U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #145, 97-10-08

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Wednesday, October 8, 1997

Briefer: James P. Rubin

TERRORISM/DEPARTMENT
1		Secretary of State Designates 30 Groups as Foreign
		  Terrorist Organizations Under Anti-Terrorism Law of 1996
TERRORISM LIST
1-2		Scope of Legislation
2-4,6-7,9-10	Criteria for Designation of Specific Organizations Placed
		  on List/Absence of Mossad and IRA
4		Penalties for Designated Organizations
4		Potential Court Challenges to Law
8		Review of Designated Organizations An Ongoing Process
9		Implementation of Law Effective Immediately
CHINA
10-11		DAS Einhorn Consultations on Non-Proliferation Issues
PEACE PROCESS
11-13		Impact of Netanyahu-Arafat Mtg./Oct. 13 Washington Talks on
		  Four-Part Agenda/Postponed/Interim Committee Mtgs. To Be
		  Current Focus of Peace Process
13-14		Death of Israeli Soldiers in Southern Lebanon
14		US Reaction to Hamas Cease-fire Proposal
RUSSIA
15		Report of Expulsion of US Peace Corps Volunteers
ISRAEL
15		Sheinbein Case/Letter from Netanyahu to Secretary
NORTH KOREA
15-16		Election of Kim Jong-Il to Post of General Secretary
17		Date for Departure of Assessment Team
ESPIONAGE
16-17		Involvement of FBI Undercover Agents in Espionage Case
GREAT LAKES REGION
17		Designation of Special Envoy
IRAN
18		Naval Maneuvers
MEXICO
18		Anti-Narcotics Efforts

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #145

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1997, 12:30 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. RUBIN: You should have one fact sheet and one list of organizations, and we will be providing you with copies of our anti-terrorism report at the end of the briefing. They are available in the Press Office. We have many copies of that.

Before we go to other subjects, if there are any questions about this, I should start with that.

Barry.

QUESTION: Indeed there are. The denial of visas includes US citizens, whose right to travel was constitutionally recognized in Liuzzo vs. United States, as I recall, because I was covering the Court then. Will you make your case before you deny the visa, or will you make your case if the visa denial is challenged? And how do you rationalize interfering or blocking Americans' right to travel, unless you have a case against them?

MR. RUBIN: I don't believe there is a prohibition on the right to travel.

QUESTION: But there is a right to travel.

MR. RUBIN: I don't --

QUESTION: tried by the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

MR. RUBIN: The question at issue, and this is going to be -- one of your colleagues who is still covering the Court will probably have to get a definitive legal answer to this. The Justice Department will make the decisions about how to go about implementing the law when it comes to American citizens. But remember what the purpose is of this law. The purpose of this law is to make illegal and have penalties associated with providing funds to terrorist organizations, or using - this law will permit us to use our visa capabilities to prevent supporters of these organizations from coming to the United States and fund-raising.

I don't believe there is a specific prohibition on Americans traveling. I don't understand the question.

QUESTION: I probably either said it wrong or you got the totally opposite view. She spoke of denying visas to people. I asked you if those were US citizens -

MR. RUBIN: No.

Q -- whose visas would be denied.

MR. RUBIN: No.

QUESTION: And if they were, how could you square that with the constitutional right --

MR. RUBIN: The answer is no.

QUESTION: Only foreigners trying to enter the country will be denied visas?

MR. RUBIN: It gives the --

QUESTION: Citizens don't have visas.

MR. RUBIN: Yes. That's the first answer. The answer is that this is designed to give us new tools for permanent residents who may need visas -- these are not citizens - permanent resident aliens, as well as people from other countries who want to come here, who are affiliated with these organizations as part of a fund-raising effort with these organizations. It's not aimed at American citizens.

QUESTION: The permanent resident aliens have equal rights with native- born Americans.

MR. RUBIN: I urge --

QUESTION: If you're going to deny them entry into the United States, I wondered if you would first refuse the visa, and then be ready, if challenged, to support your case, or will you try to provide --

MR. RUBIN: At 2:00 p.m. this afternoon, there will be a representative from the Justice Department here, who be in a position to answer that question.

QUESTION: Oh, all right; I didn't know that.

