U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #146, 97-10-09
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
909
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Thursday, October 9, 1997
Briefer: James P. Rubin
IRAQ
1-3 Violation of UN Resolutions; UNSCOM inspectors' report; UN
Res 1111 & SC response
1-3 Reported oil smuggling; leakage in UN sanctions via Iranian
waters toward the UAE; consultations w/UK, potential
additional measures, multilateral interdiction force
efforts
1-2 No-fly zone violations; USS Nimitz deployment to Persian
Gulf; coordinated response
6-7 Consultations w/ Turkey on problems with Iraq
IRAN
2-5 Explanation to Iran of US actions re Iraq, accelerated
carrier deployment to Gulf
3-5 Annual Iranian naval exercises in northern Gulf
4-5 No change in US policy on bilateral relations, containment
of Iran & Iraq
IRAN / FRANCE / MALAYSIA / RUSSIA
5-6 Investigation underway to determine potential ILSA
violation of Total South Pars deal
RWANDA / DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (Kinshasa)
7-9 False reports of US arming, advance knowledge of Rwandan
Army massacres of Hutus in refugee camps in then Zaire,
support for UN investigation, possible massacres
continuing
8 Secretary's decision to send mission to break impasse of
investigation; time limit?
BOSNIA
9 OSCE announces some election results; returns of victors;
some results pending; election implementation plan
CHINA
10-11 SFRC testimony by Nuclear Control Institute on PRC
heavy-water over-supply to Pakistan, PRC assurances not
to assist unsafeguarded reactors
11 Possible Secretary Albright meeting with Liu Hwa Qiu
AZERBAIJAN / ARMENIA
11-12 Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians' reaction to Minsk Group peace
plan; US aid policy
BRAZIL
12 US Embassy business guide references to corruption
ARGENTINA
13 Assistant Secretary Davidow remarks re corruption and
freedom of the press
BOLIVIA
13 30th Anniversary of Che Guevara's death
SOUTH AFRICA
13 Bilateral contact re FBI role in US espionage case
TERRORISM
13-14 Turkey FonMin Cem claim of Greece cooperation with PKK and
DHK(PC)
14 Criteria for listing designated terrorist organizations
EGYPT
14 President Mubarak's comments linking USG with Kikhia case;
bilateral contacts
ITALY
14-15 Resignation of government; departure of Amb. Reginald
Bartholomew
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #146
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1997, 12:40 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Greetings. We have no statements, no announcements, no
introductions, no Secretaries of State. We just have me here to answer your
questions.
Barry Schweid.
QUESTION: Well, I was going to ask you about whether any action is being
planned now against Iraq - reports that they're smuggling a lot of oil out,
and possibly joint US-British action. Do you have anything on that?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, there are three aspects to this situation -- Iraq, with
regard to the no-fly zone; Iraq with regard to the possible smuggling of
oil in violation of UN sanctions; and then the question of Iraq's continued
failure to meet the requirements of the UN Special Commission. So let's
take them one at a time.
On the last (issue) first, there is now a report before the Security
Council, which demonstrates for all to see that Iraq continues to thwart
the will of the international community, and continues to refuse to allow
the UN inspectors to do their job. That means they're blocking the UN
inspectors from getting access to the information necessary in the area of
biological weapons, in the areas of missiles, in the area of specialized
chemical weapon warheads to go on missiles so that the UN can figure out
what Iraq had and ensure that all of the weaponry or possible weaponry
that they had has been destroyed, and then set up the monitoring system to
ensure they can never again build such systems.
That report demonstrates quite clearly that Iraq continues to prevent the
UN team from doing its job. We passed a resolution, the Security Council
passed a resolution earlier this year - Resolution 1111, which laid out a
set of possible actions if Iraq did continue to fail to - can someone get
the reporter from AP a pen, please, thank you? Since he did ask the
question, I think maybe he should be able to --
QUESTION: -- your answer. Thank you.
MR. RUBIN: I've lost my train of thought. Resolution 1111 laid out a
procedure to tighten the pressure on Iraq if they continue to fail to meet
their obligations.
So our diplomats in New York are now working with their colleagues on the
Security Council to try to make sure that we do keep the pressure on Iraq.
