U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #123, 97-08-27
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1170
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, August 27, 1997
Briefer: James P. Rubin
STATEMENT
1 U.S. Supports Mediation to Resolve Continuing Conflict in
Republic of Congo
NORTH KOREA
1-2 Suspension of US-DPRK Missile Talks/Implication for
Nonproliferation Efforts
3 Prospect of Rescheduling Missile Talks
3,7 Impact of Suspension on Four-Party Talks
3 Clarification of Status of North Korean Defectors
4 Next Steps in Process
4-6 Reaction of North Korea to Defection of Officials and to US
Response
7 Impact of Suspension of Talks on Food Aid Shipments
8-9 Secretary's Role in Decision to Admit North Korean Defectors to
U.S.
BOSNIA
9 Secretary's Call to President Milosevic re: Implementation of
Dayton Accords
9,11 Amb. Gelbard Travel to Moscow and Belgrade/Discussions with
Russia on Plan for OSCE-supervised Elections in September and
October
10 US Reaction to Session of Republika Srpska Assembly
12 US Assistance to Bosnia/No New USAID Loan Package
13 OSCE Media Experts Commission Citation of Pale Broadcasting for
Inflammatory Rhetoric
MIDDLE EAST
13-14 Proposed Dam Construction Along Yarmouk River/Impact on Peace
Process
14-15 Israeli Decision to Lift Closure of Bethlehem
15 Upcoming Travel to the Region by the Secretary and by Amb. Ross
15 Public Announcement on Kuwait
RUSSIA
15-16 Seizure by U.S. Coast Guard of Russian Fishing Trawler in
Bering Sea
CYPRUS
16,19 EU Accession Talks/Department of State Officials Overseeing
Cyprus Policy
LIBYA/GERMANY
16 Arrest in Italy of Libyan Suspect in Bombing of LaBelle
Discoteque
NAGORNO-KARABAKH
17 Report of Rejection of OSCE Plan to Resolve Conflict
CUBA
17 Criticism of USG by BTTR Leader Basulto
MEXICO
17-18 Status of Amb-designate Weld/Reaction to Operation Rio Grande
JAPAN
18 U.S.-Japan Civil Aviation Negotiations
PANAMA
18 Possible Deportation of La Prensa Editor, Gustavo Gorriti
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #123
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1997 12:45 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Welcome to the State Department briefing. Our current plan is
to not brief tomorrow and to brief again on Friday, rather than doing what
we did last week. We're trying to confuse you as much as possible.
Let me start by reading a statement on behalf of the Department. The U.S.
deplores the continuing conflict in the Republic of Congo, and is concerned
about the recent escalation of the fighting there. We continue to believe
that the mediation sponsored by President Bongo of Gabon in Libreville,
with the support of Special Representative Sahnoun and Brazzaville Mayor
Kolelas is the most promising venue for bringing the parties together. We
urge President Lissouba and ex-President Sassou to put aside personal
interests and seek a peaceful solution that will stop the fighting and stop
the tearing apart of the Republic of Congo. We'll be posting that
statement after the briefing.
Let's go to questions. Barry Schweid.
QUESTION: Jamie, did the North Koreans cite the asylum situation as the
reason for calling off today's talks? And if they did or didn't, is there a
logical connection, so far as the U.S. is concerned?
MR. RUBIN: They did not cite exactly the reason why they decided to
postpone the talks in their communication to us late last night. Obviously,
it's connected. We regard the decision as disappointing. We believe that
these talks are in the national interests of both sides. Stopping
proliferation is a goal that should serve both our interests and their
interests. It's a natural follow-on to the successful negotiation of the
nuclear framework agreement that stopped their nuclear program. We would
like these talks to be rescheduled.
At the same time, the people who work on this issue, as I've said to you
before, are long-distance runners. They've been through a lot of ups and
downs in the area of negotiating with the North Koreans. We've seen cases
where incidents of this kind - like the submarine incident last year and
the other defection of Mr. Hwang earlier this year - did temporarily
interfere with the diplomatic processes of negotiating agreements in the
interest of the United States.
So our diplomats are determined. They're in it for the long haul. We'll be
hoping that they change their mind and return to the talks.
QUESTION: What's in it for North Korea? I mean, Egypt. Presumably Egypt
doesn't use U.S. aid money to pay for that technology, if you want to deal
with that. What's in it for them to behave like a respectable member of the
community?
MR. RUBIN: There are so many parts to that question, I don't know which
to go into. But --
QUESTION: Well, you said it's in the interest of both sides.
MR. RUBIN: All right.
QUESTION: What's in it for North Korea? What could they get out of
this?
