome you talking to those governments and seeing what they
say about it. But from our standpoint, this is an action we're taking with
friendly governments. We're prepared to be of assistance in trying to
destroy these systems that have this inherent capability. So you'll have
to get from them what their view of it is.
QUSTION: But the Bulgarian Government initially has not been very
friendly. They've rejected it as an interference in their national
sovereignty. So where do we go from here?
MR. RUBIN: We have worked successfully in the past with many different
governments in trying to stop nonproliferation.
Sometimes the first word is not the last word.
Yes.
QUSTION: Korea?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUSTION: There is a groundbreaking ceremony in North Korea to begin
construction of a light water nuclear reactor. Can I assume from this
event that the United States and its allies in KEDO are satisfied that
North Korea is living up to the agreed framework? Particularly in regard
to the destruction of spent fuel?
MR. RUBIN: We believe that tomorrow's ceremony is an important milestone
in our efforts to achieve the de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
We have worked closely with Japan and South Korea on this for a long time.
We think that it increases the chances that North Korea's nuclear program
will stay frozen and ultimately be dismantled. This ceremony is occurring
against a backdrop of major progress and significant progress in the other
areas of the agreed framework.
North Korea continues to maintain the freeze on its nuclear facilities --
that freeze is monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency -- and
is nearing completion of a project with the United States to safely store
its spent nuclear fuel, which would otherwise be available for the
production of weapons-grade plutonium. In short, this bargain that we
struck with North Korea is working.
We have stopped the possibility of a major nuclear program breaking out in
the dangerous Korean Peninsula.
The groundbreaking for the light water reactor is a milestone in that
effort. However, I would remind you that the key components to make those
reactors work - the key nuclear components are not going to be provided
until we believe that North Korea has come into full compliance with the
safeguard agreements with the International Atomic Energy (Agency). In
short, that it has resolved or sought to resolve the discrepancy that has
existed between what they have done in the past and what the IAEA thinks
they might have done. That is the trigger for them to be able to have the
components that would make these light water reactors functional. Those
key components will not be delivered for some number of years as this
project moves forward.
During that time we hope we will be as successful on these other areas of
compliance as we have been on the freeze and on the canning of the spent
fuel.
Yes.
QUSTION: On that topic.
QUSTION: Go ahead.
QUSTION: Since the Secretary asked Brunei and the other ASEAN nations to
contribute to KEDO has there been any money forthcoming?
MR. RUBIN: I will have to get an answer for you on that.
Can we get a formal answer to new KEDO contributions since the Secretary's
trip?
Yes.
QUSTION: Can we move to the Balkans?
MR. RUBIN: Any more on North Korea?
QUSTION: Is this strictly a bilateral ceremony? Will the U.S. be
involved in any way?
MR. RUBIN: I believe it's - KEDO is an international organization that
includes many other countries besides the United States, so I would expect
those countries in addition to the North Koreans to participate in some
way. But we can get you the details of who is in and who is out.
Yes.
QUSTION: I was wondering if there has been any additional information
concerning the stand-off yesterday in Banja Luka and reports that the UN
claims to have found evidence of human rights abuses, as well as some
information that the constitutional court ruling on Friday was rigged?
MR. RUBIN: Was?
QUSTION: Any evidence - was rigged? That the --
MR. RUBIN: Right. I do not have new information on those last two
points. I can say that we understand that the SFOR troops did intervene,
that a confrontation had developed between police loyal to the elected
government and they were taking action to investigate reports that evidence
was found that Mrs. Plavsic's telephone communications were being tapped by
forces loyal to Pale. We believe that any of the acts of violence and
intimidation surrounding this incident or the attack on a judge who was
involved in the court ruling are outrageous and that they only demonstrate
that were are still some people in this part of the world who haven't got
it yet -- that as long as they continue to pursue these tactics, they and
the people they claim to represent are going to suffer.
