U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #144, 97-10-06
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1100
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, October 6, 1997
Briefer: James P. Rubin
STATEMENTS/DEPT.
1 Secretary's Schedule
1-2 Bosnia/Croatia: War Crimes Tribunal
ISRAEL
2-3 Israel/Palestinian Trade of Prisoners
3-4 Palestinian Efforts to Fight Terrorism
4-5 US Position on Hamas and Mossad
5-8 US View on Terrorism in the Middle East
8-9 Amb. Ross and trilateral meeting
10-11 Sheinbein case
IRAQ
9-10 Attack on UN building in Bagdad
LIBYA
11-12 Progress on TWA 800/Lockerbie case
INDIA
12 Timing of Confirmation of Nominated US Ambassador
12,14-15 Secretary's and U/S Pickering's Trips to India
ALGERIA
12-13 Massacre of School Children
13 US View of Increased Violence
IRELAND
13-14 Meetings of Ulster Unionist Mr. David Trimble in Washington
14 Request for IRA to be on US Terrorism list
HELMS-BURTON
15 Extension of EU consideration beyond Oct 15th deadline
IRAN/FRANCE/EU/RUSSIA/MALAYSIA
15-17 Consideration of US sanctions against TOTAL, et al, for
South Pars gas deal
BOSNIA/CROATIA/SERBIA
17-18 Surrender of Croatian War Crimes Indictees
18-19 Gelbard meeting with Milosevic
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #144
MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1997, 12:40 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Hi. Welcome to the State Department briefing.
Today is Monday. Secretary Albright has attended already today one session
of the White House Conference on Climate Change. She will be speaking this
afternoon at another session.
Tomorrow she will be testifying at 10:30 a.m. before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee on the subject of NATO enlargement. That is the kick-
off hearing for the Senate Foreign Relations consideration of this issue,
prior to an actual transmission of a proposed amendment that would bring
additional members into the NATO alliance. That amendment would only come
after a decision was made -- probably around the time of the December
ministerial meeting. But the committee has begun its consideration of
this issue prior to that submission. Secretary Albright will be the
only witness in the kick-off for those - apparently, a set of hearings,
which I'm sure Mr. Thiessen can give you more details about.
QUESTION: One thing, though, has she gone up, traditionally? Most of the
time people go up ahead of time and talk to members of the committee and
try to smooth over any --
MR. RUBIN: She's had many discussions with them on NATO enlargement. I
think most of her contacts with senators in recent days and weeks have been
about the bills pending before the Congress, and not on this subject.
I have one statement I'd like to read, and then I'd be happy to take your
questions.
The United States applauds the actions taken today by the government of
Croatia and the Bosnian Croats' leadership in effecting the surrender of
the ten Bosnian Croat indictees to the International Criminal Tribunal in
The Hague.
This is a significant step forward in the Dayton peace process. As sponsor
of the Dayton peace agreement and one of the strongest supporters of the
War Crimes Tribunal, the United States is fully committed to helping ensure
that the obligations of all signatories to the peace agreement are
fulfilled.
Until today, overall cooperation with the Tribunal by the parties had been
disappointing. Today's developments signal a new determination by the
Croatian Government and Bosnian Croat leaders in the Federation to fulfill
their responsibilities with regard to implementation of the Dayton peace
agreement. Those who surrendered today will be assured of a fair trial and
due process.
Their willingness to appear voluntarily at The Hague to face the charges
brought against them is an example that other indictees would be well-
advised to follow.
Two months ago today in Split, in a meeting with Special Representative
Gelbard, President Tudjman undertook to do his utmost to effect the
surrender of Croat indictees still at large to the Tribunal. That
commitment has now produced concrete results.
We look forward to further close cooperation with Croatia. The United
States and Croatia have a shared interest in the full and successful
implementation of the Washington, Dayton and Erdut Agreements. We intend to
work closely with President Tudjman and his government in the coming months
toward that end.
The failure of Belgrade and Pale to comply with their obligations under
Dayton on war crimes stands in stark contrast to the events of today.
Bosnian Serb indictees, including Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and others
remain at large. This is unacceptable.
Today's step forward results from the combination of coordinated allied
pressure, the determination of the United States, the political will of the
Croatian Government and the credible threat of apprehension.
Those indictees still at large who choose not to surrender must know that
the United States remains committed to keeping open all possible options
for making them available to the Tribunal for prosecution.