MR. RUBIN: Just the way we saw, in the nuclear framework agreement, the
North Koreans make a decision that involved, as you know, their freezing
their nuclear program, stopping their production of materials that might be
used in a nuclear program and proceeding toward some movement in the area
of diplomatic activity with the rest of the world. The rest of the world
regards the sale of missiles, like the Scud missile to Iran as a profoundly
dangerous thing, and so long as a country like North Korea is prepared to
engage in that activity, it will find itself outside of the mainstream. So
it would be in the interest of the North Koreans to not find themselves
outside the mainstream, and it would be in the interest of the United
States to make sure that that kind of missile proliferation was stopped.
Yes, Steve.
QUESTION: What efforts has the government made to reschedule these
talks?
MR. RUBIN: Our government?
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware we have made any. The normal practice when I was
in New York was, there were phone conversations and faxes back and forth
between the missions in New York, as one of the ways in which communications
were held.
I was woken up late last night to be informed of this, as I assume others
were, so it's a pretty recent development. There would normally be some
period of time, days, before one would try to test the waters and see
whether there wasn't another date that might prove itself convenient to the
North Korean delegation.
QUESTION: Can I take that to mean you do expect to reschedule, then, as
soon as possible?
MR. RUBIN: Not that we expect to, that, obviously, we'd hope to and will
be using whatever diplomatic channels we think is appropriate to try to
test the waters at the appropriate time. But, for now, we know the meeting
didn't happen, and we're sorry about that.
Yes, in the back.
QUESTION: Ambassador Li, at the UN, said that the four-party talks might
also be affected by this. Had you set a date for the next preparatory
meeting? And if so, do you have any indication that is also going to be put
off?
MR. RUBIN: We have set a date, the week of September 15, in New York, for
the discussions between the four countries to prepare and pave the way for
this important negotiation, designed to promote stability on the Korean
Peninsula and to replace the armistice that's been in place there for a
long time. We have, again, no reason to believe, at this time - and I add
today the word at this time, which I neglected to add yesterday - to
believe that they will not show up at those negotiations to pave the
way for four-party peace talks. That is some weeks away, and we're
hopeful that this will proceed on track.
Again, in particular in this case, we believe that this kind of a
negotiation is one that is in the interest of all the people who live on
the Korean Peninsula. It's designed to make it a safer place, a more stable
place, and ultimately a more prosperous place. So I think it should be
clear that that is in the interest of all the people who live there.
Yes.
QUESTION: What can you tell us today about the state of the asylum
application? I gather that there was a change in the position from what you
said yesterday.
MR. RUBIN: Let me do my -- I hope, my first and hopefully something
resembling my last mea culpa. I did, technically, misspeak with regard to
the word asylum yesterday. The correct situation is as follows. We have
decided to allow these people to come to the United States. At present,
they are here under a protected status or parole status. Their case will be
dealt with under US law. With regard to the request by the North Koreans to
return them to North Korea to face criminal charges, we have no extradition
treaty with the DPRK, and we
expect these people to continue to stay here under this protected
status.
With regard to what will come next in the process, it's a very tricky area -
especially when you get in this kind of a case where an ambassador from the
North Korean regime was involved. There are certain confidentialities and
protections in the system. So it's very hard to get into much detail. I
would refer you to the INS to get into a general discussion of how one goes
about getting this kind of asylum. The granting or denial of asylum is a
matter under the jurisdiction of the INS, which is part of the Department
of Justice. We advise and consult on this role.
What I can tell you is, there's no timetable for the completion of this
process. It depends upon the circumstances of individual cases. So they're
here under protective status and the exact details of how they go through
the normal subsequent steps in this area is something that INS is going to
have to go through with you.
QUESTION: How many are there who are actually under protective status?
MR. RUBIN: As I said yesterday, the ambassador and his wife were brought
here, or are here, and his brother in Paris and his family. I can't be more
specific.
QUESTION: No, could you be more - could you clarify, you said charges.
Who of this group - who --
MR. RUBIN: Sorry, I'm --
QUESTION: Your reference to North Korea wanting to charge these
people.
MR. RUBIN: Yeah, I believe they put out a statement seeking their return
to face criminal charges.
QUESTION: I mean, what is the U.S.' understanding, even though it's
probably academic. Who is it they'd like to try? The ambassador and the
trade man and the wife?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not responding to a public statement from the North
Koreans.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. RUBIN: We have no --
QUESTION: They haven't told you anything.
MR. RUBIN: That's correct, yes.
QUESTION: Jamie?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: A North Korean official said - was quoted as saying that he
felt North Koreans feel as though it was an insult for the United States to
take in these defectors, and that's why they're boycotting the talks. What
is your response to that?
MR. RUBIN: We did not take them in as an insult.