So we reject the decision of the court. We agree with the High
Representative Westendorp that her action was clearly legal and that the
constitutional court was subjected to intimidation and politicization,
including the beating of a justice in that police station indicates. So
there are still a lot of problems in that part of the world. But we
believe that Mrs. Plavsic, the elected president of the Bosnian Serb
Republic, is making clear that she is on the side of those who want Dayton
implemented. She is on the side of those who want prosperity and a return
to Europe for their people. The opponents of that, the people who are
conducting these kind of attacks and using violence against judges who are
trying to bring some semblance of a rule of law to Bosnia, should be
rejected.
QUSTION: Do you know yet if Ambassador Gelbard is to meet with Mrs.
Plavsic? Or if you have any more of his itinerary?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, he is in Sarajevo today. He has planned meetings with
General Shinseki, the commander of SFOR, with the High Representative
Westendorp, with the - I forget what this gentleman - the person in Brcko,
I think he's called the mediator, or the adjudicator or one of those two
names, his name is Ambassador Farrand, and with the Joint Presidency -
President Izetbegovic, President Zubak, President Krajisnik.
On Tuesday, he will attend the dedication of the memorial for the three
American diplomats who died on Mount Igman. On Wednesday he will travel to
Banja Luka to meet with President Plavsic and attend a meeting of the
Federation Forum at the presidency in Sarajevo.
Same subject, any more?
QUSTION: Cyprus?
MR. RUBIN: Cyprus, I think we did that. Let's go to - yes.
QUSTION: Mexico.
QUSTION: One more.
MR. RUBIN: Okay, we will do one more. Sure.
QUSTION: One question. Over the weekend, Turks and Greeks exchanged
accusations over what they perceived to be a failure in Cyprus talks. Last
week we were told that the State Department found these talks useful. Do
you have a new assessment with the hindsight now?
MR. RUBIN: We still believe the talks are useful. Talking is good. We
want to see the talks resume at the appropriate time.
We expect an assessment on the talks from the special representative to the
Security Council later in the week.
Yes.
QUSTION: Besides the cooperation of Mexico and the United States on the
war of drugs, in the last few weeks, Mexico has been - there has been an
increased violence related to the narco-traffic.
Last Saturday was killed the brother of the treasury minister of Mexico.
The State Department has really believed that the government of Mexico is
working hard trying to arrest at least the narco-traffickers that have been
named in these assassinations - political assassinations. And still the
military involved in this war in Mexico has been full of reports about
corruption inside of the military. Does the United States trust the
military fight in Mexico against narco-traffic?
MR. RUBIN: We trust the intentions of President Zedillo to cooperate with
the United States in its fight, our joint fight against drugs. President
Clinton made his certification on the basis of his conclusion that
President Zedillo is determined to do so. There are a lot of problems in
the Mexican system and many different institutions. I am not going to
detail them all from here. They have been done in the past by our
officials who work on drug issues.
There is not a new, major assessment that I'm aware of that one institution
is better or worse than it was last week, last month, six months ago; other
than to say there are problems in the institutions in Mexico that we are
going to work with President Zedillo to help fix.
Yes.
QUSTION: Question on China. The ECD report - without mentioning --
MR. RUBIN: I'm glad you asked that question. This is going to be fun.
QUSTION: Well, without mentioning the State Department's favorite
reporter, Bill Gertz, could you comment on whether China's commitment to
not sell nuclear arms technology to Pakistan - are you satisfied with their
commitment to this and the measures they've taken to prevent arms sales?
Do you believe they've continued to sell arms? In 1995 the State
Department would not institute sanctions against China because it did not
believe that the PRC actually had anything to do with these arms sales. Do
you have a different position on that now?
MR. RUBIN: Lee, do you have that report for me?
MR. MCLENNY: No, I don't. I'm sorry.
MR. RUBIN: Oh, well, there was a story in Saturday's Washington Times
that fundamentally misquoted an ACDA report and completely got it 180
degrees wrong. The reporter is not someone I have a view on one way or the
other, I'm just starting to learn about him.
(Laughter.)
But clearly in this case, he made a boo-boo. The report says that our
current information does not provide a basis for concluding that China has
acted inconsistently with that statement - that statement being not
providing assistance to un-safeguarded reactors.
