U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #136, 97-09-17
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
856
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, September 17, 1997
Briefer: James P. Rubin
DEPARTMENT
1 Secretary Albright to Address Joint Session of American
Business Conference and the Institute for International
Economics in Washington, D.C., Thursday, September 18
1 Deputy Secretary Talbott Address to the World Affairs
Council of Northern California
5-6 Secretary Albright's Attendance at UN General Assembly in
New York/Schedule
NORTH KOREA
1-4 Readout on the US-DPRK Bilateral Meeting
BOSNIA
4 UN Helicopter Crash
6-7 OSCE Ruling on SDS Slate in Pale/Ambassador Frowick's
Decision
8 Status of Compliance with Transmitter Agreement
COLOMBIA
1,5 Senate Votes to Strip Retroactivity From Pending
Extradition Bill
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
8-10 US Reaction to Settlers Moving into Ras Al-Amoud Housing
Project in East Jerusalem
14 Israeli and Palestinian Delegations Meeting Next Week in
Washington
SYRIA
10 Secretary Albright's Meetings in Damascus/Discussion of
Terrorism Issue
LIBYA
11-12 Travel to Libya by US Congressman Hilliard
IRAN
12 Iranian President's Call for a Postponement of Doha Summit
GREECE/TURKEY/CYPRUS
13 Assessment of Tom Miller's Trip
CAMBODIA
14 U.S. Position on Representation of Cambodia at the United
Nations
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #136
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1997, 1:05 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: I see we have at least one member of the trip team that is
here. Looks like that's about it. No, we have two.
We have a couple of statements to issue - one on the Colombian senate vote
on the extradition bill, and on Secretary Talbott's activities.
Let me start by telling you that tomorrow morning, Secretary Albright will
deliver a major speech on the economic dimension of American foreign
policy. She will talk about the importance of restoring traditional trade
authority fast track to the President this Fall. This will be the
Secretary's fullest statement, since she took office, on her vision of how
our international economic and foreign policy interests converge in the
post-Cold War world.
She will emphasize the importance of American leadership in sustaining the
global movement towards open markets and expanded trade, and she will
underscore, once again, her determination to use aggressively the State
Department in pursuing and assisting American business.
The centerpiece of the Secretary's speech will be the foreign policy case
for fast track. She has made the case before, but tomorrow she will do it
more extensively. She will make clear that our economic leadership is not
only important in its own right, but it's indispensable to our global
leadership and our influence around the world.
We will have some arrangements for that worked out for you for tomorrow.
Let's go right to questions. George.
QUESTION: Could you tell us what you can about the bilateral with the
North Koreans yesterday?
MR. RUBIN: We regarded the talks as useful and constructive. They were
conducted in a business-like atmosphere. The entire range of bilateral
issues were discussed. We informed the North Koreans of a technical step we
intend to take in the near future to conduct a survey of the number and the
size of outstanding financial claims by US citizens against the DPRK.
This survey would be the initial step necessary to eventually resolve the
issue of remaining frozen North Korean assets in the US. It would allow
American claimants to register their claims against the DPRK. It would not
be sufficient in itself to unfreeze DPRK assets. An unfreezing of those
assets would be an independent decision as part of the step-by-step process
we are hoping to achieve in normalizing to some extent the economic and
political relations with the United States.
QUESTION: How much money is involved; do you know?
MR. RUBIN: I can't give you a numerical figure on that, but there's
obviously a significant amount of assets that have been frozen in the
past.
We also, during yesterday's meeting, discussed the food shortage in North
Korea. We proposed to send a team of experts to North Korea to assess food
needs at the end of the harvest and to work to further strengthen
monitoring of food aid. This would be the first team of this nature sent by
the United States Government. The North Koreans welcomed this proposal, and
agreed to continue to discuss a concrete date for this mission.
QUESTION: What about the defector?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware that came up in any significant way. I mean, as
we have stated earlier, we regard the defector issue as not linked to the
four-party peace process or to other issues. As I understand it, they did
raise it, but I doubt it got into much detail.
Yes.
QUESTION: -- offset American claims against North Korea with the assets
that are now frozen in the United States; is that your intention?
MR. RUBIN: Well, what this is is a survey. It's designed to try to
determine who has what claims. That's a first step if you're ever going to
get to a point where you then unfreeze things and figure out how you're
going to match unfrozen funds with any other claims. But first you need to
figure out exactly who thinks they're owed what, and that's all this is at
this point.