QUESTION: The North Koreans said that it was an insult to them that the
United States took the defectors in.
MR. RUBIN: Right, and the United States did not provide them protective
custody as an insult.
Yes, David.
QUESTION: On that same point, this question of criminal charges and
insults and so on - when did the U.S. first hear from the North Koreans
that they regarded these individuals as criminals and wanted them back, and
regarded it as an insult that the U.S. was taking them in? Was that only in
public statements in the last 24 hours or so? Or is that a position they've
taken for a while? I mean, we're trying to figure out whether this is
revisionism or whether these people - they are saying that they had
charged - that they had ordered them back some days ago or some time
ago to face charges; that they had been fired and ordered to come
home. Any evidence to support that?
MR. RUBIN: In order for me to answer that question accurately, I would
have to engage in a discussion that I've been prohibited from having; and
that is the circumstances that preceded their decision to come to the
United States and the circumstances under which they came here.
All I was referring to with regard to the extradition treaty was the public
call by the North Koreans. I was pointing out that we don't have an
extradition treaty or a mutual legal assistance treaty with the North
Koreans.
QUESTION: Let me narrow it down further, then. Did the United States,
prior to these public statements, hear from the North Koreans that they
regarded these people as criminals?
MR. RUBIN: Again, I don't know exactly what we knew and when we knew it
on this case. But to answer that question intelligently, I'd have to
reflect things that went on prior to their decision to come here, which, as
you know, yesterday I was extremely reluctant to get into, and I'm under
the same restrictions today. I apologize for that.
Yes.
QUESTION: Did the State Department provide any of these individuals
travel documents to enable them to--
MR. RUBIN: That would again fall into the category of the details under
which they got here.
Yes.
QUESTION: Yes, Li Gun made a very angry statement --
MR. RUBIN: Who?
QUESTION: Li Gun, the ambassador, the North Korean ambassador at the UN,
made a very angry statement this morning, basically reiterating what has
just been discussed. So I would ask, have you seen that statement from Mr.
Gun? And basically, does this government believe that it is wise to grant
asylum to these people in view of the disruption of relations with North
Korea?
MR. RUBIN: That's easy. Yes.
QUESTION: One technical question. Apart from the telephone call yesterday
calling off the talks today, has the U.S. Government had any communications
with the North Korean Government?
MR. RUBIN: Since?
QUESTION: Since they arrived in this country.
MR. RUBIN: My understanding is there were communications in the last
couple of days with regard to the preparation for the talks and other
aspects of this case, but there weren't discussions focused on this case,
if I can give you an elusive answer. Again, it's our practice to try to
avoid detailing specific diplomatic exchanges; but last night's conversation
was not the first time this issue came up.
QUESTION: Just to follow up, in other words, they have not addressed any
communication directly to the U.S. Government with these charges of
misappropriation or whatever?
MR. RUBIN: I haven't seen that. I haven't heard about that. The only
reference to a formal charge is what I referred to as was said publicly.
Yes.
QUESTION: When did you find that your statement yesterday about the
political asylum is wrong? Is the change of the status related to today's
cancellation of the talks in New York?
MR. RUBIN: No. I think I started to try to contact some people early in
the evening, and the decision by the North Koreans was not communicated to
us until the middle of the night. As I said, I was woken up at 1:15 a.m.
this morning.
QUESTION: Jamie?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: I'm sorry if I'm not getting this, but both brothers are, in
fact, seeking asylum in the United States?
MR. RUBIN: Again, I'm going to be reluctant today to use that word, in
light of the legal complications. I said that both of them are here under a
protective status, a parole status, and the steps that follow from that are
steps that you need to address directly with the INS.
QUESTION: You can't say whether they are even seeking to take it from
there?
MR. RUBIN: I could repeat my same answer, but what I've been advised is,
for legal and confidentiality reasons, using the word that you used is not
a word that I should use.
Yes.
QUESTION: I have one - sorry --
QUESTION: Let me just do this really quickly.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Would investigation into this possible criminal activity, would
that be something that would normally be taken into account in this process
of asylum?
MR. RUBIN: You have to ask the INS that question, and the Justice
Department.
Yes.
QUESTION: Will U.S. shipments of food aid to North Korea be affected by
all of this?
MR. RUBIN: We provide food aid to the North Korean people, the children,
not because we support the North Korean regime or we support many of the
activities that they take, which we don't support and we strongly object
to. We provide that food because we are a nation that believes in
humanitarian principles. When there are starving children involved, we want
to do what we can to help alleviate that suffering.
Can we try another subject?
QUESTION: One last question?
MR. RUBIN: One last question, yes.
