U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #120, 97-08-21
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
426
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Thursday, August 21, 1997
Briefer: James P. Rubin
ARMS CONTROL
1-2 U.S. Position on Landmines and Ottawa Process
BOSNIA
2-3,6-7 Re-Classification of the Special Police Forces/Arresting
Indicted War Criminials
3-4, 5-6 Update on Situation in Banja Luka
5 Status of Aid Package for Banja Luka
5 Ambassador Gelbard's Travel/Contact Group Meeting
CHINA
7-8 Jamming of International Radio Broadcasts
8-10 Congressman Wolf Travel to Tibet
16 Export of Nuclear Power Plant Computer System to Pakistan
MIDDLE EAST
10-11 Chairman Arafat's Activities and Recent Statements
LEBANON
11-12 Update on Security Situation//Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group
Meeting
CENTRAL AMERICA
12-13 Under Secretary Eizenstat's Travel to Central America
CYPRUS
13-14 UN Security Council President's Statement re Cyprus Talks
CUBA
14 Papal Visit/License for Travel to Cuba
CAMBODIA
14-15 Fighting on the Border/Hun Sen's Criticism of the UN
BRAZIL
15-16 Former President's Criticism of US Policies
QATAR
17 Alleged Diplomat Traffic Accident
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #120
THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1997 12:38 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Take two. I was early; I'll never do that again.
(Laughter.)
Barry.
QUESTION: To everybody's excitement, I'm sure, but could you revisit the
land mines subject, because even though it seems you were saying you only
wanted - the U.S. only wanted mines in Korea excepted. The Washington
Post, at least, keeps insisting there are some kind of land - smart mines
the U.S. would like to see survive. It was probably a refinement. Can you
help us?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, during the discussion of this earlier in the week, I made
clear that we had adopted a new policy; and the new policy was to seek
agreement through the Ottawa Process where a smaller number of countries
are trying to negotiate a comprehensive ban on land mines. I indicated
that we would be looking to see if we could put the pedal to the metal in
the Ottawa Process and try to achieve that ban, and that we were going to
seek to reconcile our humanitarian concerns and desire for a ban with our
national security interests and try to reflect those interests by making an
exception for the Korean Peninsula, where our military and our experts
believe that land mines are necessary - anti- personnel land mines -
because of the great danger posed by an active and high-alert status army
of the North Koreans, and also an exception by virtue of a new definition.
That exception would not exempt in a blanket fashion so-called smart mines
- those that would self-destruct, but would make sure that as the mines
were defined in the treaty, that a system whose primary purpose was not an
anti-personnel mine, whose primary purpose might be to defend against a
tank or a jeep which therefore had a very high pressure trigger might also
have secondary characteristics, secondary aspects that could include
anti-personnel devices. If it was part of a system that was primarily
designed for a purpose different than the treaty - namely anti-tank,
anti-personnel carrier, anti-jeep, for example - that we thought that that
ought to be exempted.
So we are going to seek a definition in the treaty that ensures that a
weapon primarily designed not to kill people but to stop a tank or a jeep,
but a weapon that might also have anti-personnel aspects to it, would not
be covered by the treaty.
QUESTION: Would that be most marked mines, do you know? Do you have a
feel for --
MR. RUBIN: I don't have a feel for that. I would urge you to speak to
the Pentagon about their specific programs. But I do think there was a
misperception that somehow we thought -- the United States -- that any mine
that we created that would self-destruct for any purpose ought to be
exempted, and that is not the case.
QUESTION: I have one quick one on the other aspect of this. Senator
Leahy, who was elated by the Administration's tactical shift and has held
back legislation to force a ban, says that he would like to see those
Korean mines phased out. In other words, some arrangement for a gradual
phase-out. Is that something the Senator and the Administration could get
together on, do you think?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think what we have said in the past is that, for now
and for the foreseeable future, we believe anti-personnel mines are
necessary to defend our forces and South Korea from the possibility of a
North Korean attack. But we would be looking and continue to always look
at whether there are alternatives that would permit us to shift from a
strategy that relied on anti-personnel mines to some other military
strategy. So we are prepared to look at that. I believe the Pentagon has
been looking at that quite seriously and will continue to do so. But for
now, we don't see the alternative. But I'd ask you to get a more precise
description of this from the Pentagon itself.
Yes.