QUESTION: There's been no decision about --
MR. FOLEY: Correct.
QUESTION: We'll just absorb some of that money without -
MR. RUBIN: No decision on what would result from this, other than that
it's a first step to eventually resolving it and that it's designed to
determine the number and the size of claims. But there's been no decision
to unfreeze them.
Any more on North Korea?
QUESTION: What is the status of the various talks with the North
Koreans?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we did discuss with them the possibility of resuming the
missile talks. We proposed new dates for resumption of the talks in October,
and urged the North Koreans to accept those dates, and they said they would
get back to us.
As far as the four-party talks are concerned, what is our latest date on
that? Thursday.
QUESTION: There will be talks on Thursday?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
Yes.
QUESTION: People who feel that they have claims, legitimate claims
against the frozen assets, should they contact Treasury, or should they
come to the State Department?
MR. RUBIN: I think that once this team gets down to business, they will
have some announcement as to how to go about making those claims, and we
will pass them on.
More on Korea?
QUESTION: Do you know how long these assets have been frozen? Are we
talking about since 1945 or what?
MR. RUBIN: I think it's been part of it since the Trading With The Enemy
Act, so it's been a long time. I don't have the exact date. I suspect there
are different phases in which assets were frozen, but we can get you more
details on that.
Any more on North Korea?
Yes.
QUESTION: Just one more. Jamie, the issues that hung up the last four-
party talks, that of US withdrawal from Korea, was that discussed
yesterday? Was there any --
MR. RUBIN: This meeting, as I understand it, was a bilateral meeting
discussing bilateral issues like this claims issue, like the question of
food, whether we could have missile talks resumed, not the specifics of the
four-party process.
Yes.
QUESTION: Jamie, a new subject.
MR. RUBIN: More on Korea?
QUESTION: Yes, one more question. Was the chance of a consulate
discussed? Was that issue moved forward at all?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have anything for you on that; I can try to check.
Yes.
QUESTION: I want to ask you about the helicopter that went down in Bosnia,
what little - if you have anything that you could, you know, sort of add to
the five Americans that were reportedly on board and their capacity?
MR. RUBIN: Well, obviously, this is a very sad day. A UN helicopter has
crashed. I think it points up the dangers that all the diplomats and other
relief workers and refugee workers and others face in Bosnia.
We have no reason to believe that the crash was anything other than an
accident. There were a significant number of fatalities, and there were
Americans on board the helicopter. Beyond that, we are not in a position to
confirm who was injured and who survived and who died. But we do know there
were a significant number of fatalities.
QUESTION: And I understand that they were traveling on a mission to
Brcko. Can you tell us about what the mission was going to be?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think the UN will probably put out some information on
that. I don't have any further details.
QUESTION: What were the capacities of the Americans who were on
board?
MR. RUBIN: Well, again, because of the nature of this situation and to
the extent there are fatalities, we try to talk to the families first.
QUESTION: Were they of the Office of the High Representative or the
military? Or do you know what --
MR. RUBIN: Again, to the extent I start identifying who they worked for
and the families have to deal with the fact that they know who worked for
what, we tend to create further pain than is necessary. So for now, I've
been asked to simply say what I just said. To the extent that we have had
notifications, maybe we can provide some additional information this
afternoon.
QUESTION: Colombia?
MR. RUBIN: Colombia, yes.
QUESTION: Jamie, are you --
MR. RUBIN: That was the crash, and we'll go back to Bosnia. Yes.
QUESTION: The Colombian senate denied the retroactivity on the extraditions
yesterday. Which one is the impact on this issue between the two governments?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we are troubled -- we are extremely troubled - and
stunned, frankly, by this vote which stripped the retroactivity from
pending extradition legislation. What that means is that a lot of people
who were responsible for the drug trade or who could have been extradited
for past activities are now going to be prevented from being extradited. So
this is a stunning development, from our perspective. We're dismayed and
troubled by it.
We reiterate our view that Colombia pass the strongest possible extradition
bill, which this is clearly not. We hope that the government will work with
the lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, to reinstate retroactivity. I
will have a statement that I'll put out on that subject.
Yes.
QUESTION: How can this new issue affect the relationship of the US and
Colombia that they were actually improving in the last several months?