QUESTION: Jamie, some of the names that are not on the list are sort of curious. Why was the IRA not on the list? And what about Mossad, given the events of the last week?

MR. RUBIN: There is a strong body of evidence documenting historic IRA involvement in terrorist activity. As the Act calls for, the designation of organizations that engage in terrorist activity, the Secretary of State has taken note of the July 19 announcement by the IRA of an unequivocal cease- fire, as well as the subsequent decision by the British Government that the cease-fire was genuine in word and deed, permitting Sin Feinn to join inclusive all-party talks in Belfast. Under these circumstances, the Secretary of State continues to review the question of the IRA's designation.

Obviously, any resumption of violence by the IRA is totally unacceptable to the United States, and would have a direct impact on the ongoing review. The Department of State will actively monitor the IRA's activities. We are hoping and expecting that the 10-week-old cease-fire will hold. But again, if it doesn't hold and there is a resumption of violence by the IRA, that would have a direct impact on the review.

One thing about this law that ought to be explained is that it's a rolling law. At any time, one can add a designation to the list. This is not the be- all and end-all list for terrorist organizations.

QUESTION: But I don't understand why the presumption in this case is that after a very short 10-week period, that you should take the IRA off. I mean, why didn't you go the other way and say, well, glad that they agreed to the cease-fire; but if this behavior holds, then we'll take them off at a later date?

MR. RUBIN: This matter was extensively discussed in the Administration. What I think the question misunderstands is that there wasn't a taking off of the IRA. These are now 30 groups that are put on the list.

As a result of the recent activity and the recent actions of the IRA that I went through, and the recent decisions of the British Government about the affect of that and the possibility of peace talks, the Secretary decided to keep the IRA under active review. And any resumption of violence by the IRA would then have a direct impact on that review and would be deemed unacceptable by the United States.

QUESTION: All right, what about the second half of the question - the Mossad?

MR. RUBIN: Mossad is not a terrorist organization.

Andrea.

QUESTION: Define terrorist organization, to follow up on Carol.

MR. RUBIN: Well, certainly in the case of - let me make this generic. In our view, a terrorist organization targets innocent civilians to make their political point. That's a very different situation than what we've been talking about.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on Mossad, how would you characterize the attempted assassination?

MR. RUBIN: I would say this - the United States has long made it a practice of not second-guessing the Israeli Government when it comes to the decisions in the fight against terror. However, we believe that Israel must take into account the repercussions and consequences of any actions it takes in its fight against terror.

We consider the Israeli-Jordanian relationship to be one of the most important cornerstones of the peace process. Protecting this relationship should be of the highest priority, especially for Israel.

So our view is that the consequences of actions that are taken in the fight against terror have to be examined, whether they succeed or they fail - those actions. And in this case, we think the Israeli Government could have better taken into account the repercussions and consequences of its actions.

QUESTION: Two quick questions. One, the Secretary mentioned that any funds in the US would be blocked. Are any funds belonging to any of these 30 organizations being blocked today? And if so, which funds and who do they belong to? And secondly, she said there may be court challenges. Have there not already been court challenges? I have a story in front of me here about the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejecting the Clinton Administration's argument that they should be able to take these steps, and saying that First Amendment rights to raise money and promote legal activities of an organization have to be upheld. So is this in fact not already a move that is going to have no practical effect?

MR. RUBIN: Well, let me say that the goal of this law was more deterrence than confiscation. We believe - although it is hard to measure - that the prospect of severe penalties will have an important deterrent effect on anyone contributing to terrorist organizations. The prospect of visa denials and other restrictions will have an important deterrent effect on the fundraising capabilities of these organizations.

As far as your question about the practical effect on existing funds, the Justice and other Treasury officials will be here later to discuss this with you. But it's my understanding that there are no accounts yet identified in the lead-up to this law that will be frozen. If there are, it's very small. But again, the real effect of this law will probably be in the area of deterrence.

QUESTION: Jamie, it says here that this applies to anyone --

MR. RUBIN: Sorry, I didn't answer your first question. As far as the court challenge is concerned, this is a very complex law. The administrative record needed to be created pursuant to this law was an extensive process involving thousands of hours of work by lawyers in the United States Government from many agencies. The documentation is hundreds and hundreds of pages long - precisely so that this law, which is now being implemented - and I suspect that the case you're referring to goes back to an Executive Order where there were similar restrictions placed. If it's about this case, I would only ask that when the Justice Department officials are here later that you discuss it with them.