QUESTION: Bosnia?
MR. RUBIN: Sure.
QUESTION: What is the assessment of the U.S. Government of the exposure
of Radovan Karadzic and other indicted war criminals to arrest, now that
the actions that SFOR has taken against the police - the Bosnian Serb
police - has rendered them less of an impediment to that? Does this
intensify the pressure on indicted war criminals?
MR. RUBIN: Well, after the President's decision to review our Bosnia
policy and the Secretary's trip there and the subsequent actions we have
seen in terms of getting Croatia to comply with its commitments --
including in the area of war criminals, including greater freedom of
movement, including greater numbers of refugees, including the arrest of an
indicted war criminal under sealed indictment and the killing of a person
who tried to prevent his arrest by shooting at Westerners trying to pick
him up -- that if I were an indicted war criminal I would be nervous. That
is fine with us.
We believe that these people belong in The Hague. They are indicted for
very serious crimes, and they ought to be looking over their shoulders and
wondering whether they are going to have - what their future will be. I
think General Wes Clark said it quite well when he said that if he were
Karadzic, he would turn himself in.
QUESTION: How far is NATO going to go to protect Mrs. Plavsic? I mean,
we are seeing a lot of aggressive action of late. What - is there no limit
to what they will do?
MR. RUBIN: There is a limit. Let me give you some reflection of what is
going on there. As far as we understand it, Banja Luka remains calm. SFOR
has reduced its level of troops and withdrawn from the police buildings,
leaving the international police task force and the new police officials in
control.
We understand that that task force will continue inspecting the five
buildings today, and they will arrive to begin the process of restructuring
the police there. We understand that there are now several stations with
some 70 police officers operating there, and things are relatively calm.
At the same time, however, the Pale leadership is making matters worse and
raising tensions through its inflammatory and threatening language against
President Plavsic and the international community. Today, President
Krajisnik is meeting with the key officials from the Office of the High
Representative, from the SFOR military, from the police task force, in
Sarajevo. The Western officials, the international officials will address
very clearly the dangers of this rhetoric and the consequences if it is not
stopped.
We call on the Pale leadership to end this rhetoric. Karadzic and his
cronies should stop throwing kerosene on the fire. They should knock it
off and realize that in order to give their people a future, they need to
get with the program, get with the Dayton agreement, and stop the
harassment, stop the intimidation and stop the rhetoric.
QUESTION: But - and just to follow up on one thing. You said, I think it
was - I don't know if it was last week or over the last several days --
that the factions that are in opposition to Dayton are acting foolishly.
They are stupid because they are not seeing the future, which is
cooperating with the international community and such. But what are the
consequences of their stupid behavior? What are the dangers of them not
complying? They don't seem to really care.
MR. RUBIN: Again, in judging the wisdom of a political leader, one tries
to assess the degree to which the people he represents or purports to
represent are benefiting, are growing, are expanding, are improving their
lives. It is our view that it is not showing wisdom, it is foolish to
believe that the Bosnian Serbs can wait out the international community.
We are determined to see the Dayton Accords implemented. We are going to
assure that any assistance, any return to Europe, and re- integration of
the people there will be dependent upon and contingent upon compliance with
the peace agreement signed at Dayton.
So if the people in Pale don't realize that their behavior, their
threatening rhetoric, their attempt to undermine the Dayton Accords doesn't
hurt their people and is therefore foolish, we're trying to educate them on
that subject.
QUESTION: Jamie.
MR. RUBIN: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yesterday in a rally, Mrs. Plavsic addressed the whole issue of
the lack of free media in the Republika Srpska, and in effect gave the
Banja Luka television station, which is run by the forces in Pale, three
days to open up or she and her police force would take action. Is this the
kind of action that SFOR might be involved in? I mean, to sort of take the
earlier question a little bit further, now that SFOR has taken such a
public stand in what is a split between the various political forces there,
are they going to keep getting drawn in as more stand-offs occur? How far
are you willing to go?
MR. RUBIN: Let me try to clarify that. The SFOR's position - and SFOR
will tell you this - is not a political stand. It's a stand based on the
Dayton Accords.