I have significant additional detail on this issue, should you all be
interested.
Barry.
QUESTION: There's nothing on that. I thought I'd ask you about the
unusual swap between Israel and the Palestinians. Obviously, the State
Department's observations would be welcome. I'm specifically wondering if
the US can make a credible argument now that Arafat should root out -
dismantle terrorist operations. Did this deal have the US blessing? What do
you think of the deal, considering the US used to have a position against
dealing with terrorists? Maybe it still does; I don't know.
MR. RUBIN: Let me say this, Barry. We were not involved in this affair in
any significant way. You will have to address yourself to the parties in
the region. I am not going to be in a position to comment on our diplomatic
exchanges, except to say that we have had extensive diplomatic contact with
both governments, as would be expected at normal times and especially now.
I can say that one of our major concerns has been to protect Jordanian-
Israeli relations, which remain a cornerstone of the peace process.
As far as your question on terrorism is concerned, our position on Hamas is
clear. They have repeatedly shown that they do not support the peace
process and use terrorism to destroy it. We are opposed to Hamas for that
reason and believe it is essential that its terrorist infrastructure be
dismantled.
As far as any comment on the Sheikh's return to Gaza, again, this is
something that was worked out between the parties in the region, and none
of that changes our view of Hamas. There is little in the organization's
behavior in recent times - their rejection of the peace process, their
promotion of terror - that leads us to believe they are a moderate
force.
As you know, Dennis Ross is in the region today, working to implement the
Secretary's efforts to put the peace process back on track. This is where
we believe the focus should be, and we will continue to work with the
parties on the various subjects. But as the events of the last week show,
progress in the peace process is primarily up to the parties in the region.
It is based on the decisions they make and how they choose to deal with one
another. As the Secretary has said repeatedly, the tough decisions must be
taken by them.
With respect to your question on the Israelis fighting terrorism, I can say
this: the Israelis have the obligation to defend their people from
terrorist acts, and we are not in the habit of second-guessing Israel when
it comes to her security. That said, we believe that Israel must take into
account the repercussions and consequences of any actions it takes in its
fight against terror.
QUESTION: What does that mean?
MR. RUBIN: It means - I could repeat it.
QUESTION: You could. I don't know if it would mean any more. Is it
apropos today's event, or do you mean --
MR. RUBIN: It's in general.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, you have opinions about border closings. You
don't second-guess Israel, but you tell them to ease up on travel
restrictions, for instance.
MR. RUBIN: Right --
QUESTION: So I don't know what you mean by that brave statement.
MR. RUBIN: I don't think it was a brave statement.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, general - you know, that absolutist statement.
There are ups and downs in individual situations, and the US, you know, has
a more subtle policy than that.
MR. RUBIN: Right. In different situations, different policies apply.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. RUBIN: Some situations relate to settlement activity. Some situations
relate to final status issues. Some situations relate to diplomatic
contacts. And some situations relate to terrorism. And as I said, the
Israelis have the obligations to defend their people from terrorist
acts.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. RUBIN: We are not in the habit of second-guessing Israel when it
comes to her security. On the other hand, we believe that Israel must take
into account the repercussions and consequences of any actions it takes in
its fight against terror. I think that speaks for itself.
QUESTION: Well, the first sentence sounds understanding and sympathetic
to the swap. The second sentence sounds reproachful. So I don't know what
to make of it.
MR. RUBIN: Well --
QUESTION: But that's - maybe it's my problem. If you think it's clear - I
can't communicate that, because I have no idea what it means.
QUESTION: Are you familiar with reports that the EU allowed Leon Brittan
to continue talks past the October 15 deadline?
MR. RUBIN: I think they want to stay on this one.
QUESTION: On this subject, you speak of --
MR. RUBIN: But thanks.
QUESTION: You speak of Hamas as if it is a monolithic terrorist
organization. The Hamas people say that much of their funding and much of
their work goes into social work - schools, nurseries and other things.
One, do you believe that it is primarily essentially a terrorist organization?
And two, do you believe it is monolithic?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to get into an analytical discussion of the
precise aspects of every different operation or product or project of
Hamas.
I can say that we believe they are not a moderate force; that they have
sponsored terror; and that they are, therefore, the enemies of peace. When
it comes to distinguishing between genuine charitable efforts, humanitarian
efforts, and the support of terror, we believe there is a way to distinguish.