The objective is -- we will pursue this law and we will make our case. We believe that the designations have justifications - extensive justifications. Those justifications have been provided to Congress in summary form, and we believe the process was designed to ensure that they would withstand a court challenge.

QUESTION: Jamie, it says that this applies to anyone in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. So Americans --

MR. RUBIN: I believe, again, when the Justice Department official is here, I believe that that would apply to the fundraising penalties and not the travel restriction.

QUESTION: Okay, so American citizens cannot be deported under this law?

MR. RUBIN: I don't know where an American citizen could be deported to.

QUESTION: Out of the country, out of the country.

MR. RUBIN: I mean --

QUESTION: Where would you go?

MR. RUBIN: This, again, I think I'm right about this. There's nobody here from S/CT, but there will be a briefing at 2:00 p.m. The law's effect on American citizens is designed to be a powerful deterrent. By publicizing who these organizations are, putting it out on the Internet, publicizing it as much as we can is to deter any Americans citizen from knowingly -- or after this law, we hope they will all know -- contributing to organizations that sponsor terror.

QUESTION: Jamie, when you designate terrorism - engage in violence - you're not going to try to reach an advocacy of violence, are you?

MR. RUBIN: There is a statute description of terror that's in your fact sheet. And when the Justice -- we believe that supporting terrorist organizations financially, even if you're not engaged in terror, is what this law is after.

QUESTION: I meant organization. Must the organization be engaged in terror --

MR. RUBIN: Right. There's a statutory definition.

QUESTION: -- or am I to just say, overthrow the government.

MR. RUBIN: At the risk of screwing up our court challenge, I would like to wait until 2:00 p.m., when the Justice Department officials can go through the specific code, Barry.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. RUBIN: Yes, Norm.

QUESTION: Jamie, a couple more nits to pick on the list. One is, why was the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia left off? And the second one is, the definition you just gave us of terrorist groups that attack innocent civilians, I never had any problem with Hezbollah until you said that, but they seem to target primarily Israeli soldiers. So why are they on?

MR. RUBIN: I will read to you the language from the Counter-Terrorism Report that explains what Hezbollah does. It's a radical Shiite group formed in Lebanon, dedicated to creation of an Iranian-style Islamic republic in Lebanon, known or suspected to have been involved in numerous anti-US terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombing of the US Embassy and US Marine barracks in Beirut, and the US Embassy Annex. Elements of the group were responsible for the kidnapping and detention of US and other Western hostages in Lebanon.

QUESTION: Okay. How about ASALA?

MR. RUBIN: Why were they not on the list?

QUESTION: Why were they not on the list?

MR. RUBIN: Because they didn't meet the criteria. And we will obviously be reviewing the activities of all organizations, and if we believe that any organization does meet the criteria, we will put them on the list.

QUESTION: Jamie.

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUESTION: A couple of questions back you said the idea is to deter people from knowingly supporting these groups, but a lot of these have front organizations, the friends of the builders of the social service centers in such and such a place. How would people know - be able to distinguish between a front organization and the actual terror group?

MR. RUBIN: Well, we will obviously try to help them do that, and the more information we're in a position to provide, the better. I guess the message is simple. There are plenty of well-known humanitarian organizations, like the Red Crescent Society, in the case of particular interests, or the Red Cross. And if somebody wants to make a humanitarian contribution in an area where they think it might skirt and be used for other purposes, there are well-known institutions that are for humanitarian purposes. We would obviously, therefore, advise American citizens to avoid the risk that they are unintentionally providing assistance indirectly to terrorist organizations.

QUESTION: Some of these groups have various factions or various offices. Remember the PLO used to have part of it - the State Department used to accuse of sponsoring terrorism, but stopped doing that when Arafat renounced terrorism? I mean, like, Hamas. Hamas has functions - charitable functions, school functions, cultural functions. This strikes at any contribution to any group so listed, even if the contribution - this is the question - even if the contribution is in an area that that group does business that has nothing to do with terrorism; correct?