QUESTION: In light of North Korea pulling out of the missile talks, would
you now characterize the upcoming four-party talks as damaged, seriously
damaged, not at all? How would you characterize it? Do you think that the
North Koreans would --
MR. RUBIN: It's a legitimate question. All I can say is that we believe
those talks are in the interests of both sides, for the reasons I answered
earlier. We have no reason to believe, at this point - at this time - that
those talks' schedule will change.
Yes.
QUESTION: Let me come back to my question of yesterday. Did the Secretary
of State or the President get involved in the decision to admit these North
Korean defectors to the United States?
MR. RUBIN: As far as the President is concerned, I would refer you to the
Martha's Vineyard White House for an answer to that question. As far as the
Secretary's involvement, the Secretary has been aware of this situation for
some days now. But with regard to the question you asked yesterday, that
was about granting the word that I'm not going to use today; and that, as
you can see, has not happened yet. So neither the Secretary nor the
President would have been involved in that kind of a decision.
QUESTION: Right. But in the - just the decision to admit them under an
emergency status, under this parole status, the Secretary could very well
have been involved in that.
MR. RUBIN: As I said, she was aware of the fact that these people were
seeking to come to the United States in the recent days. As far as the
process by which those decisions were made, how they got here is a subject
that I am not in a position to discuss publicly.
QUESTION: Did she urge that they receive this parole status?
MR. RUBIN: She --
QUESTION: Did she ask for it? Did she argue for it? Did she give an
opinion?
MR. RUBIN: I think the Secretary of State supports the fact that they are
here and supports the decision to have them be here and supports the status
under which they are now here and believes that this was appropriate given
the circumstances. We hope that in the coming days and weeks the missile
talks can get back on track. We've overcome obstacles of kind in the
past. The people who do this work know they should be able to buy
plane tickets, pack their suitcases and unpack them.
So if you're saying, was there a foreign policy consideration that might
have played in here, the Secretary supports their --
QUESTION: Right, but from what you're saying -- from what you're not
saying it sounds like she did not - I mean, the Secretary of State has the
obligation to oversee the different aspects of a foreign policy. So
admitting these people has resulted in the cancellation of the talks. She
might have brought that to bear on a decision if she actually had weighed
in on the decision. If somebody else made the decision, and she just simply
went along, then --
MR. RUBIN: I can check with her. I take your point. I can check with her
precisely her involvement and try to call you on that. But having spoken to
her about this over two days now, I have no reason to believe that the
decision to provide this status for them was something she was unaware of
or that it was something that she was concerned could have this other
impact and should not, therefore, have been made. On the contrary,
everything that I know tells me that she is fully supportive of the fact
that we brought these people here, despite the risk that it might
cause what it caused.
But again, when it comes to North Korea, we're in this for the long haul.
The negotiators who work this issue understand there can be temporary
interruptions, but that the negotiations will get back on track. If you go
back to the Agreed Framework, you will see many instances where there were
long pauses. But at the end of the day, we brought home an agreement that
advanced American security, stopped the North Korean nuclear program, and
has proved to be working quite successfully.
QUESTION: Bosnia?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you know anything about Milosevic going to Banja Luka?
MR. RUBIN: I've heard the reports and seen the reports to that effect.
What I can tell you about that is that we do not know whether indeed he is
going to go. The Secretary did speak to him earlier in the week, as I
reported to you, and made a very strong case to him that it was time for
Mr. Milosevic to get off the fence. It was time for him to get on the side
of those who support the Dayton Agreement - the peace agreement that
Milosevic himself signed; and that that person was Mrs. Plavsic, the
elected President.
QUESTION: Did he suggest that he go to Banja Luka?
MR. RUBIN: No.
Any more on Bosnia? Yes.
QUESTION: About Ambassador Gelbard's timetable regarding the visit to
Belgrade.
MR. RUBIN: Yes, Ambassador Gelbard is scheduled to leave this afternoon,
fly to Moscow and have meetings on Thursday and Friday; and meet in
Belgrade with Mr. Milosevic on Friday.
Yes.
QUESTION: I had a question on Russia.
MR. RUBIN: Let's go to the back, there.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: One more on Bosnia, please.
MR. RUBIN: Sure. Are those the cheap seats back there?
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Indeed. Cheap seats and standing room, that's what we got. Dick
Holbrooke said this morning that one of the first topics on the agenda that
Ambassador Gelbard would have with the Russians is the return of refugees
in Prijedor, where the Russians have not been helpful. Can you enlighten us
as to the state of discussion with the Russians about that?
MR. RUBIN: I have not heard that that is the specific package. I think
Ambassador Gelbard told me that one of the prime issues he's discussing
with the Russians is the plan for OSCE-supervised elections in September
and October. There were some concerns the Russians had about that that he
wanted to address directly with them, because we want to make sure those
elections are on track.