So he wrote the opposite. He wrote that the report says that we have
information does not provide a basis for concluding that China has acted
consistently with that statement; meaning that we couldn't prove they were
living up to it.
The document in question says that - and I wanted to read this because I
thought this was so much fun. Page 90 - "on May 11, 1996, China stated
that it would provide no assistance to un-safeguarded nuclear facilities.
Our current information does not provide a basis for concluding that China
has acted inconsistently with that statement." In other words, we believe
that China has taken no actions that we have been able to confirm to
violate the commitment it's made on May 11 of 1996.
That does not mean, however, that we are fully comfortable with this whole
area. We've received a number of reports, disturbing reports, in recent
weeks and months. We are always looking into those reports, because the
matter of nuclear proliferation or missile proliferation is a matter of
highest possible concern to the Secretary and to the President.
But at this point, our view - unlike the view quoted and attributed to the
United States Government - is that we believe that China has taken no
action to violate that commitment.
QUSTION: Jamie, can I follow up on that?
MR. RUBIN: Yeah, one more.
QUSTION: In 1995, there was the case of two ACD imports.
I mean, there are drafts of this report that gets massaged along the way.
Could there be some fire where there is smoke, in this case? Has some
massaging of terminology here --
MR. RUBIN: It is our view, and we work this very, very carefully to make
sure a position of the United States Government on a matter of this
importance is carefully stated. That's why we were troubled by the
misstatement by 180 degrees in the newspaper.
We do not believe that China has taken actions to violate the commitment it
made on May 11th.
One more on China, yes.
QUSTION: Jamie, in The Washington Times this morning, there's a report
that amplifies previous reports that the Panama ports of Balboa and
Cristobal - primary ports to service the Panama Canal - have been leased by
the Hutchinson-Lampoa Corporation, which is very closely tied to the PRC,
especially the PLA.
The United States is pulling out of Panama, according to the treaty, and
leaving a military as well as a political vacuum there. My question is,
why doesn't the U.S. take the Panamanians up on some of these lease offers
to retain a presence to counter the potential --
MR. RUBIN: We're working with the Panamanians on many aspects of the
departure of American forces and implementation of the Panama Canal
treaties. I would tell you that both we and the Panamanian Government,
pursuant to those treaties, intend to ensure that the Canal is open for
passage. So none of the activities that may or may not be going on there
is going to affect our national security.
We have been working with the Panamanians in a variety of fora - talking
about different ways we can cooperate on matters like drugs and other
activities. At this point, all I can say is that we do not believe that
the report you are referring to casts any doubt or any concern with regard
to us being able to use the Canal.
QUSTION: Would you deny, though, Jamie, that the PRC is in various ways
getting its hooks, business wise, into the Panamanian economy and into the
government? Is there a threat there of PRC -- ?
MR. RUBIN: If I'm not mistaken, the PRC at various times has had a lot of
trouble with the Panamanian Government with regard to its relations with
other entities like Taiwan. So I am not really all that concerned that
there is some new military alliance that is going to emerge between those
two countries that will affect American security.
One more. Yes.
QUSTION: Argentina?
MR. RUBIN: Argentina. Let's do Argentina.
QUSTION: I just wondered if there had been any formal request from the
Argentinean side to get the United States involved in a mediation effort
with the Falklands?
MR. RUBIN: During that meeting we discussed the issue.
We have made clear that we want the two to work it out together, and we
would involve ourselves only if the request was made. There was no such
request at this time.
Yes, one more question. Yes.
QUSTION: My question about Armenia and the Azerbaijan conflict. On the
first of September, presidential elections are scheduled to take place in
the so-called Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh.
What is the State Department position on the conduct of the this election?
MR. RUBIN: I'd like to get you a very detailed answer to that to avoid -
I know that conflict is one where a word here or a word there can cause a
lot of concern amongst a lot of people.
So I don't want to make a mistake on the words, other than to say that we
would like to see a peaceful resolution of this dispute.
Thank you.
QUSTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:28 P.M.)
|