The international community, the forces there on behalf of the
international community are going to support those who support Dayton. The
forces there are going to oppose those who violate Dayton. That is what
the forces there have been doing. They have provided a secure environment
in which the police task force has gone in and found rather compelling
evidence of illegal activities, including the beatings of judges,
wiretapping of the legally elected president, caching of arms -- and very
modern arms - several, I think it's 12 tons worth of arms. Yes, 12 tons
worth of modern weaponry that they were not supposed to have.
That is the role the international community and SFOR has been playing.
The Secretary in her speech at the Intrepid also made clear that it was
extremely important to provide free media - meaning open media - to the
people of Bosnia so that the vile poison that spewed out from the Pale
television set is not what educates the people there.
So we're working hard at that. We have some ideas as to how to try to make
sure that by the end of the year, if not much sooner, that the people of
Bosnia - all the people of Bosnia - have an opportunity to hear something
resembling the truth.
Yes.
QUESTION: Can you characterize and explain the economics of President
Plavsic's request for NATO intervention in Banja Luka? It's widely
reported that she begged for help.
MR. RUBIN: Yeah, I've not heard anything like that. Mrs. Plavsic has
taken a courageous stand, at some risk to herself, against the enemies of
Dayton, against the people who have sought to intimidate, harass, threaten
and harm those who are supporting Dayton.
The specific way in which she sought our help I don't know. But I do know
that we - SFOR, Ambassador Gelbard, the other officials concerned - have
been looking for ways to try to support those who support Dayton. When it
became apparent that there were police activities inconsistent with Dayton,
we acted quite swiftly.
Yes.
QUESTION: Is the U.S. going - one more - going forward with $9 million
aid package for Banja Luka at the end of the Summer?
MR. RUBIN: I believe I made some comments about that last week, and I
believe that was approved. But we will try to get you the details on that.
QUESTION: And could you share some details -- Ambassador Gelbard is on
his way to the EC. Could you share some details about this?
MR. RUBIN: Ambassador Gelbard is on his way to Washington. He is in an
airplane.
Yes.
QUESTION: So you don't have any details about a meeting in Vienna
yesterday, in Austria?
MR. RUBIN: I can tell you that they did discuss the question of
elections. The contact group held a useful discussion about the political
situation in the Republika Srpska. Those discussions will be continued
today in a broader forum. The United States believes that President
Plavsic acted within her authority to dismiss the assembly and call for new
elections. We fully support her request that the OSCE conduct and
supervise those elections.
Yes.
QUESTION: Do you know where these arms came from? Any idea what
countries they may have come from? Whether from Yugoslavia proper, or
other places?
MR. RUBIN: Let me try to get you what we can get you publicly about where
arms come from.
Yes.
QUESTION: And when?
MR. RUBIN: And when.
QUESTION: Because Milosevic, at least Mr. Hoagland thinks, has pretty
much retreated from the situation.
MR. RUBIN: Well, I'll have to check --
QUESTION: So if he's still the arms supplier, it would be interesting.
MR. RUBIN: We will try to get when and where as best as we can,
consistent with the controls that are usually put on this information. We
will communicate that both to you - and I guess Mr. Hoagland, as well, you
wanted?
QUESTION: No, it's just that because it speaks of Milosevic's current
stance. I don't know if you have neutralized him or not.
QUESTION: Why - to return to Karadzic, briefly, if I may. The actions
SFOR took are in Banja Luka and, of course, Karadzic is in Pale. How well
protected is he in Pale? Do you have any sense of that? Can you --
MR. RUBIN: Let me say this -- in the past and in the coming days, I
suspect you will provide me a lot of opportunity to not answer questions.
This is the kind of question that only provides him with information about
what we know. There is no reason to do that. As far as a question related
to that that I got yesterday or on Monday, we do not have any information
to indicate that Karadzic's bodyguards are in the employ of President
Milosevic or the government in Serbia- Montenegro. Karadzic's bodyguards
have been members of the special police, which now fall under Annex 1-A of
the agreement.
Under that agreement, those special police would no longer guard indicted
war criminals but only legitimately elected or appointed RS officials.
QUESTION: Do you know where Miladic is?
MR. RUBIN: Again, to the extent that we know where people are and we tell
you what we know and when we know it, they are more likely to be elusive in
the future.
Yes.
QUESTION: Does it make any difference whether Karadzic's bodyguards are
acting legally or not if he has the means to pay them from his own sources?