More broadly on Bosnia, I --
QUESTION: Excuse me --
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: On that subject, Holbrooke also said that the first of those
scheduled elections should be postponed and the two should be held in
conjunction. Is that your position?
MR. RUBIN: That is not the U.S. Government's position at this time.
More broadly, I would point out that we regard the decision yesterday of
the so-called RS Assembly as illegal. That Assembly has been dissolved by a
constitutionally-elected president. The corruption and criminality of the
regime in Pale has become more and more clear to the people of Bosnia.
Their call to suspend elections, their call to take back the transmitters,
their call to reject the constitutionally-elected President all demonstrate
that they are on the wrong side of history.
History is now moving in the direction of those in Bosnia who are trying to
support the peace agreement, support democracy, and support the rule of
law. Those who continue to find themselves left out are going to find that
the train of prosperity and integration into Europe is going to leave with
them not on it. We urge more and more people in Bosnia, in the Serb parts
of Bosnia, to recognize that it's Mrs. Plavsic's efforts that are going to
bring them support in the future.
Yes, Judd.
QUESTION: In light of that, how do you analyze or how does the U.S.
Government analyze the meeting yesterday that Plavsic had with the top
military commanders, half of whom didn't show? Are they are on the wrong
side of history, too?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. Mrs. Plavsic is the constitutionally-elected leader of
the Republika Srpska. We think that the military should be respecting the
civilian control of the military. We're concerned that they are not. She is
commander of the armed forces. The RS military is responsible to her. The
High Representative has made this point in letters to Mr. Krajisnik and
Mrs. Plavsic. The principle of civilian control of the military is a
fundamental democratic norm. We also have seen evidence recently that
additional police forces are seeking to be restructured so that they can
join those who are on the side of those supporting Dayton.
You can look at these things, and if you want to continue to find the glass
half empty, you can see that. But there is a clear and marked shift in the
Republika Srpska in favor and towards the leadership of Mrs. Plavsic in
trying to get their country and - I'm sorry, their region back on track ,
their entity - please strike that - their entity back on track, and the
direction is clearly in her favor. Yes, there are some holdouts; but more
and more with each passing day we're seeing concrete evidence that
the tide is in favor of those who support Dayton.
Yes, Roy.
QUESTION: How serious a problem do you think it will be for holding
elections that the Assembly -- which is, pretty much I guess, under
Karadzic's control -- has, it seems like, thrown down the gauntlet, saying
they don't want the OSCE in, they are suspending the agreement? How can you
send in OSCE people to towns that they control when their safety, obviously,
is no longer guaranteed?
MR. RUBIN: Well, certainly, that's a problem. I'd just ask you at the
flip side; and the flip side is that so long as the TV in that part of the
world was going to spew out that kind of venom, there was never going to be
an opportunity to have a free and fair election. Now a very large
percentage of the people in Bosnia, in the Republika Srpska, the entity
that's part of Bosnia, are going to be able to hear relatively objective
news broadcasts, and that will give a greater opportunity for us to
have a free and fair election there.
That doesn't mean there aren't numerous obstacles to overcome between now
and the scheduled elections in September and October. That's what
Ambassador Gelbard is doing in Moscow. He's talking to the Russians so that
we can get the OSCE on board, working as hard as they can to provide the
best possible environment for free and fair elections. But we obviously
have a long way to go.
Barry.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- assistance to Mrs. Plavsic's government?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Apart from the lumber companies, which has been announced out
there.
MR. RUBIN: There was some mis-reporting or - let me rephrase that - some
might have misinterpreted what they read in the newspapers this morning. As
far as I understand it, our entire program is $60 million for Bosnia. There
is a roughly $1 million loan program that has been in place, and will
continue to be in place, to provide small - 10,000 tranche loans - to
businesses; and that there is no new announcement expected with any AID
trip. And there is no $60 million plan. There was a $9 million assistance
package that is going to shortly be distributed to those municipalities
that have worked with the government in Banja Luka to implement Dayton.
Those would involve projects like roads and waterworks and schools and that
nature.
QUESTION: And there even may still be a discrepancy. You sure that's
dollars and not deutschmarks?
MR. RUBIN: Well, they told me it was under $1 million. So let's use the
phrase, under $1 million. I was trying to give you something to work with -
whether it's $450,000 or $650,000 or $750,000, it's somewhat under $1
million. But it's definitely not $60 million.
David.
QUESTION: Jamie, can you give us an update on --
QUESTION: Follow up?
QUESTION: Oh, do you have a follow-up on that?
QUESTION: Yeah, just quickly, David. Clarification - the $1 million -
under --
MR. RUBIN: Under $1 million.