Exactly what form that will take is still being discussed, and there will
be consultations on that. I don't want to be in a position to discuss all
the options, except to say that we of course would want the strongest
possible action by the Council to back up the important work of the UN
Special Commissioner, Richard Butler, from Australia. I guess we call him
Ambassador Richard Butler.
So that is going to be a matter before the Council in the coming days, and
we will be working with our colleagues on the Security Council to make sure
the strongest possible message is sent to Iraq -- that if they don't comply
with these requirements, they are never going to have the sanctions lifted
and they will never be able to rejoin the community of nations.
The second piece relates to possible oil smuggling. Let's keep this in
perspective. The embargo -- the sanctions on Iraq have been in place for a
very long time, since 1990. We believe this the longest lasting, most
successful United Nations sanctions regime. A very small leakage has taken
place over the years. But one of the ways in which leaks have taken place
is when Iraqi vessels traverse through Iranian waters towards the United
Arab Emirates. This is a problem that has persisted, and the sanctions
committee has taken action in the past to make sure that those countries do
all they can do to prevent this kind of illicit trade in Iraqi oil.
It's a very difficult enterprise. We have ships in the region -- the
multinational interdiction force -- that operate to prevent this kind of
action, and they are doing so and will continue to do so. But that doesn't
mean there isn't slippage, and we need to do all we can to prevent
it.
Lastly, there is the issue of the no-fly zone. I think Secretary Cohen at
the Pentagon made clear that the carrier was sent to the region as a signal
to Iraq that we intend to enforce the no-fly zone, and that no-fly zone is
there for a very good reason. Our planes are flying to enforce it, and we
will enforce the no-fly zone.
QUESTION: When you made reference to Iraq can't expect the world
community to get sanctions lifted, did you mean to exclude the possibility
of additional sanctions?
MR. RUBIN: No, I didn't. What I meant to say, and I think I did say, was
that we will be working in the Council to see what the strongest possible
action we can take, in a united way. The Council has always been united in
its determination to see Iraq comply with these resolutions, because the
whole world knows that an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction is a
threat to the whole world. So the world, in the form of the Security
Council, is keeping the pressure on.
What exact form that pressure takes is something that would be discussed in
diplomatic channels and the margins of the Security Council. When a
proposal ripens to the point that it can be discussed publicly, I would be
happy to do that with you.
QUESTION: When it comes to oil, the unity is mostly with Britain. Does
Britain have a special role in trying to plot with the US what to do about
this? And you've placed, in the past, travel restrictions on Libyans -- not
necessarily observed by your friends in the Arab world - but is that one of
the possibilities, of travel restrictions on Iraqi diplomats?
MR. RUBIN: First of all, we have worked closely with our British
counterparts in New York since Iraq first invaded Kuwait. We continue to do
so; they are one of our closest friends, if not having a special relationship,
is the term we use. That applies particularly to the issue of Iraq and the
Security Council.
So we and the British work hand in hand because we have a virtually
identical view with the British about the danger that Saddam Hussein poses.
And as far as the oil is concerned, it is not just the United States and
Britain that have abided by the sanctions - the whole world has abided by
the sanctions. Iraq has been unable to sell oil, except in these minimal
cases where there is some leakage. But I emphasize that they are relatively
small - measured in, I believe, the tens of thousands of barrels, as
opposed to the millions of barrels that Iraq used to export.
As far as what measures the Security Council might take, Resolution 1111
talked about additional measures. At the time that resolution was being
contemplated in New York, there was discussion of the kind of restriction
that you described. But whether we would seek that restriction and whether
the Council would adopt it is something that we're still discussing.
QUESTION: The dispatch of US warships, or the accelerated dispatch of US
warships to the area has not been welcomed exactly by the other major power
in the region, Iran. I wonder what you're doing to explain to the Iranians
the purposes of US policy and how you're going about that.
MR. RUBIN: Well, we have, through our allies, made clear to the Iranian
Government the reason why the no-fly zone is so important and the risks
associated with flying in that no-fly zone. And let's remember a no-fly
zone is a no-fly zone.