MR. RUBIN: Well, again, what we are trying to do is take control and
supervise those organized forces in the region. The special police forces
did, in fact, guard people who were not legally elected. So what we have
said is that we are now going to supervise under the Annex 1-A of the
agreement such special police forces and that they will not be permitted,
pursuant to our supervision, to guard indicted war criminals, but can only
guard elected or appointed officials.
If you are asking me, can people who are not elected officials hire non-
special police force guards without us being able to necessarily stop them,
I suspect that might happen. But the question is, what we are involved in
here is a situation where day by day, we are trying to ensure that the
people who support Dayton get our support, and day by day, the people who
oppose Dayton get weaker. This fits into that category.
QUESTION: My question, can you assess for us as a result of the recent
NATO actions, is his bodyguard -- immediate bodyguard force as strong as it
was, or is it weaker?
MR. RUBIN: I mean, I can try to ask them to give you an answer to that,
but I'm sure they won't.
Yes.
QUESTION: Could I switch the subject?
MR. RUBIN: Sure.
QUESTION: Going back to a question I asked the other day about the
jamming of American radio broadcasts to Asia, I'm told today by Radio Free
Asia that the Chinese have begun, for the first time, to jam such
broadcasts. Is that your understanding, as well?
MR. RUBIN: The United States Government opposes jamming of international
radio broadcasts as an infringement on freedom of the press and a free flow
of information. We reject criticisms, from wherever they come, that VOA,
Radio Free Asia or any other international media interfere in the internal
affairs of other countries.
It is our view that the free flow of information is part and parcel of the
internationally recognized human rights of free speech and free expression.
We believe that governmental attempts to censor or block access to the
media are contrary to such rights and to the interests of people needing
access to information.
Both VOA and RFA - that is Radio Free Asia - adhere to professional
journalistic standards. They do not broadcast propaganda. If media
organizations report something inaccurately, the proper remedy is not to
try to jam it or shut it down; the proper remedy is to correct the
inaccuracies.
We have protested to the authorities in that area in the past on its
attempt to jam VOA broadcasts, and we oppose jamming broadcasts by any
country. But we believe that thanks to the multiple transmission sites,
broadcasts do get through despite the jamming. RFA, the Radio Free Asia,
and VOA receive letters and telephone calls from listeners throughout
China.
QUESTION: Do you have any idea why the Chinese should be doing this now?
MR. RUBIN: You would have to take that up with the Chinese.
QUESTION: Are you saying that the Chinese are doing it? You didn't say
that.
MR. RUBIN: We understand from Radio Free Asia that monitoring stations
have reported significant interference during Mandarin language broadcasts
to China.
QUESTION: By the Chinese? I mean, is this --
MR. RUBIN: And that would assume to be from the Chinese, yes.
QUESTION: So you said you've taken it up in the past. Have you taken it
up with China --
MR. RUBIN: I think our view on this is very well known. We oppose
jamming of international broadcasts of this kind. I can state here the
U.S. Government position that the free exercise of free media is something
that should not be jammed. If they have a problem with the content, they
should contact the originators and try to make their case and request, and
if they're correct, get a correction.
QUESTION: Have you protested also to the Vietnamese?
MR. RUBIN: I think these - as I understand it, these protests and public
positions are something that all the countries in the region are aware of.
QUESTION: Different topic?
QUESTION: Well, same country. Congressman Wolf is just back from Tibet
where he reports - I believe his words were, "boot-heel subjugation of the
Tibetan people by the Chinese." He says the human rights situation in
general is horrendous. Do you have any comments?
MR. RUBIN: We share many of the concerns expressed by Congressman Wolf.
We have not had an opportunity to discuss his trip with him. It is
something that Secretary Albright and others have expressed many times the
concern, we have about the human rights situation in Tibet. As you know,
we put out a report on that. I won't repeat all the words in it.
But also, as you know, the United States regards Tibet as a part of China.
That's been our position for many, many years. We urge China to preserve
Tibet's unique cultural, linguistic and religious freedoms.
As far as what Congressman Wolf's request for a meeting is concerned, we
understand he's requested a meeting. The Department would welcome an
opportunity to meet with him, to learn about his trip. Who he would meet
with, whether it would be Assistant Secretary Roth or someone else, has not
been decided.