MR. RUBIN: Well, let's wait and see how it ends up. I mean, for now, we
are hoping that the lower house will take another look at this.
I mean, clearly what you're doing here is you're letting some of the worst
criminals off scot-free. That's not acceptable from our standpoint. That's
why we're troubled and dismayed by it.
QUESTION: Can I ask another question? Do you think the Colombian
Government is paying back to the drug cartels just because they didn't
decide not to put the retroactivity?
MR. RUBIN: Again, what we'd like to do is - having now made very clear, I
think, in very clear terms what we think of the law as it's currently
structured - we are hoping that the lower house will take a look at this
and pass a serious extradition bill.
Yes.
QUESTION: A different subject?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: World leaders are coming at the UN, including the prime
minister of India. Indian prime minister and Pakistani prime minister, they
are expecting to meet, and also President Clinton to meet with the Indian
prime minister. Does Secretary of State have any plan of meeting either of
the leaders in New York?
MR. RUBIN: The Secretary will be leaving for New York on Sunday. She will
be spending two weeks in New York at the General Assembly. She will be
meeting an entire array of leaders from around the world.
The specific schedule I'm not in a position to make public at this time.
But as soon as we have further information on the dates and times of her
meetings, we'll be happy to give them to you.
Roy.
QUESTION: Mr. Frowick has come under criticism in Sarajevo for supposedly
tampering with the integrity of the election process in allowing the
results from Pale to be honored, despite a decision by a judge to basically,
I guess, throw out the results. Does the US Government support Mr. Frowick
in his decision?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, we do. I think the situation is a little bit more complex
than people have understood. The bottom line here is that had one thrown
out all those on that ballot, you would have disenfranchised the voters.
The time to exclude certain parties from the election would have been many
days and weeks ago, not after all the people voted.
So it was our view - and we strongly support the decision in this regard -
that to disenfranchise the voters after they voted would have been a
mistake. If it were determined that Karadzic's role in the SDS party was
still so strong that action was needed, the proper time to have disqualified
the party would have been prior to the election, when the voters would
still have had a chance to cast their vote for a different party.
As far as some of the reporting that suggests that the Norwegian judge was
so upset by this that he intended to resign, he has spoken to us in the
last day or so and said he understood and accepted the decision of the OSCE,
the decision of Ambassador Frowick, and did intend to stay on. So I hope
that clarifies a little bit some of the reporting on that subject.
Yes.
QUESTION: Well, that still leaves the question of the influence of
Karadzic, which is clearly also a source of concern to Frowick. Do you have
any comment on that?
MR. RUBIN: Well, again, there have been many times in recent weeks and
months when we've seen the ugly head of Mr. Karadzic reared in Bosnia; and
when it rears its ugly head, we try to stop it. We have made clear that he
has made a deal. He has promised to stay out of politics, to stay out of
the public eye, and hopefully someday go to The Hague. So we do not believe
that the action with regard to the SDS in Pale should have been taken after
the vote. We'll obviously take a good, hard look at it in the context
of any new set of elections. If it is determined that he is back in the
game and that there therefore needs to be some disqualification of the SDS,
we would want to see that disqualification occur prior to the voting and
not after the voting.
QUESTION: Jamie, you say the US Government supports Frowick in your
decision.
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
QUESTION: Did the US Government, in advance of the decision, advise him
to do that?
MR. RUBIN: It's my understanding that Ambassador Frowick was in regular
and constant contact with Ambassador Gelbard during this process.
Ambassador Gelbard himself felt strongly that if people were already to
have voted, it would have been antidemocratic to then pull their ballots.
QUESTION: So, in other words, Gelbard did advise him to do what he
did?
MR. RUBIN: Well, again, I don't know who advised what to do what, but
clearly both Ambassador Gelbard and Ambassador Frowick believed that it
would have been wrong to disenfranchise those voters.
Yes.
QUESTION: Did the threat of possible retaliation against Americans in
Bosnia play any role in Ambassador Frowick's decision?
MR. RUBIN: I gather that is something that has been said in the field,
and I can't speak for him. What I can speak for is the US Government's
position. I spoke directly to Ambassador Gelbard about this several times
today in the course of other discussions, and he made clear that the
rationale, from our perspective, was not to disenfranchise the voters.