MR. RUBIN: We want to be sure that no contributions to Hamas, under whatever rubric, end up building up that organization's ability to support terrorists. As this question has come up with regard to infrastructure in the region, we have said - and I will repeat today - that when it comes to taking down the infrastructure, our rule of reason is if that infrastructure provides assistance to the military wing of Hamas.

This law is designed to ensure that fungible money does not end up in the hands of those organizations who are dedicated, as a matter of their cause, to killing innocents in the support of whatever they think is the right position on some issue.

QUESTION: In a specific case, does this mean that the Mujahedin are going to have to close their office in Washington?

MR. RUBIN: The Mujahedin - the Iranian --

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. RUBIN: I would assume that if they have an office, that as result of this, they wouldn't be able to use their fax machine.

QUESTION: This designates "groups." The Secretary mentioned, of course, what would happen to various individuals should they be here, should they be found to be doing this.

MR. RUBIN: Right.

QUESTION: Is there a watch list of individuals? If so, how many names are on it? How many are believed to be in this country? And how many are US citizens?

MR. RUBIN: We have an existing watch list that is designed to ensure that officials from many of these organizations have not been able to get into the United States in the past.

What this law will do - the only new element for this law is that it will give additional tools in the fight. Rather than using an Executive Order authority, one can now use this full legal authority to restrict the travel of officials of these organizations, or anyone who would like to come to this country to fund-raise on their behalf.

As far as how many people are on this list - again, we will be in a position in about an hour and 15 minutes to get you that kind of specific detail.

QUESTION: Going back to what is the definition of a terrorist organization. The Kurdistan Workers' Party is mentioned as a separatist group, I believe. Why isn't, then, ETA - the Basque separatist movement - on the list?

QUESTION: It is.

QUESTION: Oh, excuse me.

MR. RUBIN: That was easy.

QUESTION: Following up on the IRA, with the IRA not being on this list, does that mean that Gerry Adams will no longer have to apply for a visa to gain entry into the United States? And additionally, David Trimble, meeting at the White House yesterday, said that he believed the IRA was sharing their explosive capabilities with such groups as the INLA and the Continuity Army Council. Do you have any concerns, and did you consider putting those two groups on this list?

MR. RUBIN: We are in a position, pursuant to this law, to review any organization that we believe ought to be designated. This is an ongoing process.

As you know, there were concerns expressed that we were being slow in making these designations. We have now made 30 designations. We have the administrative record available to us that we believe will help us withstand a court challenge.

This is a law that doesn't end tomorrow. And because one is not on this list doesn't mean they accrue new benefits. This is a law about consequences for people on this list - not benefits for people who are off the list, in response to your first question on Gerry Adams. It's not like a failure to now designate the IRA has a new benefit for Gerry Adams. It merely means that we are undertaking an ongoing review of the IRA; and any move towards violence by the IRA would have an impact on that review.

As far as the other organizations you mentioned are concerned, I'm not going to get into a position where I have to give you grades on okay, not okay for every organization you mention. Just because you're not on the list doesn't mean we're not looking into the process. This is an excruciatingly difficult legal process that involves hundreds and thousands of pages of material and hundreds and hundreds of lawyers spending thousands of hours just to get to the point where these 30 were designated. It will now continue, pursuant to this law, and we will be in a position to add names as appropriate.

QUESTION: Just to clarify - will the various court challenges prevent this from actually going into effect today? Are you going to let that --

MR. RUBIN: No, the Treasury Department has already sent out the necessary information to financial institutions. It's being published in the Federal Register today, the designations, and that will impact on any of these organizations' ability to use American banks.

I am not a lawyer, and so I will await the Justice Department official's presence here. I welcome you asking him that question. But the bottom line is we're going to implement this law. We believe that we have the legal goods on these organizations, and we are in a position - and the reason it took so long is because we wanted to be in a position to withstand court challenges.

QUESTION: Just, for example, the two Jewish groups listed here - the domestic Jewish groups, Kach and Kahane Chai - as of today, they are illegal groups in the United States?

MR. RUBIN: They cannot use funds. American citizens cannot fund-raise on their behalf or provide money. These penalties apply, pursuant to this law's designation.

Now, if in a particular legal case, a local judge or a district judge or a regional judge has made a finding, then we would obviously go through the American legal system. But as far as the United States Government is concerned, the Secretary of State's designation has now been made, and that is they.