The way to distinguish is to make an analysis, case by case, of the extent
to which any particular institution has a military component or sponsors
a military component, promotes a military component, or takes action
that contributes to the acts of terror.
The dozen-plus institutions that were shut down by Chairman Arafat in
recent days were cases and examples where those institutions did support
the terrorist infrastructure that we're trying to eliminate. So one can't
make any statement more clear than those institutions - whether their label
is "Hamas humanitarian" or "Hamas military" - if they have support or
infrastructure that supports terrorism, then we believe they should be shut
down.
QUESTION: Jamie, in light of actions of the last couple of weeks, does
the United States consider the Mossad a terrorist organization?
MR. RUBIN: Wow. I think the best answer I can give you to this question
is to say that the United States, as a matter of law, does not conduct
assassinations. We have a law against that; therefore, we're opposed to it.
And therefore, we're opposed to assassinations by other governments as
well.
QUESTION: What do you make of Sheikh Yassin's return to Gaza? I mean,
there are figures of over 15,000 people - he was given a hero's welcome.
Are his supporters also driven to extremism if Hamas is not a moderate
force?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to be in a position to analyze the motivation of
all 15,000 people that may or may not be greeting him on his return. I
don't know the numbers of his greeting.
What I can say is that our government has been working very closely with
the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government to try to identify
specific institutions that we believe sponsor or support terrorism; and to
work to convince Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority to shut
those institutions down. Whatever their label, whatever their espoused
purpose, if their function practically, substantively and realistically
gives support to those who commit these evil acts of terrorism, then we
want them shut down. Those people who support them ought to be arrested,
and ought to stay in jail.
That's our position on terrorism. It's one that we have taken for some
time. It's one the Secretary laid out very clearly in the region when she
was there. And regardless of the events of the last week, that has not
changed. That's our view of terrorism.
QUESTION: Jamie, how can you ask the Palestinian Authority to stop the
revolving door policy, when Israel releases 20-something alleged terrorists
or terrorist supporters now, with, according to reports, another 40 to 50
to follow in the coming weeks?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I don't have the latest information on who may or may
not have been released. But I can say this: we view those who support
terrorism and sponsor terrorism in the Middle East as the enemies of peace.
They are the enemies of the Palestinian people; they are the enemies of the
Israeli people.
Regardless of what may or may not occur, our position is unchanged. We want
the sponsors of terrorism, those who support terrorism to be taken down,
their infrastructure to be dismantled, and these people arrested and stay
in jail. That is the position of the United States.
QUESTION: You're saying - I don't quite understand. You're saying that
this government - the Clinton Administration is opposed to political
assassination by other governments.
MR. RUBIN: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And yet earlier you say Israel has an obligation to defend its
nation against terrorist attacks - this in response to a question about
their political assassination. Can you further explain the Clinton
Administration's position on this attack? It just doesn't - the two are
contradictory --
MR. RUBIN: Well, I have not made a comment on our position on this
attack. I've been very clear on that. Any question about that has to be
directed towards the Israeli Government or the Jordanian Government.
If asked our position on a matter of policy, number one, the difficult
situation Israel faces in the Middle East as a country that has been the
subject of heinous acts of terrorism as recently as the last several weeks,
where innocent people were slaughtered on the street - doing nothing more
than going to the market, some of whom Secretary Albright visited with in
Israel -- we understand the difficult neighborhood in which they live and
the difficult, extraordinary problem that they face. That's a clear
position of the United States.
At the same time, as a matter of policy, if the question is, "Do we support
assassinations?", the answer is, as a matter of law, this nation has
prohibited assassinations and therefore, as a matter of law, we regard them
as something to be opposed and we oppose them.
QUESTION: Do you condemn this attempted assassination by the government
of Israel?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to comment on the specific details of this. I
haven't been given them. We don't have a position on the specific details
of this case, other than to say that we have had extensive diplomatic
contact with Israel and Jordan. We would like to see the best possible
relations between them, and that's the goal of our diplomacy.
QUESTION: Does Jordan have a responsibility to root out terrorists?
QUESTION: Let me just follow up, please.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: So is it fair to say that until the situation is further
clarified to you, you cannot make a comment on this attempted assassination?
MR. RUBIN: Right, and if ever, yes.
QUESTION: You're asking the Palestinian Authority to root out terrorists.