I think if you look at what's been going on in Bosnia, you will see a
willingness to accept risks on the part of diplomats and monitors and a lot
of the people working there, the risks, as pointed up by simple things that
are tragic, like accidents. So, from our perspective, the rationale was to
ensure that these voters weren't disenfranchised.
If Ambassador Frowick had additional reasons, you'll have to ask him, but
those were our reasons.
QUESTION: What about the integrity of the process? You know, you have a
review panel there which makes a decision based on its own gathering of the
facts and its serious judgment, and then it's just overturned by Frowick
for whatever reason.
MR. RUBIN: I believe it's called a subcommittee, and it's usually -
things are called subcommittees for a reason, because they have to report
to higher committees.
Yes, Laura.
QUESTION: I'd like to switch to the issue of the transmitters. We've been
following this for the last couple of days, and I'm just curious if there
is an assessment as to whether the recent agreement by Mr. Krajisnik to
comply, if you have an assessment of whether he's been in compliance and --
MR. RUBIN: So far, so good. It's our understanding that, following the
letter and following the High Representative's statement that he intended
to inform SFOR the moment that that agreement was violated, and the
decision of SFOR to take action upon any determination that there was a
violation, those very clear statements appear to have made a difference. As
of now, they appear to be abiding by the agreement that was made.
Charlie.
QUESTION: Jamie, since the Secretary's return, has she spoken to any of
the leaders in the Middle East, specifically about the settlement
controversy going on in East Jerusalem?
MR. RUBIN: I can't get specific with you on the calls that she made. I
can tell you that the United States has been in contact with the Israeli
government with regard to the Ras Al-Amoud housing project. The move of
settlers into this project is not helpful. This action represents a
lightening rod for increased tensions, which the Secretary very much hopes
we can remove. We are pleased that Prime Minister Netanyahu has expressed a
similar position. It's just this kind of an action which undermines an
action the confidence so necessary to getting the peace process back on
track.
We're not going to micro-manage exactly how this should be fixed, except to
say that when she talked about a crisis of confidence in the Middle East -
a phrase I'm sure you heard a few times, Charlie - that it wasn't about
what was legal or what was not legal. It was about what undermined
confidence and undermined trust and what could or could not help create a
climate for peace.
This kind of action is not wise. If one cares about the peace process, one
doesn't want to see these kind of actions taken.
We have made our views on this subject very clear to the Israeli Government.
They know those views. If I'm in a position to report on any specific
contacts later, we'll do that.
Crystal.
QUESTION: Jamie, you said that, obviously, this action is not wise. But
in your - and I know you can't elaborate on the conversations the Secretary
may or may not have had with the Prime Minister - but is it in your opinion
that it might be wise for the Prime Minister to try to take action to move
the settlers out of the region? Would that be productive to getting
things --
MR. RUBIN: Let me repeat myself a little bit, and hopefully answer your
question. Number one, we are pleased that the government of Prime Minister
Netanyahu seems to understand the risks associated with this kind of
project, and they oppose this kind of project.
Number two, we don't think this is a question of law. Number three, we
think that it's not up to us to micro-manage how Prime Minister Netanyahu
implements his views about the wisdom or lack of wisdom of this project. So
that's really up to the Israeli Government.
Obviously, we hope that a way is found to diffuse this situation, because
it come become a lightening rod for increased tensions, which is precisely
what we have tried to tamp down in the recent trip.
Sid.
QUESTION: Since you said this isn't a matter of law, is there some way
you're considering to limit the activities of those such as Dr. Moskowitz,
who seems to be single-handedly attempting to influence the demographics of
Jerusalem, as well as the peace process?
I understand he might be a contributor to the Democratic Party, as
well.
MR. RUBIN: Who?
QUESTION: Dr. Moskowitz.
MR. RUBIN: I can assure you the fact that he is or isn't a contributor
makes no difference whatsoever in our foreign policy.
As far as your question is concerned, we obviously don't like to see
anybody interfering with, or promoting activities that could increase
tensions. Whether or not we're in a position to act, I doubt, but I'll ask.
But I think this is really a question for the Israeli Government, and I
doubt very much that we would be in a position to do anything. Remember,
this is about property rights, people purchasing property and then trying
to build on that property, dealing with local governments, dealing with
national governments. It's really an Israeli internal matter; that's
precisely why I said we weren't in a position to micro-manage it.
Any more on the Middle East? Yes.