As far as the deployment of the Nimitz, a related issue is that there are
some naval exercises the Iranians announced. I have some information for
you on that. They conduct exercises on a regular basis each year, called
Victory 8. It's the culmination of their annual naval training period. We
consider these events routine. We are not expecting a confrontation with
Iran, nor are we looking for one. The Nimitz battle group is coming to the
Gulf to help enforce the no-fly zone against Iraq, help maintain the
maritime part of UN-mandated sanctions against Iraq, and conduct routine
training operations.
The Nimitz battle deployment to the Gulf is part of our carrier deployment
plan that has been in the works for months. It is not related to the
Iranian exercises. I can say that I don't think the Iranian Government has
any doubt that the reason we sent these ships there is to enforce the no-
fly zone, and to send a signal of our determination to do so. If they want
to read it some other way, they are always able to do that; but that's what
it's for.
QUESTION: Wire accounts on this suggested that they were - at least they
announced these exercises in a response to the deployment of the Nimitz.
Maybe this is a routine exercise on their part, but was it already
prescheduled, do you know? Are you confident of that?
MR. RUBIN: Our assessment is that these are annual exercises; that this
is the normal period for these exercises; that there is no reason to
believe that the Iranian naval exercises will affect the manner in which
our forces in the region carry out their mission. The Iranians have said
that these exercises will be conducted in the Northern Gulf. All I can say
is that we have no reason to believe that this was a stepping up of any
kind, other than a routine exercise, and that we sent our ships there
for the reasons that Secretary Cohen stated.
QUESTION: But you wouldn't, obviously, want to be going on belief on
this. You'd, obviously, want to actually confirm with the Iranians that
there is no stepping up and that they --
MR. RUBIN: I'm always interested to see the attempts here in the briefing
room to determine whether there has been contact between the United States
and the Iranian Government. Our position on a dialogue with the Iranian
Government is well known. I could repeat it, but I think you know
it.
As far as the Iranians knowing what our policy is on the no-fly zone, I did
indicate that, through diplomatic channels, our allies have made that
clear. So I don't think there's any doubt in their mind of what we have
been doing here.
QUESTION: On that point.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Given the egregious behavior of Iraq and the signs of more
moderate behavior from Iran, does it occur to this government that the
policy of dual containment, which implies a certain parallelism between
Iran and Iraq, makes less sense than it did?
MR. RUBIN: No.
QUESTION: I thought I heard the Secretary say, at the Council on Foreign
Relations last week, she had seen no change -- change toward moderation --
from the new regime. This is a quick reference, and that's the last she
said.
MR. RUBIN: Right. That's why I said no.
QUESTION: So you don't buy the supposition Iran is --
MR. RUBIN: No, that's why I answered the question no. I mean, we can have
a discussion about Iranian behavior and Iraqi behavior. I'd be happy to do
that. But if the question is, have we changed our policy in terms of
containing Iraq and containing Iran, the answer is no.
QUESTION: But Jamie, it doesn't really make so much common sense that if
you have a common security purpose with Iran in containing Iraq, and now
you have the US fleet and the Iranian fleet exercising at the same time,
that you wouldn't want, for security reasons alone, to be in some kind of
more direct link with them. Leaving aside all the other purposes of US
policy --
MR. RUBIN: We do have means to communicate with Iran diplomatically if
there is a requirement to do so; that is no secret. But we do not believe
that these routine exercises and the deployment of our Nimitz battle group
is one of those circumstances, other than to say that the Iranians should
have no doubt of what our ships are doing. And we intend, as you know from
the Secretary's comments about Total, to continue to do all we can to
convince the rest of the world that Iran's policies on weapons of
mass destruction, on support of terrorism, and on opposition to the
Middle East peace process are a danger and ought to be confronted through
the kind of measures the United States has taken, in that money and
assistance and trade and normal relationships don't send the proper message
to Iran that their behavior needs to change.
Now, some of our allies agree with much of that but not all of that. That's
a dialogue that we will continue to have with our allies. But that's the
United States' position.
As far as Iraq is concerned, the United States' position is equally clear.
So we continue to contain Iraq and we continue to contain Iran because it's
in our national security interest to do so.
QUESTION: On the same subject, please.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: There is still persisting news about President Clinton still
considering the idea of waiving sanctions against European companies. And I
would like to know if you have any comment on that.
MR. RUBIN: Yes, I do have a comment. No decision has been made on the
Total case. We are in an investigatory phase. This is a complicated law,
and the Europeans and other countries have promised to court challenge if
sanctions are imposed.