The Administration has introduced legislation that some people think is on
shaky constitutional grounds, but it represents a determination to choke
off terrorist supporters in this country. Do your friends like Jordan have
a responsibility not to harbor terrorists?
MR. RUBIN: I think we've made clear to every country in the world that
harboring and supporting terrorist organizations and terrorists is
something that is a bad thing. I certainly think that would apply to Jordan
as it would to any country.
As far as whether that applies in this specific case, I have no details to
provide you on the case, other than to say what our policy is on terrorism,
what our policy is on political assassinations, and what our policy is on
the importance of good relations between Jordan and Israel.
Yes.
QUESTION: Jamie, I'm just going back to follow up on something that you
had said. You said that terrorists should be in jail, they should stay in
jail, they should be punished, and there should be an unrelenting effort on
everybody's side - from what I'm assuming from your remarks. So that would
lead one to believe or characterize Israel's release of the Sheikh as maybe
an enemy of peace, that action. By releasing him to Gaza, is it fair to say
that Israel acted inappropriately or as an enemy of peace, because you
said that --
MR. RUBIN: I think I've been pretty clear that I'm not going to react to
the specifics of this case.
Yes.
QUESTION: Not even to say that maybe tracking down a Hamas leader in
another country would be unhelpful to the peace process?
MR. RUBIN: Not even to say that, correct.
QUESTION: Not even to say that.
QUESTION: No, but when you say Israel - if you want to speak generically,
you speak generically of Israel's right -- you seem to support it - to
defend itself against terrorism. Are there territorial limits to that
defense? Do they only hunt down terrorists in the West Bank, or could they
hunt them down in Jordan?
QUESTION: Or the United States.
QUESTION: Or the United States? Does terrorism stop at a - I mean, are
you putting a bigger burden on Arafat than you're putting on the King?
QUESTION: Or the Prime Minister of Israel?
MR. RUBIN: Other than that, our policy is clear?
(Laughter)
QUESTION: I sympathize with you. I mean, when the Labor government was
ready to recognize the Palestinian state, the spokesman had to stand up
here and say they had no such position. It became rather immaterial,
because the players in the area had already moved beyond your position. You
know, I --
MR. RUBIN: Barry, the details of this case are unfolding as we speak, in
various fora. Ambassador Ross is there. I have every reason to think this
issue will be discussed at length, because how could one not discuss it? We
have been discussing it in diplomatic contacts. As far as our overall
policy towards terrorism that Chairman Arafat must fight, I think I've been
clear, and nothing has changed. As far as our position on Israel's
difficult situation, I think I've been clear. As far as our position
on political assassinations, I think I've been clear.
But putting all those positions together with the details if this case, and
giving you reactions that you understandably want, would require going
through the details of the case, which we are not prepared to do at this
time.
QUESTION: Have the talks begun? I didn't notice --
MR. RUBIN: They should have begun, yes.
QUESTION: Where are they?
MR. RUBIN: They are --
QUESTION: Is the US at the table?
MR. RUBIN: Dennis Ross, Ambassador Ross, is at the table, yes. He told me
his first set of meetings should be - I guess they are actually - the
trilateral is going to start in about two hours.
QUESTION: In Jerusalem?
MR. RUBIN: I believe he is in Jerusalem, but I'll have to - does anyone
know where he is?
QUESTION: And you're still on schedule for next week --
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: -- bringing them here?
MR. RUBIN: There's been no change as a result of these developments in
Israel of our meeting this week or meetings next week.
QUESTION: Can I push a little bit? Is it Washington next week?
MR. RUBIN: In the Washington area.
QUESTION: I mean, Delaware was last noticed to be in the Washington
area.
MR. RUBIN: We have a week to work out the location. I'll work it out for
you as soon as I can. They've only given me "in the Washington area," which
means they probably haven't finally decided.
Yes.
QUESTION: Jamie, generally speaking, is terrorism justified when its
stated purpose is to combat terrorism?
(Laughter)
MR. RUBIN: That sounds like a trick question, Norm. I think I can only
answer it by saying that we oppose political assassinations in this country
as a matter of law; and we therefore oppose them by other foreign
governments.
Can we go to another subject?
QUESTION: Will there be a briefing tomorrow?
MR. RUBIN: The Secretary will be testifying tomorrow. We will not be
briefing.