QUESTION: Under $1 million for small businesses, is that earmarked to
Bosnian Serb areas?
MR. RUBIN: To those areas that would fall into this decision we've made
to provide assistance to those municipalities where they are doing what
needs to be done to allow refugees to return, to allow freedom of movement,
and to respect the Dayton Accords.
QUESTION: Banja Luka, not Pale?
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
QUESTION: So, Jamie, can you update us on the level of supervision by
SFOR of uniformed forces in Republika Srpska, and specifically the force
that was, at least, being used to protect Dr. Karadzic?
MR. RUBIN: I will try to get you more information at the next briefing,
but that's really an SFOR question.
Yes.
QUESTION: Middle East?
QUESTION: Libya?
QUESTION: Just one more Bosnia?
MR. RUBIN: Yeah.
QUESTION: Has there been any - is there an agreed view now within the
U.S. Government and also with its allies on what to do about the radio and
TV transmissions which have been denouncing SFOR, treating it as if it were
a remake of the SS?
MR. RUBIN: We regard the propaganda and rhetoric coming out of that
transmitter as an obstacle in our effort to pursue peace. The OSCE Media
Experts Commission issued a statement yesterday citing the broadcasts of
the kind you mention in Pale for grave and continuous violations of the
provisional election commission rules and regulations.
We want this broadcasting to stop, to stop using inflammatory rhetoric, and
to stop furthering the cause of those who are opposing peace. So we believe
that kind of propaganda, that kind of broadcasting is damaging to the
process that we're trying to pursue in Bosnia.
QUESTION: My question is what are you going to do about it?
MR. RUBIN: Any decisions about what we're going to do about it, if I know
where you're heading, I'm not in a position to talk about right now.
QUESTION: May I ask about the Middle East?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: The Israelis' proposition to build a dam on a disputed piece of
Syrian land, and they want to do it with the help of Jordan. You have said
over the past weeks that there is a crisis of confidence in the region and
both sides need to turn down actions or turn off actions that are going to
thwart the peace process. How do you view this dam proposition? The
Israelis are saying they are going to go ahead with it. Has the Secretary
been in contact with the Prime Minister about this?
MR. RUBIN: Not to my knowledge, about the dam. The issue here is a little
confused. There are different reports as to where the location of the dam
would actually be. It is our view that the site for the proposed dam should
be determined by the two interested parties -- Israel and Jordan -- at a
site mutually agreed upon by them and one that takes into account issues
of sovereignty in this area.
We don't know precisely where this is going to end up being constructed, if
it's ever constructed. But again, we think that there are important
interests for Israel and Jordan involved -- and obviously, Israeli and
Syrian interests involved -- and these all need to be considered.
As far as the original report is concerned, if it turns out, which we don't
know yet, but if it turns out to be on disputed territory of the kind
originally reported, then it is not the kind of move which would help build
the confidence that we think would be necessary to negotiate solutions to
outstanding disputes. But again, there's no way to make this judgment at
this point because the specific location of it we've talked to the Israeli
government about, and it's a little unclear as to where it is actually
going to end up.
QUESTION: Sorry to interrupt you,, but in light of what's going on in
Southern Lebanon and the tensions that are in the region, even a gesture
toward this - is that good to even make a gesture, for the Israelis to be
talking about it?
MR. RUBIN: Again, you're trying to steer me in a direction I'm not going
to go.
We don't know where this dam is going to be built. There are conflicting
reports. We are consulting with the Israeli government. I said if the
reports of it being on the disputed territory turn out to be true, then
this is not the kind of move which would help build the confidence that we
believe is necessary for peace in the Middle East. But if that's not the
case, and the interests of the parties involved are not jeopardized, then
it would be a different story.
So I'm not in a position to tell you what the result of this decision is
because the details of it have not become clear.
Lee.
QUESTION: Jamie, the Israelis today said they are lifting what the
Palestinians have termed "the siege of Bethlehem." I'm wondering what the
U.S. Government response is to that. And does that affect the chances of
Secretary Albright's making a trip to the Middle East?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say that Secretary Albright welcomes this decision. We
think it's a step forward in the process. We have understood Israel's need
to deal with security threats in the past, but we've also been concerned
about the effect of closures like this on the daily lives of the Palestinian
people. We hope that the right balance can be struck between Israeli
security needs and the economic and social well-being of the Palestinians.
We do not think that making it impossible for Palestinians to function in
their daily lives contributes to greater mutual confidence or, ultimately,
to progress in the peace process.
So we welcome this decision. We think it's a step in the right direction.