QUESTION: As far as their - can any of these groups stand up in Central Park and advocate their goals, if they're not raising money? Or can they - do they no longer have the right to free speech, either?

MR. RUBIN: I'll get the Justice Department to answer that question.

QUESTION: On what basis was this list prepared? Did you have any consultations with any country?

MR. RUBIN: Sorry?

QUESTION: Did you have any consultations with any foreign government? On what basis the list was prepared - especially this Liberation Tigers of Tamil, LTTE?

MR. RUBIN: I would be happy to read the rationale for that by referring you to the terrorism book that you'll be able to look at right there. So rather than me reading it, why don't you read it.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. RUBIN: And that's the reason. And as far as consultation with other governments is concerned, we took several steps prior to the publication of this list in the Federal Register and the Secretary's announcement today. But I'm not in a position to get into all the details of our diplomatic exchanges.

I will say part of our work was designed to contact our embassies around the world to ensure that the maximum protection was sought in preventing any possible retaliation.

QUESTION: Jamie, this is liable to run into the Justice Department briefing. Can we go on to other subjects?

MR. RUBIN: All right, I have a suggestion. Let's go to - excuse me, the Justice Department officials, Treasury officials and State Department officials will be here in one hour and ten minutes to go into further detail. Do you have another question?

QUESTION: I see one contradiction here with this report, as far as Kashmir is concerned. You are saying here that there is a group - Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Front, JKIF - which has killed and bombings in Delhi and in Kashmir. And also, one group is based in Pakistan, and that is Harakat ul- Ansar also was named in this book. But you don't have these groups on this list.

MR. RUBIN: Right. We --

QUESTION: But you are saying here they are the killers and the bombings --

MR. RUBIN: Because you are not on the list doesn't mean you have been given a clean bill of health. You are on the list if we have put together the administrative record necessary to withstand a court challenge. There are, as I said, the IRA is under review, an ongoing review.

QUESTION: New subject?

MR. RUBIN: Great, yes.

QUESTION: On China, Deputy Assistant Secretary Einhorn and other officials were in China this week for two days of talks. Can you say anything about whether they got anywhere with China on the nuclear issues, particularly the wrapping up of PNC?

MR. RUBIN: I don't believe they've wrapped up the Peaceful Nuclear agreement. They continued to work on following up the developments that occurred in the meeting between Foreign Minister Qian Qichen and Secretary Albright in New York. There were some new issues that were raised that needed further clarification in the area of arms cooperation.

They are trying to nail down as many commitments as possible from the Chinese Government as a way of ensuring that we are doing all we can to meet the required certification test. Again, that is unequivocal assurances from the Chinese Government. That is what they're working on. I do not believe anything was wrapped up. On the contrary, I think although we have made substantial progress in meeting that goal, there is still a significant way to go. There will be further meetings between US and Chinese officials in the coming days and weeks, where that subject will be discussed at length.

QUESTION: When you talk about new issues were raised, what new issues were those?

MR. RUBIN: I prefer not to get into the nature of a closed meeting, other than to say that there are many aspects to our concerns about Chinese proliferation. It's something that Secretary Albright made a point of focusing on and bringing up very specific cases, very specific concerns. The experts were then following up on those issues.

We did hear some encouraging words from the Chinese side, and they are trying to nail down as much as they can at the working level. But I'm advised that they have not received sufficient information to justify the certification. That will be something that will be discussed at additional meetings. I think Mr. Berger will be holding a meeting with his counterpart. I expect that will be a prime topic.

QUESTION: Just one more question on this one. Given the fact that we're now just a couple of weeks before the summit and you still haven't wrapped up this agreement, how do you respond to critics who say that you're rushing too fast; you're trying to push this too fast in order to meet an artificial goal, which is the summit?

MR. RUBIN: When it comes to nonproliferation, that is the highest priority of the Secretary in protecting our citizens from threats abroad.

We are not going to let artificial deadlines interfere with our determination to protect the United States from the threat of nuclear proliferation. There should be no concern in that regard. There will always be critics who think we didn't get enough to meet any test and that's the nature of democracy. But as far as us rushing to meet some deadline, on the contrary, we are holding firm on our desire that the Chinese Government make representations to us that yield what we call "unequivocal assurances" that they will not be in a position to promote the spread of nuclear weapons.