It is therefore appropriate for us to do the necessary investigative work.
We are working to develop missions and trips and investigative material in
the three countries. Experts will be sent in different fora to try to
examine the specific contract. As you know, we weren't sent a copy of the
contract. There have been press reports about it. We need to get the full
detail and then, after that investigatory phase, we will make a decision as
to whether the law applies and what options the Secretary has under the law
and make a decision. But there has been no decision and the reports
of a decision not to impose sanctions are incorrect.
QUESTION: But it's being considered - that's what I said in my question -
that the waiver is being considered.
MR. RUBIN: No, what's being considered is the investigation of this
regime. I have stated from here, and will state again, that there are
options under this law. I've described those options, and I can describe
those options for you again. Those are options the law provides.
The phase the Administration is in is the investigatory phase.
QUESTION: Can we just pick up again?
MR. RUBIN: On the same subject?
QUESTION: Different subject.
QUESTION: Same subject.
MR. RUBIN: On Total?
QUESTION: No, Iraq. Since Turkey is the only --
MR. RUBIN: I'm stunned.
QUESTION: Why? I'm not. Since Turkey is the only NATO country --
MR. RUBIN: Ah, there's the subject.
QUESTION: -- which has a border with Iraq, you talked about all these
infractions - violations, smuggling, et cetera. Has any consultation taken
place between Washington and Ankara? And what was Turkey's response?
MR. RUBIN: The United States has been in close contact with Turkey
throughout recent days and weeks, and we will continue to do so. But we
don't normally provide details on the positions of other governments, and I
welcome your inquiries to them. But we are working with the Turkish
Government in our effort to ensure that Iraq continues to be contained,
pursuant to our policies.
QUESTION: Are you saying that Turkey is the --
MR. RUBIN: Same subject?
QUESTION: No, new subject.
QUESTION: Sorry. Are you saying that Turkey is the receiving side of the
oil being --
MR. RUBIN: I didn't say that. I mean, there are issues there, but I
didn't say that.
QUESTION: Can we go to the Congo?
QUESTION: Who is the receiving side, then?
MR. RUBIN: What I said was that oil has been leaking out through waters
in the Gulf. That's what I'm talking about. Turkey is not situated in the
Gulf.
QUESTION: Congo?
MR. RUBIN: Please.
QUESTION: Okay. There's a new report, Jamie, from Human Rights Watch
Africa, detailing the alleged atrocities and massacres by Rwanda's army in
the former Zairian refugee camps. And the report goes on to allege that
some countries, including the United States, were aware of the intentions
of - it specifically mentions the US Embassy in Kigali -- aware of the
intentions of the Rwandan army, and gave a wink and a nod, certainly did
nothing to prevent the Rwandan army when it moved into the then Zaire.
Reaction?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. This allegation is absolutely false. The United States
government has condemned strongly the ethnic violence in the Great Lakes
Region and especially in Rwanda, and has worked with all the parties in
that area to bring about an end to ethnic clashes. The United States did
not receive advance notice of the horrific violence that has engulfed
Rwanda in recent years.
The similar claim that we had a role in arming these forces is also
absolutely false. Our military assistance to Rwanda is limited to helping
the Rwandans professionalize their military and adopt democratic practices.
These training activities, which were limited in numbers and confined to
Rwanda, were largely targeted on such areas as humanitarian demining, human
rights and the rule of law. The Department of Defense provided no lethal
equipment to the Rwandan military. Currently, there is no military training
being provided by the US in Rwanda. The last training event focused
on junior leadership and concluded this past August.
There is always a tendency to seek a hidden hand behind ethnic violence, by
many of the investigators. I can say categorically, there is no US hand
hidden here. There were some terrible events that went on there, and we are
working very hard to try to put together a mission to convince the
government of Mr. Kabila to allow an investigation. We, I think, stand
unique in the world in our determination to prevent human rights massacres,
and any suggestion that we had some hand in this is ridiculous.
QUESTION: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Judd's question was
whether you had detected that these things were getting ready to happen,
perhaps, you know, troop movements, that sort of thing.