As far as the Secretary's travel is concerned, I've seen various reports
out of the region of people suggesting that she will or she won't go, based
on what they might or might not have done. Let me say, the Secretary has
made the decision in principle to go to the Middle East very soon. When she
has decided that the circumstances merit a timetable and a specific plan,
I hope to be able to be the first to tell you that.
QUESTION: What about Dennis Ross?
MR. RUBIN: Nothing new on a Dennis trip at this point.
Any more on the Middle East?
QUESTION: Yeah, one.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: I don't know if you touched on it while I was out, the Kuwait
warning.
MR. RUBIN: Yes. I did not touch on that while you were out. The
Department of State issued a public announcement on August 26 advising US
citizens that the Embassy in Kuwait has an unconfirmed report of a possible
attack on an unspecified American location in Kuwait in late August. How's
that for specificity?
As part of our travel safety program, we routinely issue information about
security threats to Americans. We have no additional public information on
this reported planned attack, and we are going to put out an announcement
at the end of the briefing, or it may already be out there.
Yes.
QUESTION: It was interesting to hear that it's now a function of the
State Department to determine who's on what side of history. If you could
comment on that in regards to Russia, that would be interesting, but I also
have a specific question. The boat that was captured in the Bering Sea, the
Russians seem to have made an official presentation to the State Department
about that, asking for a release of the boat. Is there a response?
MR. RUBIN: We are currently reviewing the Russian Government's request
and will respond through official channels. We do not agree with the
Russian characterization of this case as unclear. The U.S. Coast Guard
spotted the ship within the U.S. economic exclusion zone on August the 15th,
based on our measurements - and pretty accurate systems, at that. The ship
is now detained in the port of Kodiak in Alaska. The vessel and its crew
have been granted all of the port courtesies, such as storage, electricity,
fresh water and telephone access normally granted to foreign fishing
vessels. The future of that ship will depend on the outcome of the
investigation, which is still in progress.
QUESTION: Technically, the relationship in this sphere is based upon an
agreement, I understand, from 1988 on fisheries. Is that true?
MR. RUBIN: I can get you more information about this. We believe that the
fishing activity was inside the zone, and that the Coast Guard acted
properly in seizing the vessel pending an investigation by the assistant
U.S. attorney's office and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Yes.
QUESTION: Yesterday Italian Foreign Minister Lamberto Dini said since the
Greek-Cypriot Government does not represent the whole island of Cyprus,
there's a need for a formula according to which both the Turkish Cypriots
and Greek Cypriots can enter European Union together. Since this seems to
be contrary to the U.S. approach, given the fact that U.S. accepts Greek-
Cypriot Government as representing the whole island, could you comment
on this?
MR. RUBIN: With whom the European Union negotiates in upcoming Cyprus
accession talks is a question for the European Union to decide. EU leaders
have worked to ensure that the Turkish-Cypriot and Greek-Cypriot communities
can participate in the accession process. We welcome and encourage those
efforts.
The U.S. recognizes the government in Nicosia as the legitimate government
of Cyprus. We nonetheless maintain contacts with both Greek-Cypriot and
Turkish-Cypriot leaders.
Yes.
QUESTION: One more --
QUESTION: Different subject?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, one more on this subject.
QUESTION: On the arrest of the Libyan alleged terrorist in Italy today,
connected with the bombing of a disco in Berlin, do you have anything on
that?
MR. RUBIN: We have seen these press reports. If true, we applaud the
counter-terrorism cooperation between the government of Italy and Germany
that led to the arrest of this suspect. We are pleased that the rule of law
is being applied in the La Belle disco bombing case.
As you know, two American soldiers were killed in that attack and 200 other
persons were wounded, including 64 Americans. The United States has
followed the La Belle bombing case very closely and we remain committed to
seeing justice done.
Yes.
QUESTION: The foreign minister of the so-called Republic of Nagorno-
Karabakh recently made a statement that Nagorno-Karabakh already rejected
latest OSCE plan - a plan which Azerbaijan and Armenia accepted as basic
mechanism for solving conflict. Do you have any comment about this?
MR. RUBIN: I'll try to get an answer for you officially.
Yes.
QUESTION: On Cambodia, I asked a question about two days ago about Ken
Quinn being back in Washington. Did you --
MR. RUBIN: Yeah, we did not hear - he is not here.
QUESTION: On the two planes that were downed last year in front of --
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: -- (inaudible) Basulto, from Brothers to the Rescue, was in
Washington. Today some Miami stations are reporting some statements that
he's more inclined to believe now that the whole thing could have been
avoided if the United States - the United States Government could have
avoided the whole incident. Do you have anything on this?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, I was working for then Ambassador Albright in New York
when this incident occurred. It was the role of the U.S. Government to try
to deter flights of this kind, to try to inform those who were putting
forward flight plans that would involve being in the wrong places that they
faced the risk of losing their licenses. But in the case involved, we have
no reason to believe that there was a failure to warn the pilots.