QUESTION: On the Mid East?

MR. RUBIN: Great.

QUESTION: Can you give us some detail on why next week's talks have been delayed - talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in Washington?

MR. RUBIN: Well, let me first say that Secretary Albright has been in extensive contact with Ambassador Ross in the last day. She is pleased that another step forward has been taken in the Middle East peace process. And that is, of course, the first face-to-face meeting between the leaders of the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government since March. We believe this is an important step.

Ambassador Ross briefed her on what transpired in that meeting. What she believes is that this meeting was important because it was a demonstration of the possibility of renewed partnership between the Palestinian leader and the Israeli leader. That partnership, we hope and she hopes, will begin to improve what she has called the crisis of confidence in the Middle East.

There's a lot of work to do, and she made that point to me just a few minutes ago - an enormous amount of work to do. A meeting is not the same as a breakthrough. A meeting is important, and it's important for the environment that it helps create. But there's still an enormous amount of work to be done.

As far as the schedule for further contacts, let me say first that the meeting was a political boost to the process. They've now agreed to have regular meetings at the leadership level between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat, and then all the levels down below. And that will give the process a political boost.

The decisions that were made in the recent 24-hour period is that the focus of attention should now be on the interim committees. The Israeli and Palestinian officials will be working assiduously in the region to try to get progress in implementing the committees' work on the airport and the seaport and the safe passage. Ambassador Ross will then travel back to the region, at the end of next week, to receive a report on how much progress has been made. And that will hopefully be a time when we can get some movement on some very practical aspects of the Oslo peace accords.

Next week's planned meetings on the four-part agenda have been postponed, and they have postponed primarily because all of us thought that the schedule was shrunk by the holidays. There are Jewish holidays in the middle of next week. And if they came here, they would only have been able to stay for two days, and they would have had to have gone back. So rather than pursue that path, we will be in regular contact with the parties on trying to resolve the aspects of the four-part agenda that are in dispute -- on further redeployment, on the time-out, on how to get to final permanent status negotiations and on security cooperation.

That will continue, at various levels, through our normal channels. And then a schedule will be developed for further discussion on that. Those subjects did come up in the meeting last night between Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu, and they talked about that. But there's still a long, long way to go in trying to bridge the differences on getting the permanent status talks begun.

QUESTION: So there's no - let me just be clear. Those four-part talks have not been rescheduled for a specific date?

MR. RUBIN: Correct. Correct. The feeling was, let's now focus on the interim committees. We will be talking in a variety of fora to the parties about these issues, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot of telephone contact back and forth. And then, as far as when a formal, announced meeting for that specific purpose, we will give that to you when we have it.

QUESTION: Jamie, when you say there's no breakthrough, does that mean neither at the meeting last night between the leaders, nor in the interim talks that Dennis supervised, none of the issues - Israeli withdrawal, seaport, airport, safe passage - was actually resolved?

MR. RUBIN: Again, I don't want to get in the position - I mean, these meetings, a lot gets said on the margins. A lot of people can make predictions based on signals they receive from one party or another that one can now bridge the gap. I'm not saying that in all of Ambassador Ross' contacts there weren't discussions that yielded some optimism on his part that things might happen.

But what I am saying is that the meeting was not a substantive breakthrough on any of the major issues. It was a procedural breakthrough, because they have not met since March, and that is an extremely important aspect of this process -- what the Secretary has called one of the principles of Middle East peace, which is partnership. And the fact that they have agreed to meet again and meet regularly is a hopeful sign that the partnership necessary for the Middle East peace process to work can be rebuilt.

QUESTION: Quickly, just a quick follow-up. The President credited Ross with putting this meeting together. He didn't, in any way - he just said he hoped - beyond that, he hoped that this meant things could get back on track. Did Ross put this together because the negotiations at the interim level weren't getting anyplace? Or did he put it together because they were promising, and he thought if the leaders met, it might accelerate the process?

MR. RUBIN: Secretary Albright has discussed the possibility of such a meeting with her counterparts - or with Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu when we were in the region. This is obviously a natural next step in the restoration of the process that the Secretary was trying to create by her trip, and that we were able to provide by the meeting between Foreign Minister Levy and Abu Mazen in New York. So this was a natural next step, and Ambassador Ross was helpful in generating that meeting, and we thought it was an important next step.