In his comments, he talked about several proposals for action on Tibet. As
far as we can see, the ones directed towards Administration policies are
ones that reflect current Administration policy. First, we have previously
announced that Secretary Albright has decided to appoint a special
coordinator for Tibetan issues. That person will be named very soon. We
have also raised the issue of Tibet with Chinese leaders and will continue
to do so. He also talked about the need for outside observers to be
permitted to attend trials in Tibet. We believe and have repeatedly said
that trials in China ought to be open throughout the country.
He also talked about the need for dialogue between Beijing and the Dalai
Lama. We continue to urge both sides to resume discussions on protecting
the unique linguistic, religious, and cultural heritage of Tibet. We
believe that restoration of this dialogue is an important component to
reduce tensions. That is our view.
Yes.
QUESTION: Jamie, do you endorse the way in which Mr. Wolf gathered his
information for which others have been imprisoned in China?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say this --
QUESTION: I mean, going in there under - I mean, supporting everything
you say, but him going there under false pretenses?
MR. RUBIN: We understand that Representative Wolf traveled to Tibet on a
tourist visa. The PRC permits tourists to travel to Tibet and many
Americans do so every year. Others, including diplomats and members of
Congress, have difficulty getting permission to travel there in an official
capacity. It is our view, and we think that most of the world would
probably agree with this, that it would be helpful and better if the
Chinese Government would allow more official travel to Tibet. Then these
types of steps would not be necessary.
QUESTION: Have the Chinese protested this to you?
MR. RUBIN: I am not aware of a specific protest on this. But if there is
one, I will get back to you on it.
Any more on this subject?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. RUBIN: Yes, in the back.
QUESTION: One of the other things that the Congressman suggested in his
news conference was that the Administration should have a list of Tibet
political prisoners' names, specific names to raise at every meeting with
Chinese officials, much as was done with the Soviets when Secretary Shultz
would meet with them. Do you know, to your knowledge, is that sort of
thing being done now? Is that something that could be raised, for example,
during Jiang Zemin's visit?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I will take a look at that specific recommendation. I
think it would not surprise the Chinese for me to say that senior officials
do raise the names of people we think are wrongly imprisoned for political
reasons. We have done that in that past. But we don't think it is useful
to get into the names that we raise because it makes it more difficult for
them to be released.
Yes.
QUESTION: Are those specifically Tibetan names?
MR. RUBIN: Again, I will try to get back to you on what kind of detail or
breakdown we can provide on which names.
Yes, Tom.
QUESTION: New subject?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have anything you can say about the reports of Chairman
Arafat's activities yesterday?
MR. RUBIN: I was surprised it took so long to get to this subject. Let
me say this -- the Secretary has said, in her speech a couple of weeks ago,
that the leaders in the Middle East ought to be very careful about what
they say because they send signals through what they say, or the steps they
take. We believe that the leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad are the
enemies of peace. We don't think that any of the leaders in the region who
are partners in the search for peace should leave any doubt that there is a
tolerance for violence or terror.
So the situation has been one where the trust and confidence has broken
down in the Middle East. Secretary Albright called it a crisis of
confidence. We don't think the kinds of statements that you were referring
to help restore that trust and confidence. Therefore, we don't think they
are particularly helpful.
At the same time, we have to bear in mind that the most important thing is
- excuse me - the most important thing is what happens on the ground in the
area of security cooperation, in the area of the fight against terrorism.
There have been over the past week some initial, substantive steps that
have been taken that are in the right direction and were on the right
track. We want to see more of those steps. We want to make sure that
there is zero tolerance for terrorism and that all the steps that can
reasonably be taken in the area of security cooperation are taken. That is
what we are going to be watching for is those actions. That is the most
important thing.
Yes.
QUESTION: Jamie, are you - can we glean from what you are saying, then,
that Chairman Arafat's meeting yesterday, his embrace of Hamas and Islamic
Jihad and his words have raised doubts that he is a partner in the fight
against terrorism?
MR. RUBIN: It is always difficult to try to make a judgment on a daily
basis as to what someone's words do or don't mean. What we can say is that
Secretary Albright made clear that people should be careful about what they
say. What he did say wasn't particularly constructive in trying to bring
and restore confidence and trust. On the other hand, for those of you who
have looked at the text of what he said, he made clear that he does support
the peace process and called on the supporters of the peace process to work
with him for a just and comprehensive peace.