MR. RUBIN: Right. I'm not going to be able to get into the possible
detection of troop movements, and I'm not going to rule out that we can
know when troops are moving. The suggestion was, the United States received
advance notice of the horrific violence that was going to take place, and
gave a nod and a wink to it. And that is a ridiculous claim.
QUESTION: Are you any closer to naming an envoy to go to the region?
MR. RUBIN: Well, it's been interesting to read the papers throw one name
out one day and another name out the other day. The Secretary has decided
to send a mission. She has not decided on who will lead that mission. There
are discussions ongoing. We want to make sure that the mission that we
create has the best possible chance of succeeding and bringing to closure
this important issue of breaking the impasse on investigating what went on
there.
When we have a name that is a real name as opposed to a rumor, there's a -
I worked in New York, and there's an elaborate rumor mill in New York
amongst the various missions and amongst UN officials there; they often
live on rumor. And you've seen a lot of rumors in the newspaper.
QUESTION: Can you also address the report - and it may also be a rumor -
but the report that the UN, once this team is named by the United States,
that the UN has given the US two weeks to reach a conclusion to the
impasse?
MR. RUBIN: I haven't heard that. I mean, obviously, there's a problem
here; and the problem is, the UN team has been blocked from doing its job.
We don't think it serves the government of Mr. Kabila any good to block an
international agency from doing its job. Only the most outcast kind of
governments are those that would prevent the United Nations from doing an
investigation. We don't understand the logic, and it will only serve to
harm the ability of the people there to get the assistance and support
that they need, if their government continues to thwart the will of the
international community.
So we are trying to put together a mission that can help break this impasse,
but I'm not aware of a firm deadline. I think everyone involved here wants
to break the impasse. There have been a series of refusals and "to-ing" and
"fro-ing," and we're trying to break the impasse.
QUESTION: One more question on the same issue - in Bosnia, the OSCE today
--
QUESTION: Same subject--
MR. RUBIN: Same subject, yes.
QUESTION: One more question on the human rights Africa report. It also
suggests that there may be massacres or killing ongoing now. Does the US
have any knowledge that that's going on?
MR. RUBIN: I will try to get an answer for you on what we know today
about what might be happening today, yesterday and in recent days in that
area. There has been violence - whether they are massacres is your question,
and I'll try to see what the United States Government can provide me to
provide you on that subject.
QUESTION: Can we go to China?
QUESTION: Another subject.
MR. RUBIN: I'll get there.
QUESTION: The OSCE today apparently ruled or announced that the non-Serbs
had won the majority in Srebrenica. And since none of them are there, I'm
wondering what is the US policy on return? How is it going to happen? How
are you going to make it happen?
MR. RUBIN: Obviously, the election results have not been fully completed,
and there are still several districts - including Brcko and I forget the
name of the other city where we're still waiting for election results. But
we would be wanting to see the elected leaders in the municipalities be
able to operate. That is not to say that it won't be difficult - especially
in places in Eastern Bosnia where some of the worst kinds of ethnic
cleansing and massacres occurred and whole cities - Muslims from those
cities -- were either killed or expelled or left in very well-justified
fear of being killed or expelled. So this is a problem.
I don't want to underestimate the problem, but we have overcome an enormous
number of problems in Bosnia in the last several weeks. We've seen
increasing compliance with the Dayton Accords. We've seen a leader in Banja
Luka, Mrs. Plavsic, determined to meet the requirements of Dayton. We've
seen refugees returning. We've seen freedom of movement. We've seen a shut-
down of the propaganda-filled radio stations. So we will work through
various means - economic assistance, the presence of international forces,
the presence of international human rights workers, the presence of UNHCR -
to try to make the elections have meaning by letting the people operate.
Now, whether they choose to come back and how that will work, I will try to
get a distinct answer to our current plan, but it's a problem that we
intend to try to fix.
QUESTION: Well, is there a plan?
MR. RUBIN: I said I would get you details on whatever plan that we have
in place now, but plans in Bosnia change all the time because the situation
in Bosnia changes.
Our plan is to try to make these elections have meaning; and therefore,
letting the people who win them govern.
QUESTION: On South Africa?
MR. RUBIN: Let's go to China.
QUESTION: Paul Levanthal, the president of the Nuclear Control Institute
in Washington --
MR. RUBIN: I know where this is going.