QUESTION: Can we have the Middle East, but different topics?
MR. RUBIN: Okay.
QUESTION: Over the weekend, the World Health Organization was attacked in
Baghdad, and Iraq - at least the official Iraqi news agency accused the
Iranians of being behind the attack. Does the US know who was behind
it?
MR. RUBIN: We have seen reports that attackers threw grenades and fired
bullets at a UN facility in a residential part of Baghdad the night of
Saturday, October 4. The reports variously identify the building as housing
the World Health Organization or the Food and Agricultural Organization.
There were no casualties among UN employees. According to reports that we
have, one attacker reportedly was injured and taken into custody by the
Iraqi army. It is unclear who was responsible for the attack, but the
United States condemns this attack on UN offices, whatever its source and
for whatever reason.
QUESTION: Does this affect military operations at all? I mean, I know you
don't usually comment on Pentagon stuff, but the Nimitz is going, as we
heard last night --
MR. RUBIN: Right, I think Secretary Cohen said today in Paris that the
deployment of the Nimitz is designed as a signal to Iraq of our determination
to enforce the no-fly zone. I can't imagine this incident would affect that
in any way whatsoever.
QUESTION: Are you concerned there might be further attacks in Baghdad or
in other cities?
MR. RUBIN: There is always concern about the safety of international
personnel in Baghdad. There have been numerous incidents over the years of
attacks on them. We have received assurances of protection for them from
the Iraqi Government, but they always take the necessary precautions. That
especially includes the international inspectors for the UN Special
Commission on Disarmament.
But at this time, we have no reason that I'm aware of to suggest this is
the beginning of some wave.
QUESTION: Is the deployment of the Nimitz only a signal to Iraq?
MR. RUBIN: I think he said that that way for a reason, yes.
QUESTION: Not to Iran?
MR. RUBIN: I think he said it that way for a reason.
QUESTION: Can we go back just for a second?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Has the Secretary had any recent conversations with any of the
players - Netanyahu, the King, Arafat?
MR. RUBIN: Secretary Albright did send a message to Prime Minister
Netanyahu with regard to the Sheinbein case, in which she made clear that
we think that the maximum cooperation from the Israeli Government would be
helpful in trying to bring this person to justice.
We understand that Israeli authorities, from him, are continuing to review
the issue of whether he is entitled to Israeli citizenship.
As you know, prosecutors from Maryland are in Israel discussing the case.
The citizenship issue remains under review.
It's our view that the Israeli Government should assist us in bringing Mr.
Sheinbein to justice in the United States.
If your question was with regard to the other incidents, I'm not aware of
any conversations by her with any of the key players over this weekend.
QUESTION: I think you answered. I'll just make sure. By maximum
cooperation, she includes a trial in the United States, or justice in the
United States?
MR. RUBIN: Well, that is certainly - we are trying to do what we can
pursuant to everybody's laws to bring him to justice.
As far as the specifics of the extradition request and where it stands, I
would have to refer you to the Justice Department. But she did want to make
clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu that this was a case that was important
to the United States, and that we wanted him to do everything possible --
obviously consistent with international law and his laws and our laws -- to
bring this case to closure quickly, with the goal of bringing him to
justice in the United States.
Yes.
QUESTION: Libya?
MR. RUBIN: Libya.
QUESTION: Quickly, does the U.S. have any policy, anything more to say on
the dispute over the suspects in the Lockerbie crash and the dispute going
on in the UN now over where they should be tried?
MR. RUBIN: I don't think there's that much of a dispute. When the
Secretary was in New York -- the occasional comment does come up about
exploring the option of going to a different format. But Foreign Minister
Cook was very clear that you can't have a Scottish court and Scottish
justice if you're in another country. We are looking to the international
community to continue its support of the United States and the United
Kingdom, to bring to justice those responsible for the Lockerbie terrorist
incident; and that requires them to be handed over for justice in
either Scotland or the United States. That position has not changed.
QUESTION: What about the report in The New York Times on Saturday that
Libya is smuggling goods?
MR. RUBIN: Well, there are always leaks in sanctions regimes. As the
report in The New York Times indicated - I think I just broke my rule,
mentioning a news organization - as the report mentioned, have a lot of
people working this problem, and I'm sure that they will continue to work
this problem, perhaps with renewed energy as a result of recent news
reports.
Yes.