So it's never a simple matter to try to parse the words. But clearly we
wish that he had not said some of the things he said. That didn't help
build trust and confidence. We note also that some of the things he did
say were a demonstration of him wanting to continue the peace process.
QUESTION: But yesterday he said he was a partner. Today you seem to be -
MR. RUBIN: He is a - I said in response to Tom's question that Chairman
Arafat is a partner in our quest for peace.
QUESTION: Jamie?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up on what - an earlier question. So that would
lead us to believe the United States is still convinced that Arafat is
unconditionally committed to fighting terrorism, even after his latest
actions?
MR. RUBIN: We believe that we have received assurances from Chairman
Arafat that he is going to work with the Israelis to combat terror and
prevent terror. We are going to wait and judge him by his actions. There
have been some substantive initial steps that have been positive over the
last week. We will be waiting to see more. We need to see more steps.
Any more on this subject? One more, yes.
QUESTION: A but of indulgence, I've got two questions. The embrace to
Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi on The New York Times cover today, would that be like
the kiss of death for his credibility in the United States? And the second
thing I want to ask is about yesterday you assured us that Secretary
Albright has asked the parties in the Middle East for restraint during her
early morning conversation Tuesday, and you gave your condolences to the
people - the civilian victims. However, this morning we are faced with
more reports of bombings and 11 civilians killed and more injured. Did the
appeal or the call of the Secretary fall on deaf ears? What went wrong?
MR. RUBIN: We have seen reports that a civilian was killed in a roadside
bombing near Jazzine and that Israel-shelled Hezbollah sites in the Eastern
Bekaa Valley. We obviously - and let me repeat here - regret any civilian
casualties and wish to make clear our condolences to the families of those
who were injured earlier. We want all the parties to exercise maximum
restraint, do their utmost to restore calm. We do not believe civilians
should be made to suffer as victims of these attacks.
We've been in touch with the parties in recent days. Secretary Albright
did call Foreign Minister Shara of Syria. What did we confirm? It was
Monday night, but Tuesday a.m. She sought his support in trying to ensure
maximum restraint, which he said he would do. Our view of what's gone on
in the last few days is that we do not - we oppose any steps that involve
civilian casualties, and we wish that none of the steps had been taken by
anyone.
QUESTION: My first question - whether the embrace would --
MR. RUBIN: That would seem to me you wanted me to write your lead for
you, and I think you can write it yourself.
Yes.
QUESTION: Ed Djerejian wrote an op-ed column in The New York Times today,
saying that the recent flare-up in South Lebanon was a message from
President Asad that he wants to be included in the latest United States
moves towards re-starting the peace process. Do you have any comment on
that?
MR. RUBIN: Secretary Albright has made clear to all of us that she
regards the building of a comprehensive peace in the Middle East as one of
the Administration's top - if not the top - priority. The Israelis regard
Syria as a country they would like to be able to negotiate a peace
agreement with, and as a necessary component if that peace is to be
negotiated.
There is a dispute between Israel and Syria and a dispute between Israel
and Lebanon. We have been in touch with the parties for some time to find
a formula, a basis, a way to resume their negotiations. We'll continue
that effort. We do regard it as necessary to close the circle of peace and
bring a lasting peace to the region. We have not forgotten about the Syria
track.
Yeah.
QUESTION: New subject?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. No more Middle East? Okay, let's go.
QUESTION: Yesterday I asked you about the trip of Under Secretary
Eizenstat to Central America. I wonder if you have something on that.
Also, there is taking place a meeting with the Mexican delegation about a
new plan to build up - a new strategy to combat narco-traffic. Do you have
any comment on that?
MR. RUBIN: Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat is traveling to
Managua, Nicaragua; San Salvador, El Salvador; Tegucigalpa, Honduras; and
Guatemala City, Guatemala from August 19th to the 22nd to meet with
presidents, foreign ministers, ministers of economy and trade and political
leaders. The themes of his trip are to follow up on the San Jose Summit,
to discuss Cuba, to discuss economic topics including the free trade area
for the Americas, intellectual property rights protection, and World Trade
Organization agreements and bilateral issues.
As far as the Mexico question is concerned, I don't have any new
information for you.
Yes.
QUESTION: What are they discussing about Cuba? What is the topic about
Cuba?