QUESTION: Has the State Department spoken to Dr. Moskowitz about his
activities?
MR. RUBIN: Again, I know that it seems like we can talk to whoever we
want to about subjects like this. I think the man's views are pretty well-
known. I think the issue is about his ability to operate within the Israeli
legal system with regard to the purchase and use of land. It's not obvious
to me that anything we could say or do would have any impact whatsoever.
Yes.
QUESTION: Well, has the Secretary considered maybe writing Dr. Moskowitz
a letter and setting out her views so that he's --
MR. RUBIN: I can certainly Dr. Moskowitz, through you, that we consider
this kind of action a lightening rod for an increase in tensions. Those who
support these actions, promote these actions, or otherwise are involved in
these actions are harming the peace process; therefore harming the state of
Israel. That's our view - we regard them as counterproductive.
Any more on the Middle East?
QUESTION: Jamie, don't you think that's the exact goal -- is to harm the
peace process --
MR. RUBIN: You know, you may be able to be a mind reader; I'm not.
Yes. Any more on the Middle East?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: When you visited Damascus, did the Secretary bring the
terrorism issue against other Syrian officials?
MR. RUBIN: The Secretary, in her meetings in Damascus, raised very
clearly and forthrightly our concerns about terrorism. As you know, Syria
is on our terrorist list, and the reasons for that were fully explained to
the Syrian Government. I can't report any progress in that area, other than
to assure you that they have no doubt about our view on the matter.
QUESTION: Did she specifically emphasize on the PKK and the Turkish --
MR. RUBIN: Again, when it comes to a subject like terrorism, one has to
be careful what one says and doesn't say. But across the board, I don't
think they have any doubt as to our concerns about terrorism.
Middle East?
QUESTION: Sort of.
(Laughter)
QUESTION: Libya.
MR. RUBIN: Libya.
QUESTION: Anything on the trip by Congressman Hilliard to Libya?
MR. RUBIN: At the end of August, Congressman Hilliard's office informed
us that he visited Libya. He was not acting on our behalf. His office
contacted us prior to his trip to inquire about US restrictions on travel
to Libya, but never mentioned that he would be going there. His staff next
called from Tunisia and mentioned that a trip to Libya was a possibility.
We advised his staff that the use of a US passport for travel to Libya
without prior validation from the State Department was illegal and that
such a visit would be contrary to US policy. We did not hear from his
office again until he returned to Washington and informed us that he had
gone to Libya.
Let me add that the United States is committed to enforcing sanctions
against Libya for its responsibility in the bombings of Pan Am 103 and UTA
72. The Libyan regime of Colonel Muammar Qadhafi continues to defy the will
of the international community. We are seeking, as you know, through
sanctions in the United Nations, to put pressure on the Libyans.
As far as who he met with, what he did, we're not in a position to answer
those questions, other than to say that he did not inform us about the
purpose of his visit or with whom he met.
QUESTION: Do you have any idea, Jamie, if he used his own passport to get
into Libya?
MR. RUBIN: If we knew the answer to that, there would be certain
consequences that followed from that. To the extent that your question is
leading to a law enforcement question, I would ask you to contact the
Justice Department.
QUESTION: Well, I asked the Justice Department to look into this.
MR. RUBIN: I think the Justice Department is aware of this case.
QUESTION: Jamie, on that same issue --
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Is it also correct, technically, legally correct, that if he
did not use his own passport, he would not be in violation of any US
law?
MR. RUBIN: Let me state -- violation, technically or not -- we think that
it's not a good thing to be giving any sustenance to an international
terrorist state. So we have advised, very strongly, that people don't go
there and they don't give any support to, or even implicit support - I'm
not assuming that this support was by design - but implicit support for a
country that is under international sanction. As far as your technical
question, I think we'd better take that and get the words just right, so
that I don't go beyond my legal, technical capabilities, especially
the week after a long trip.
QUESTION: Jamie, can you pinpoint the exact weekend that he was in
Libya?
MR. RUBIN: You know, I remember when this happened. It was at the end of
August. That's the most detail I have.
Any more on this? No. New subject.
QUESTION: Middle East.
MR. RUBIN: The Middle East. I've heard of that place.
QUESTION: Yesterday, Iranian President Mohammed Khatami met with a
Lebanese official. First of all, he was expressing support for the
Hezbollah; and second of all, urging a postponement of the economic summit
at Doha in November. What is the US feeling on both--on the fact that this
meeting occurred and on the possibility of postponing? Is it a good idea to
postpone the summit until the climate's a little better?