QUESTION: Jamie, India is without a US ambassador for some time, and a
lot of top officials are visiting India, including a meeting with President
Clinton of the Prime Minister of India in the UN. There's a new nomination
of the US ambassador to India, but still it's taking time. Also, at the
same time, you have questions if he's going to be confirmed before
Ambassador Thomas Pickering's visit to India and Pakistan. Also, do you
have any agenda about the visit to India and Pakistan of Ambassador Thomas
Pickering?
MR. RUBIN: As I know myself, the timing for nominations and confirmations
is not a subject for determination by the Executive Branch. It's a subject
that is fully determined by the Senate, and I urge you to inquire of them
what their time frame is. Obviously, we would like him to be confirmed as
soon as possible.
As far as the agenda and timing for the visits of Under Secretary Pickering
and then the Secretary in November, we can try to get you some additional
information on that later this afternoon.
Yes.
QUESTION: Do you think, Jamie, the Ambassador's nomination to India is
going to be confirmed by the Senate? Do you have any idea if he's going to
be confirmed? Do you see any opposition, especially from Senator Helms?
MR. RUBIN: I think that we hope and expect that he will be confirmed by
the Senate as soon as possible.
QUESTION: Jamie, yesterday --
MR. RUBIN: I got in "hope," "expect," and "as soon as possible" in one
sentence.
Sorry.
QUESTION: Yesterday, in Algeria, a busload of young children was forced
off the road, and then they had their throats slit and they were shot in
the head by some group, perhaps associated with the government. The list of
atrocities there is getting almost genocidal in its proportions.
Last week, the State Department came out with a large volume, a mission
statement and goals, part of which was to prevent things like this
happening -- an obligation to step in, stop things like this. How long is
the Clinton Administration going to stand by and allow this to continue in
Algeria? Is there anything you all are planning to do, besides platitudes
from the podiums in Washington?
MR. RUBIN: I really like that last one.
The United States has condemned these massacres in the past and will
continue to do so. For those of you who were in New York with the Secretary,
I reported on her behalf a discussion she had with French Foreign Minister
Vedrine, in which they both expressed their horror at the developments in
Algeria in this regard, and pledged to develop a dialogue between our two
governments to see whether there were any actions that we and the French
could take together or in coordination, or in complement with each other,
to try to assist the process here.
But beyond that, I don't have anything to say, other than we condemn it and
we, as a result of those meetings, will soon begin a dialogue with the
French Government, which also has unique influence in that area, to see
what can be done.
QUESTION: Do you have a current policy towards Algeria?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: What is it?
MR. RUBIN: It will be provided for the record.
QUESTION: On Algeria, is there a point at which - Algeria claims that
it's an internal, domestic problem and they can handle it very well by
themselves, thank you very much. Is there a point at which the US does
intervene? Is there some procedure, is there something --
MR. RUBIN: As I said, the Secretary had a discussion with Foreign
Minister Vedrine about their joint concerns about this problem, and their
horror at the specific massacres. They pledged to work together in the
coming weeks to see whether there is something that the two governments,
with their unique influence and role, can do.
QUESTION: Jamie, another subject. The leader of the Ulster Unionist Party,
David Trimble, is in town. He's supposed to be seeing some State Department
officials tomorrow. Does the Secretary plan to meet him?
MR. RUBIN: As I understand it, he is in Washington this week to meet with
a variety of officials. Tuesday morning he will be at the National Security
Council, and in the afternoon he is meeting with Under Secretary Pickering.
He also will be meeting with various members of Congress, and we understand
he will be at the National Press Club on Thursday. But at this time, I'm
not aware of a meeting scheduled.
QUESTION: He was there this morning. Anyway, the --
MR. RUBIN: Well, then that is wrong.
QUESTION: The White House - yes, that's wrong. The White House let it be
known that President Clinton is going to drop in on the meeting tomorrow
with the National Security Advisor. I wondered if the Secretary is planning
to drop in on the Pickering meeting.
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of a plan at this point. I know that he's
meeting with Under Secretary Pickering. I haven't seen a drop-by like that
on her schedule.
QUESTION: Also, he mentioned that the State Department is working on a
list of terrorist organizations under the law that was passed last year by
Congress. And he put in the request that the IRA be put in that organization.
MR. RUBIN: On that list?
QUESTION: Yes, on the list.