QUESTION: -- testified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that
China was oversupplying heavy water to a Pakistani nuclear facility which
was being diverted and used by Islamabad as part of their nuclear weapons
program. Is that the kind of thing that you're aware of?
MR. RUBIN: It is our view that China has made an assurance to the United
States not to provide assistance to unsafeguarded reactors. And it is our
view that China continues to live up to that commitment. I don't have any
details on that specific allegation. I do note that there are often
allegations made, and those of us who have the specific information,
through a variety of means, have to rebut such allegations.
But as far as that specific allegation is concerned, my understanding is
that we continue to believe that China has not provided assistance to
unsafeguarded reactors, pursuant to its commitment to us, I believe, of
1994.
Our nonproliferation expert in the front row.
QUESTION: Could you try to parse that just a little bit? Do you think -
and if you can't answer it now, maybe you can get an answer. Do you feel,
though, that China has provided Pakistan with excess heavy water so that if
it had access, Pakistan could divert it to another facility? Is there a
concern that China may have provided Pakistan with --
MR. RUBIN: I will get a specific answer to the heavy water question. But
again, the overall point is that we believe that they are still continuing
to live up to their commitment not to provide assistance to unsafeguarded
reactors, which would, in this case, apply.
So let me get you a specific answer. There are people who, when they look
at these problems, want a level of compliance that is unrealistic. And
there are those of us who need to examine what really would contribute to a
program, as opposed to a generalized policy of general assistance that
doesn't contribute to a program. So our measurement is whether they're
providing assistance to an unsafeguarded program. It's my understanding
that we still believe they are living up to that commitment.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - going to triple his money?
MR. RUBIN: I think I know where you're going.
QUESTION: How would the State Department know whether heavy water is
being diverted to a project? I mean, gee whiz.
MR. RUBIN: Well, the State Department will endeavor --
QUESTION: I mean, I know you've got satellites, but --
MR. RUBIN: The State Department will endeavor to answer the legitimate
question of our intrepid nonproliferation question in the front row.
QUESTION: But is this current, up to the moment - does this takes into
account what Bob Einhorn has looked into? This is today's most recent, up
to the date --
MR. RUBIN: I think, if we thought that the Chinese were violating one of
the most important commitments they've made to us in the last couple of
years, on an issue where we have a summit coming up --
QUESTION: That's why I ask.
MR. RUBIN: -- and we are hoping to make progress in the area of getting
agreement on peaceful nuclear cooperation, I think I'd know about
it.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Is the Secretary going to see Liu Hwa Qiu?
MR. RUBIN: I don't know whether that is on her schedule at this time. He
is meeting with Mr. Berger. And one of the things the Secretary and Mr.
Berger have tried to do is avoid duplicative meetings. I suspect she
probably will, but I just don't know when, and I'll try to get an answer
for you.
Any more on this subject?
QUESTION: Different area?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. Go ahead.
QUESTION: On September 7, the leader of the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians,
(inaudible) , rejected the peace plan suggested by the Minsk Group -- China,
Russia, French, and USA -- despite the fact that Azerbaijan and Armenia
accepted it. Have you made this report, and what steps will the US take to
influence the Armenian side?
MR. RUBIN: We are engaged, as you know, in a tripartite effort with the
French and the Russians to try to bring peace to this troubled region, and
we are working behind the scenes in that effort. I don't want to say
anything here that could undermine that effort, but we will try to get you
a specific answer to your question.
QUESTION: Follow-up to this question. At the same time, the House of
Representatives approved direct aid to Nagorno-Karabakh, and Azerbaijan
considered it as a violation of sovereignty. On the one hand, Armenia
rejected the OSCE peace plan, including American efforts; on the other hand,
they will benefit from the foreign operations bill. How long it will
continue, this double standard of American policy toward Armenia?
MR. RUBIN: We do not believe our policy is based on a double standard,
and we will continue to pursue it.
Yes.
QUESTION: Apparently, the United States Embassy in Brazil published a
business guide that is causing some consternation in that country ahead of
the President's visit, because it talks about the corruption problem there.
What do you --
MR. RUBIN: Well, I have something for you on that. Those of you who write
for a living will understand the issue here.