As far as --

QUESTION: Well, were they making - you know, on the working level --

MR. RUBIN: Oh, because things were going badly? On the contrary.

QUESTION: All right.

MR. RUBIN: I mean, I think there is now a focus on the interim committees that we are hopeful about, that will yield progress. That's why we're going to intensify that process over the next week. So hopefully, when Ambassador Ross goes there, we will actually be able to have some practical results.

At the same time, the feeling was that for some weeks, that the partnership had broken down. And Secretary Albright had been discussing this possibility with the leaders when she was there and since then. And Ambassador Ross took up that thought and obviously made it happen.

QUESTION: Jamie, I want to ask you about the Israeli soldiers that were killed in Southern Lebanon. I also was wondering if - do you think that in any way was in retaliation or connected at all to this new political boost, or vigor, rather, that the process has been given, in light of the Secretary's meetings?

MR. RUBIN: I do not have any information about that, but we can try to get it for you. I don't have --

QUESTION: So you don't think at all that it was a strike --

MR. RUBIN: I don't have any new information on it, so I can't make a judgment about its significance.

Yes.

QUESTION: Jamie, question for you -- any update on the Samuel --

MR. RUBIN: Is this - any more on the Middle East?

QUESTION: Yes, yes.

MR. RUBIN: Okay. Yes.

QUESTION: Does the US have any information on a report that's circulating that Hamas made a cease-fire proposal just two days before the Israeli attack on the Hamas leader?

MR. RUBIN: Without getting into any private diplomatic exchanges, I can say this, we don't see much in this offer that's new. We believe Hamas is an organization that is a dedicated enemy of peace, and we hope and expect that the process of continuing to arrest those who may be responsible for terrorist acts or who may be planning them will continue. And we have concerns about any possible releases in that regard, and hope and expect that officials from that organization, or other organizations as dedicated enemies of peace, will not be released if they are responsible for terrorist acts or planning such acts. We don't see a lot new in that offer.

QUESTION: I think we're talking about two different things. Apparently, two days before the attempt on the Hamas leader in Jordan --

MR. RUBIN: Yes, the cease-fire offer.

QUESTION: Yes, two days before.

MR. RUBIN: You're referring to a report about a cease-fire offer, and I'm describing our views about a cease-fire offer --

QUESTION: About them in general.

MR. RUBIN: -- without describing the specific "to-ing and fro-ing" that have happened between another government and another organization, which would be up to them to describe publicly.

Yes, Tom.

QUESTION: Do you have any information about the reports that Russia is throwing out our Peace Corps volunteers?

MR. RUBIN: No, I do not, but we will get it.

Yes.

QUESTION: Any updates on the Samuel Sheinbein case? I know the Secretary again has asked for Israel's maximum cooperation in extraditing this teenager.

MR. RUBIN: Secretary Albright has received a letter from Prime Minister Netanyahu to this effect. It's our view that this is a complex situation, and that we believe that the Israeli Government is continuing to review the question of whether Samuel Sheinbein is entitled to Israeli citizenship. It's up to the government to make that decision. The letter indicates they have not made a decision.

Our position is the same. We want to see Mr. Sheinbein face justice in the United States, and we have made that view very clear to the Israeli Government. There have been reports from the Israeli Embassy that they want to make sure that their decision on citizenship will survive any challenge in their courts. Since we want to see Mr. Sheinbein tried here, we are being responsive to all requests for information from the Israeli Government, including US documentation.

I would refer you to the Justice Department for the details of how this cooperation is going. All I can say is that we want to see him returned, and the Prime Minister has sent us a letter promising maximum cooperation with us. We will have to see how it turns out.

QUESTION: When was the letter --

MR. RUBIN: The letter arrived today.

QUESTION: Jamie, on North Korea.

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUESTION: Yes. I wanted to know what the recent Kim Jung Il election to the party leader -- how this will impact on the regime; that's the first question. The second question is, what does this mean now for US foreign policy? Is there going to be some kind of change?