MR. RUBIN: The Secretary has been reviewing assiduously a mountain of
paperwork on this very important issue. We are plowing through the legal
requirements of making such determinations.
As you know, once such determinations are made, they are subject to court
challenge. This has required extensive review with other agencies. That
review is coming to a head. Soon, I hope to be in a position to report to
you on the results of that work; but not now.
QUESTION: If I could just go back to Algeria for a second, to your last
statement there. You say US policy towards Algeria will be provided for the
record later. Would you make that public for us, please?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, I was using shorthand.
QUESTION: You will make that public?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Can we go back to India for just a second? You said that Under
Secretary Thomas Pickering's visit will follow - the Secretary of State
will be visiting the region of India and Pakistan. Does he carry some kind
of political message from the Secretary? And what is he going to discuss
about Indo-US and US-Pakistan relations, or India-Pakistan relations?
MR. RUBIN: As I indicated, we will try to get you a description of what
the topics for those meetings will be. The Secretary is still reviewing the
options for her November trip, and we don't have any at this point.
I'm surprised, having stood here for several months and being asked
regularly about whether the Croatian Government was ever going to turn over
war criminals, and there has been an extensive and important development,
and it seems to have passed the interest of the press corps.
QUESTION: Oh, you can't tell.
QUESTION: Can we get back to my question?
QUESTION: If you want to take that up, are you going to now release some
money for Croatia? Is that the payoff here? Is that how ---
MR. RUBIN: What was your question?
QUESTION: About Leon --
MR. RUBIN: In the back, yes.
QUESTION: Thank you. I have a question about Leon Brittan.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Are you familiar with reports that he's been given permission
to extend the Helms-Burton talks past the October 15 deadline?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have any information. That isn't our deadline; that's
their deadline. We are working with them to try by October 15 -- their
stated deadline -- to work out disciplines on the question of expropriated
property, and we will be working assiduously on that subject. But I don't
have any information. I will see whether they have extended the deadline.
We can get you an answer to that. But if they have, that's fine with
us.
QUESTION: I have a follow-up to that.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Will the US waive sanctions for Total?
MR. RUBIN: No decision has been made concerning the imposition of
sanctions under the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act against Total and its
investment partners, the Russian company Gazprom and the Malaysian company
Petronas, for their reported investment in Iran's South Pars gas deal. As
we have said before, we are actively investigating this case to determine
whether sanctionable activity has occurred.
I'm not going to anticipate the results of our review or speculate about
what decisions we will make. This is the law, and we will implement it. It
is one of the tools the United States Government uses to address our
concerns about Iranian-sponsored terrorism and Iran's efforts to acquire
nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
Our European allies share these concerns and are already cooperating with
us in many important ways, particularly in preventing the proliferation of
military hardware and dual use technology that can be used to build weapons
of mass destruction; but we still have important differences over how best
to advance our goals regarding Iran. Over the past several months, we have
intensified our dialogue with representatives of the European Union on
these issues. We intend to continue that dialogue, regardless of the
outcome of the South Pars case, with a view to bringing our policies closer
together.
We are going to be sending experts to the three countries to investigate
and talk with officials in those countries about the terms of these
contracts as part of the work that we need to do to make a determination of
whether sanctionable activity has taken place or will take place. That
investigation, as you know again, could take time because of the importance
of making sure it can withstand a court challenge that has been promised by
the Europeans and others.
QUESTION: Are you saying there's no prima facie situation here calling
for sanctions?
MR. RUBIN: No, there is not a prima facie case; there is a case that is
sufficiently clear to justify an investigation, but not sufficiently clear
to make a determination.
QUESTION: I mean, I ask because the monetary threshold is --
MR. RUBIN: Right. Right, there are a lot of legal--
QUESTION: -- exceeded, but there are other --
MR. RUBIN: -- aspects to it, because, again, the important thing here is
that you have to be able to withstand a court challenge. There are other
aspects of the law -- what is the purpose of the contract; did it precede
the law's application; were some of the aspects of it grandfathered?
There's a whole series of legal hurdles that one must pass through to be
sure that we've met our own test, and therefore that it can meet any court
challenge that might result.
QUESTION: Not to extend this point and extend the briefing, but the
nuclear proliferation issue, even if that isn't part of this, you still
have something to look at in regard to sanctions. That's a very unclear
question. What I'm saying is --
MR. RUBIN: Which nuclear --
QUESTION: The inquiry goes beyond whether, in some way, Iran is helped
with a nuclear program; right? There can be a sanction even if the deal
doesn't benefit Iran's program, is what I'm trying to say.