This was a simple case. It was a case of cold-blooded murder by Fidel
Castro's military of three American citizens and another Cuban-American.
QUESTION: Latin America?
MR. RUBIN: Yeah.
QUESTION: I have two questions. In Congress, the Republicans are still
breaking apart regarding the support for Governor Weld. Is the United
States Government doing something to try and stop this kind of action
against the decision of President Clinton? And I have another question on
Mexico. I know you didn't comment on diplomatic notes. But the Mexican
Government is still rejecting this Rio Grande program on the border. Do you
think this kind of action by the Mexican Government or the action by the
United States could affect the bilateral relations in terms of immigration
discussions?
MR. RUBIN: We'll try to get you an answer on the second question. As far
as Governor Weld is concerned, nothing has changed. The Secretary and the
President believe that the gentleman deserves a hearing and that if his
case is heard by the committee, the members will see that he's qualified
for the post. We can't answer that question fairly until he has a
hearing.
QUESTION: Gerry Adams is coming next week with a delegation. I just
wondered if the State Department has received any requests for talks with
officials here from his delegation.
MR. RUBIN: I would be surprised if he didn't meet with someone. I don't
know the level yet.
Yes.
QUESTION: What about Japan open skies? What is the sense of urgency as
far as an open skies agreement in this area, given that U.S. carriers
certainly, right now, have about 60 percent of that market? And to what
degree will the U.S. Government resist what at least one airline has
characterized as the Japanese Government position of seeking a managed
trade agreement here?
MR. RUBIN: Let me try to get you some specific information. But I am
going to post a statement on this after the briefing about the negotiations
that have begun on the air services agreement. That may have some of the
answers to your question. If not, we'll try to get someone to answer
specifically.
QUESTION: Is there anything in the magical in the September 31st
deadline?
MR. RUBIN: Deadlines are usually involved for procedural reasons, but
we'll try to get you a specific answer for that.
Yes, over there, please.
QUESTION: On Panama, I write for La Prensa daily newspaper in Panama.
We're very concerned about the proposed deportation tomorrow, forcibly, of
one of our editors - a man by the name of Gustavo Gorriti. Numerous human
rights organizations have protested this as a violation of freedoms of
press and expression. Human Rights Watch has written to Secretary Albright,
asking her to take a strong stand in the case. Could I ask you to comment
on how you view this proposed deportation?
MR. RUBIN: The U.S. Government does not question the Panamanian
Government's authority to enforce its immigration laws. However, the
decision to remove the residency status of a world-class journalist such as
Gustavo Gorriti -- I hope I didn't do damage to his name - raises questions
about Panama's commitment to freedom of the press. We have made our views
known to the Panamanian officials, and hope the decision will be overturned.
QUESTION: To follow up, please? That statement is a week old, sir, and I
wonder if due to the fact that the forcible deportation is going take place
tomorrow, if you have any new view on that.
MR. RUBIN: This view hasn't changed.
QUESTION: You promised to give us information about the trip of
Ambassador Eizenstat to Central America. What did he achieve, regarding
Cuba, with the Central American countries --
MR. RUBIN: Well, I'll make sure that if we promised information --
QUESTION: You promised us an announcement for Mr. Tom Miller, the new
coordinator for Cyprus the other day, but so far there is not anything to
this effect. And I would like to know why Mr. Holbrooke has been replaced
by Mr. Miller as the new coordinator.
MR. RUBIN: That is not correct.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - today?
MR. RUBIN: Let me give you some information on this that will surely
enlighten the rest of the group. Assistant Secretary for European and
Canadian Affairs Marc Grossman oversees policy for Cyprus. The post of the
special Cyprus coordinator is the top full-time position in the European
Bureau, charged with coordinating Cyprus policy. Tom Miller, the former DCM
in Athens, has been appointed to this position.
Special Presidential Emissary Richard C. Holbrooke reports to the President,
to the Secretary and to the Assistant Secretary. Within the Bureau, the
Office of Southern European Affairs is charged with overall policy
implementation for that region. Office Director Steven Mull, Deputy
Director Peter Petros and two country officers deal with Cyprus issues.
QUESTION: Do you know if an American ambassador will be in Moscow for the
Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission?
MR. RUBIN: Our ambassador?
QUESTION: Yes, the new ambassador
MR. RUBIN: I don't see why not.
QUESTION: He is not confirmed yet.
MR. RUBIN: I think he's been confirmed, yes, he's confirmed. He was
confirmed.
(The briefing ended at 1:32 P.M.)
|