MR. RUBIN: We believe the Doha Summit is not a favor to anybody in the
region. The Secretary of State intends to go to this Doha Summit.
I doubt the motivations of the Tehran Government are pure in this regard.
They are not a supporter of the Middle East peace process. We believe the
Doha Summit is a way of opening up the region to greater economic strength
and greater economic integration. So we want the conference to go
ahead.
Yes, let's do our one Cyprus question. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Mr. Rubin, since your witness of the stopover of Madame
Secretary Albright in Larnaca, Cyprus, the other day, could you please
clarify her statements regarding security issues within Greek Cypriots and
Turkish Cypriots - most specifically, she means full de-militarization of
Cyprus? And could you please comment on reports that the US Government
would like to see a NATO force to be deployed first and then gradually
Cyprus could become a NATO member, too.
MR. RUBIN: As far as your second question is concerned, I've never heard
any discussion of that kind.
As far as your first question is concerned, the way it was explained to me
and the Secretary when this agreement was struck was that they were going
to be able to talk about security issues. Security issues means everything
from stepping back from the green line, trying to improve confidence-
building measures across the green line, to ultimately any of the issues
that fall under the rubric of security.
But I think the target for these discussions would tend to be in the area
of confidence-building measures. But by definition, the word security
leaves a lot of room for discussion.
Again, I would steer you towards confidence-building measures.
QUESTION: Could you please give us a readout so far on Tom Miller's trip
in the area? And where is he now?
MR. RUBIN: The readout on his trip is that he met us on the tarmac in
Larnaca and informed us of what he was able to achieve, and we put out a
statement to that effect. So I think he's quite pleased with his trip.
Yes.
QUESTION: What about the other European capitals?
MR. RUBIN: I'll have to get some further information for you on
that.
Yes.
QUESTION: Mr. Rubin, does the Department of State welcome - as has
already the governments of South Korea and North Korea, the Department of
Defense and the White House, as well - a global --
MR. RUBIN: Sounds like we do.
(Laughter)
If everybody's for it.
QUESTION: Well, we haven't been able to get much response here. A global
all-faith intercession and support of the four-party talks and also famine
relief in North Korea. We're already on the air, as of yesterday, short-
wave, globally. Would Madame Albright also endorse or welcome such an
effort?
MR. RUBIN: I don't think that has been specifically posed to her, but we
will do so and get you an answer.
QUESTION: But the Department definitely does?
MR. RUBIN: Well, she is the Department, so let's pose it to her.
(Laughter)
Thank you. One more, yeah.
QUESTION: Allow me to go back to the Middle East. During the same week
that the Palestinian and Israeli delegations will arrive here to Washington,
Secretary Albright will be meeting in New York with the United Nations. Is
she really giving up on the Middle East?
MR. RUBIN: No, in short. The meetings that are going to be held next week,
I believe starting on Tuesday here, are lower level meetings that she will
not be attending. But they are designed to hopefully build progress towards
the meeting that she will host - a trilateral meeting with Foreign Minister
Levy and Abu Mazen in New York, and the Secretary.
So to the extent we have further steps, small or big, she will be engaged.
I think she's made quite clear that she will remain absorbed in the issue
of the Middle East and continue to work on ways in which to help get us out
of this crisis of confidence and back to the peace negotiating table.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Jamie, sorry, one more on Cambodia.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have a position on the representation of Cambodia at the
United Nations?
MR. RUBIN: Well, that issue is going to come up for discussion later
today, as I understand it. The United States will not be in a position to
concur in the seating of a Cambodian delegation which represents a regime
which seized power through undemocratic means.
This may not be a position that gets a lot of support at the United Nations,
but as the United States, we need to stand up for certain principles. We do
not believe that the delegation that will be presented will be one that
accurately reflects the proper situation in Cambodia. In fact, it's a
delegation which seized power through undemocratic means.
And as the country that does, I think, more than any other to promote
democracy, we fell it's very important to make clear that a delegation not
reflecting democracy - in fact, reflecting anti-democratic forces - ought
not to be seated at the UN. Although we are realistic about the likelihood
of getting support from other countries, we think it's very important to
take this stand.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:40 P.M.)
|