MR. RUBIN: Kim Il Sung's son, Kim Jung Il, has been elected to be General Secretary of the Korean Workers Party, his father's former position. The younger Kim's current formal titles are that of Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army and Chairman of the National Defense Commission. We understand he will retain these titles.

Kim Jung Il has been in effective control of North Korea since his father's death. His father began a process of change in the DPRK's relations with the United States, which Kim Jung Il has pursued. We hope that his election as General Secretary will lead to renewed engagement in the four-party process, as well as further improvements in relations with the United States, South Korea and other countries.

But the bottom line in this case, as many others, is, we will be looking most closely at actions in making a determination whether this has any positive result.

QUESTION: Is this the extent of the US reaction?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUESTION: Or is the US communicating any of this to the regime?

MR. RUBIN: I don't know what our communication would be. I think I probably just did it.

(Laughter)

QUESTION: Right. You didn't send him a congratulatory telegram, did you?

QUESTION: Jamie.

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUESTION: Another subject. In the spy case which broke this week --

MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to have any comment about a spy case.

QUESTION: It doesn't refer directly to the spy case.

MR. RUBIN: Okay. That's just a stem to the question.

QUESTION: In the court documents, one of the defendants said that he received documents - classified, some of them - from "friends in the State Department." Is this something that you are pursuing?

MR. RUBIN: I have no information on any question of investigations in the area of espionage, and we don't normally comment about it from this podium.

Yes.

QUESTION: Another question related to South Africa

MR. RUBIN: I'm going to give the same answer.

QUESTION: It's not precisely the same field. It's, are you aware of the level of unhappiness within South Africa, within the government in South Africa, at the use of FBI agents posing as South African intelligence officers?

MR. RUBIN: Boy, that was a stretch. Just because the Federal Bureau of Investigation was the word "investigation" in the previous question? I'm not aware of that issue. We'll try to get you some information on it.

Yes.

QUESTION: Is the United States naming Andy Young as envoy to Congo?

MR. RUBIN: Well, last week I had the opportunity, and I guess once this week, to say that the State Department had been premature. Reports of Andy Young's being named as a special envoy are premature. The Secretary has made a decision to send a special mission to the Great Lakes region. No final decision has yet been made as to who will lead it and when it will depart. Its purpose is clear -- it's to try to break the impasse on the UN investigation in the Congo. But the envoy, when he or she is chosen, will go not just to Kinshasa, but to the Great Lakes region, consult with regional governments on matters of human rights, stability, refugees and other matters.

But not only was that report premature, I think it will turn out to be incorrect.

QUESTION: Follow-up on North Korea.

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUESTION: Is the US ready to make an announcement as to the schedule of the assessment team to assess the food situation in North Korea yet?

MR. RUBIN: I don't have a date for you. We may be having some information for you about some AID information that we've received in recent days, and we'll try to have some briefing on that. The last I heard was - I could use the word "soon," and generally speaking, in a number of weeks.

QUESTION: How about bilateral missile talks?

MR. RUBIN: No information on that.

QUESTION: Iran is conducting today naval military exercises in the region.. Do you have any concern about the timing of this?

MR. RUBIN: Iran?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of any Iranian military movements. We can try to get you an answer on that. I'd refer you to the Pentagon, who monitors military movements on a daily basis and an hourly basis and a minute-by- minute basis.

QUESTION: Yes. One --

MR. RUBIN: One final question, sure.

QUESTION: Jamie, I hope it's not final. But Jamie, what is the government's comment or take on the Canadian Ambassador to Mexico quoted in a magazine in Mexico City, saying that he's never seen the level of corruption that exists in Mexico, and that the Mexican Government's war on drugs is a sham, those two points? Have you got any --

MR. RUBIN: We have certified Mexico's cooperation with the United States based on the judgments that we've made about President's Zedillo's determination to fight the war on drugs. That does not mean we have any illusions about the problems in Mexico, and they are many and multifaceted. We, in the government, work with them on a daily basis to try to improve that situation. But as far as a specific response, we'll see if we can get you one for the record.

QUESTION: He said specifically with regard to the United States, if I may finalize this, " I think the pressure on Mexico from the US is just a game that the American Government uses for political end." Do you refute that?

MR. RUBIN: Well, it's not a game. We take our views on the subject of Mexican corruption and drug trafficking very, very seriously.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:15 P.M.)

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article