MR. RUBIN: I think Under Secretary Eizenstat is always seeking to try to
develop improved support among the Latin American countries for making
clear to Castro's Cuba that improvements in relations with Cuba should only
come when Castro opens up his people to democracy and human rights and
perhaps a little bit of prosperity, too.
Yes.
QUESTION: Yesterday, the United Nations Security Council issued a
statement evaluating what happened in the latest round of Cyprus talks. Do
you agree with Sir John Weston's assessment - and these are his words -
that the Greek Cypriot side was flexible and cooperative, whereas the
Turkish Cypriot side impeded substantive progress?
MR. RUBIN: Well, that is a different version than the version I am
reading - "disappointment that further extent of progress at this time was
impeded by the attempt to bring pre-conditions to the table." It's a
slightly different formulation.
But we believe that Security Council President Weston accurately noted that
there was progress made as the result of the two rounds of talks. His
statement does reflect the briefing of the UN Special Representative and
the views of the Council.
Of course, we do wish more progress had been made. We urge both sides to
continue the promising dialogue on humanitarian issues which they began
last month. We welcome the UN Special Representative's report that both
sides remain committed to this dialogue, and we will be in touch with both
the UN Special Representative and the parties. We believe that President
Weston's statement accurately reflected the sense of discussion in the
Council. That is what he was asked to do.
QUESTION: Can I follow up? Can progress in humanitarian issues be made
without first deciding on such vital issues as sovereignty; political
equality; and the 1960 agreements, the whole security arrangement?
MR. RUBIN: We certainly hope so. I think around the world we see many
cases where people who disagree about fundamental political issues can make
judgments that they should help people who are suffering or deal with
humanitarian cases before they have resolved all their problems.
Judd.
QUESTION: A quick one back on Cuba. Has there been any progress - any
movement on licenses for travel to Cuba when the Pope visits?
MR. RUBIN: It is my understanding that the applications are in the final
stages of review. We expect a decision to be made very shortly.
QUESTION: Could you announce it, rather than waiting for us to ask, when
a decision is made?
MR. RUBIN: I will try to be pro-active on this subject.
QUESTION: All right, good.
QUESTION: Are we still on Cuba?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, yes.
QUESTION: How many people is concerned on the visa issue?
MR. RUBIN: I think we can try to get you more information on that. I
think that would depend on - you mean how many people have applied?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. RUBIN: Let's try to get you an answer on that.
Steve?
QUESTION: Cambodia?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: The Cambodian leader had some choice words for the United
States, and also apparently signaled an unwillingness to cooperate with the
UN investigators or monitors. There's also fighting on the border. I
wonder if you could just update us on those developments.
MR. RUBIN: Yes, on the fighting on the border, we continue to see reports
about fighting and we want the fighting to stop. We think the Cambodian
people have suffered enough. The people involved should realize that they
shouldn't make Cambodia again suffer for their unwillingness and inability
to work things out politically.
As far as Hun Sen's comments are concerned, let me start by saying that we
fully support the work of the UN Center for Human Rights in Cambodia. We
think the people there have been professional and responsible. There are
significant documented cases of extra-judicial killings of members of the
FUNCINPEC and other opposition parties during the violent events of July
5th and 6th. We regard these reports as credible. We think that Hun Sen's
view is misplaced. It's hard to fathom why he would spend so much time
criticizing UN workers and not do what he ought to be doing, which is
investigating the killings that have gone on and trying to find out who's
responsible.
As far as his views on the United States' position with respect to the
process by which FUNCINPEC's leadership was chosen, we think it's pretty
obvious that the process was not democratic. Many of the parliamentarians
were in exile. It should be pretty clear that the current atmosphere of
intimidation in Cambodia made it impossible for a democratic act to have
taken place. So we can't understand what he's talking about in that.
QUESTION: Do you have any --
MR. RUBIN: Mark.
QUESTION: -- thing on a closing of a loophole in sanctions against U.S.
companies that do business with Iran?
MR. RUBIN: I think we have an executive order on that. Did that - no?
Let me try to get you an answer on that. I don't have a specific answer.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On Brazil?
MR. RUBIN: Sure.
QUESTION: A former Brazilian president, Jose Sarney, who's now a senior
member of the Brazilian senate has warned the United States is undermining
regional stability by pulling closer to Argentina, and also undermining the
MERCOSUR Agreement by planning to extend NAFTA.