MR. RUBIN: Yes. As I understand, the law is about investment in the oil
and gas sector. It is our view that money is fungible, and additional funds
provided to the Iranian Government make it easier for them to conduct the
activities that we oppose so strongly, including terrorism, including the
seeking of weapons of mass destruction.
But the extent to which this particular contract - which has not been
published, reports of it have been discussed - would be covered by the law
is something a government, before it makes an announcement, wants to do a
very careful investigation of because this case is sufficiently controversial
that it could, if sanctions were imposed, yield a court challenge that
would require us to be sure we had dotted all our "i"s and crossed all our
"t"s before stating whether it was sanctionable.
QUESTION: I ask because you seem to find common ground with the Europeans
in fighting Iranian-sponsored terrorism. So I wondered if the policy was
tilted in a way that was understanding of the deal. Apparently not. You
still have - money is fungible. You still have concern about helping Iran
in any way, shape or form.
MR. RUBIN: Correct. We have an embargo on all trade from the United
States. I guess it would be a sanctions policy on all trade with the
government of Iran because we believe that we've put our money where our
mouth is when it comes to trading with Iran and our policy towards Iran. We
wish that other governments would understand the risks associated with
supporting, however indirectly, a government that is determined to support
international terrorism and seek nuclear weapons.
QUESTION: Do you want to say anything about Croatia? I'm remembering --
QUESTION: When are those experts going to the three countries?
MR. RUBIN: Soon, yes.
QUESTION: I'm remembering that day with Tudjman, and how subsequently US
support throughout that area - even to towns - was carefully calibrated on
their compliance with Dayton.
MR. RUBIN: Right.
QUESTION: Are you about to at least support some sort of suspended bank
loans or in some way will Croatia benefit from its actions?
MR. RUBIN: Well, as the statement indicated, we have praised the
government of Croatia for their critical role in the voluntary transfer of
indictees to the tribunal.
Let's remember who we're talking about here. In this one case, we're
talking about a gentleman named Kordic, who was responsible for, according
to the tribunal, the worst kind of atrocities in Central Bosnia: bombing
towns where civilians were present when there were no militaries present,
and then slaughtering civilians who were trying to run away.
The people who were surrendered were the subject of separate indictments,
and we have worked very, very hard with the government of Croatia to try to
convince them of the wisdom of having these people turned over.
The way we did that, and the reason why we're so pleased that this has come
about, is we had a coordinated policy with our allies to try to make clear
to the government of Croatia that a failure to get these people to turn
over would prevent Croatia from getting the benefits of reintegration into
the international community - including loans at international financial
institutions, and including relations with the United States that they are
seeking very strongly.
As far as whether this particular action will yield a change in the
international financial institutions, I would remind you, or tell you that
there are four other indictees who have not yet been turned over. But as a
decision is made and we consult with Congress on any future vote in
international financial institutions, we will take this welcome and
positive development into account.
QUESTION: The other indictees - do you have anything about talks which
Ambassador Gelbard had with President Milosevic in Belgrade?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, he met with President Milosevic a few hours ago. He
discussed with him the important issues related to the Dayton Accords of
getting the police in Bosnia restructured; of getting a commitment from
President Milosevic to work to ensure that the media there was as free and
as fair as possible - and that relates to the transmitters that SFOR is in
control of.
As far as the war criminals issue is concerned, I think the case he made to
Mr. Milosevic is, it's now your turn -- if you want your country to rejoin
the international community, if you want to be able to have the benefits of
the new Europe that is being built, then you should pay close attention and
take heed what President Tudjman has done by using his influence with
Bosnian Croats to get important indictees turned over to the War Crimes
Tribunal -- and that a failure by President Milosevic to take those steps
will leave him continually isolated in the international community, and
will leave his people continuing to suffer from the isolation that we will
continue to impose on him.
QUESTION: Was he moved at all by Mr. Gelbard's statement? Did he say
anything different than he's said in the past?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware that President Milosevic made any new commitments
on this subject.
QUESTION: Are you also working with the Russian and Malaysian Governments
over your concerns?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, I said that the experts that will be sent out will go to
all three countries.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:20 P.M.)
|