MR. RUBIN: Well, to the extent that we want to create a free market in
Latin America, we think we're pursuing a path that is designed to benefit
all the people of Latin America. We have no trouble with the idea that
countries that have become market systems are trying to work out increased
trade and reduced tariffs. That is a step towards the ultimate outcome of
a free trade area. But I think we believe that all the leaders in Latin
America set forth by the year 2005 a goal of a free trade area, and that's
what we're trying to do.
As far as our policy vis- -vis Argentina is concerned, I think we have good
relations with both countries - Brazil and Argentina. Argentina has played
an important role in the area of international peacekeeping. They're
exercising good citizenship in the world community. We are, therefore,
looking at this Major Non-NATO Ally status as a signal of that.
Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Rubin. Did you yesterday entertain a question
regarding a statement by Benjamin Gilman, made, I believe, in India?
Mr. Gilman said that he was stating about arms shipments, especially
nuclear assistance, to Pakistan by the PRC; saying that that was making
India - or designed to make India unstable. Is that the view of the State
Department -- that China is trying to flank India through this assistance
to Pakistan?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to try to characterize China's intentions over
the long-term with regard to India and Pakistan. I can say that the Chasma
nuclear power plant, to which China is reportedly exporting a computer
system, will be subject to safeguards by the International Atomic Energy
Agency. Therefore, that export would be consistent with its international
obligations and its commitment to the United States not to assist
unsafeguarded nuclear facilities.
That doesn't mean that we're not concerned about any nuclear assistance to
Pakistan. But we believe that this particular program is going to be
conducted with safeguards and therefore is consistent with their agreement.
QUESTION: Can you comment on Mr. Gilman's statement?
MR. RUBIN: I've not seen it.
QUESTION: Okay, thanks.
QUESTION: Jamie?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Does the export of this computer - do you know if this computer
to the nuclear power plant provides them the wherewithal to aid a nuclear
program in Pakistan?
MR. RUBIN: Well, again, it's a power plant. The system of safeguards is
designed to ensure that none of the material that might be able to assist
in a nuclear program can be diverted without people having plenty of time
to do something about it. That's what the safeguard system is about.
That doesn't mean that in a case like Iran, for example, we wouldn't want
to see limitations on assistance of any kind, because there is always some
residual expertise that is gained by these activities. But at a minimum
what we want is to make sure that they're under the IAEA safeguards program
and that the nuclear suppliers group that looks into these tries to ensure
that there are the fullest possible safeguards - so-called full-scope
safeguards. That's what we would be looking for.
QUESTION: After the success by the Secretary of State to bring together
both Greece and Turkey in Madrid, where they signed an agreement on
principles, there was a sense that the Greek-Turkish was on the way to a
new reconciliation. At the same time, the Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey,
Mr. Ecevit, continues to make war-like statements against Greece and
Cyprus. Do you have any comment on this issue?
MR. RUBIN: I haven't seen the specific statements you're referring to.
The Secretary was pleased with the work that was done in Madrid. We are
pleased with the negotiations that are ongoing through the UN, under UN
auspices. Obviously, we would like to see those negotiations succeed.
Yes, one more, in the back.
QUESTION: Is there any decision made about to -- Mr. Holbrooke to the
Eastern Mediterranean region?
MR. RUBIN: His travel schedule has not been firmed up.
QUESTION: I'm wondering if you have any information about a police
incident overnight in the D.C. area that may have involved a diplomat?
MR. RUBIN: I do, if I can find it. An individual driving a vehicle with
a diplomatic license plate, registered to the Embassy of Qatar, was
involved in a traffic accident with D.C. police early this morning. The
individual advised police that he had diplomatic immunity; however, he did
not have any State Department-issued ID card or other documentation. He
told police he has a Virginia drivers license.
He is, to our understanding, a Moroccan national; is not registered with
the Department of State; does not have diplomatic immunity; and is
currently a driver trainee at the Embassy of Qatar. For information
regarding the details of this incident and possible charges against him, I
refer you to the D.C. Metropolitan Police.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Speaking of diplomats driving, have the Russians talked to you
and asked for this diplomat who left to come back for criminal
investigation?
MR. RUBIN: They have not asked us to waive his immunity, and he's here;
he's arrived here. We are prepared to cooperate by providing as much
information as possible. But they haven't asked for his diplomatic
immunity to be waived.
Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:20 P.M.)
|