Apparently, the word "endemic" was used to describe certain activities in
Brazil, about corruption and other matters. Now, for those of you who
looked at a dictionary, you might discover that the word "endemic" could be
construed as something resembling "bred in the bone," as opposed to what
we believe the author intended, which was "widespread."
The intention of the author was to use the word "widespread" and not to
imply any cultural offense. The word will therefore be struck from the
report.
QUESTION: So it's just that one word?
MR. RUBIN: That's what we understand to be the guts of the problem, and
we will take that word out because the author neglected to take into
account an alternative meaning to widespread, which was suggesting that it
was "bred in the bone".
QUESTION: And the business guide will include the reference to corruption?
MR. RUBIN: Right, the word "endemic" will be taken out because of the
perceived slight.
In the back, same topic. On Brazil, or same continent?
QUESTION: No, on the trip --
MR. RUBIN: Oh.
QUESTION: -- of President Clinton to South America.
MR. RUBIN: Not on Brazil, okay.
QUESTION: There has been some upset in Argentina about some words of
Under Secretary Davidow that he made at the Foreign Press Center a couple
of days ago. I just wonder what is the real discussion that the United
States is going to have with Argentina, regarding corruption and also the
attacks on the press by the Argentinean Government. And also, I have a last
question. Do you have any comment on the 30th anniversary of the execution
of Che Guevara by the CIA and the Bolivian Government?
(Laughter)
QUESTION: Be careful.
MR. RUBIN: Let me get you a response to this important anniversary for
the record. As far as your first question is concerned, I have no doubt
that President Clinton and Secretary Albright in their discussions in
Argentina will make very clear the strength and the determination we have
to ensure press freedom everywhere in the world. We believe that a
democracy is not fully free and fully able to meet the needs of its people
if the people in that country aren't able to be able to hear and listen and
watch the free press in action. So we will be making that point.
There have been concerns expressed in the region, and I am sure that
President Clinton and Secretary Albright will be reiterating our view that
press freedoms are extremely important.
I think we had one in the back. Here's your shot.
QUESTION: This is South Africa.
MR. RUBIN: Yes, I know.
QUESTION: Okay, well, the issue here is on bilateral relations. I'd just
like to know, first of all, has there been any communication with the South
African Government about the FBI's role in the sting operation that
resulted in the arrest of three alleged spies here in the US?
MR. RUBIN: As far as the details of any such operation, if it did or
didn't exist, I'd refer you to the Justice Department. However, we have
reviewed this issue in general terms with the South African Government.
There has not been any protest on this matter.
QUESTION: Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr. Cem, said yesterday that they
delivered to all of the NATO capitals some documents and proof which show
the government of Greece supporting and cooperating with the Turkish terror
organization PKK. How do you feel when you designate PKK and DHKPC as
international terrorist organizations? And on the other side, is Athens
giving them some safe haven and an office in Athens, too?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we feel, when we designate these organizations, that we
were doing what we can do and what we should do to defend America and the
world from the threat of terrorism; and that's why we take these actions.
As far as the links that you are alleging, I am not aware of those links,
but we can look into that and try to get you answer.
QUESTION: On the same topic -- on the list.
MR. RUBIN: The list, yes.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on --
MR. RUBIN: That means you could cover the whole world because the list
included countries from the whole world. But please go ahead.
QUESTION: It's on the list itself. Do you have any comment on the comment
made by Arab-American Organization very harshly against this designation of
organizations.
MR. RUBIN: Only to say that we do not make terrorist lists on any other
basis than the evidence that the Secretary was provided and the danger to
United States citizens.
I think if you look at the list, you can see that groups pursuing their
goal through this illegitimate means are covered from the entire world, and
there is not one focus, there is a global focus; and that global focus is
terrorism.
Sid?
QUESTION: Jamie, have you seen, I believe it was President Mubarak's
comments regarding the Kikhia case? Do you have a comment on that?
MR. RUBIN: I have seen that. What I can tell you about them is that we
were more than a little surprised at his links to the United States
Government being involved in this; and we most certainly were not. It
doesn't make a lot of sense to us. They struck us as a bit illogical.
But the important point here is that we have raised the Kikhia case with
the government of Egypt -- including the issue of possible involvement by
Egyptian government officials -- at the highest levels. They have promised
to investigate the matter. We expect the government to do so. And we have
told Mr. Kikhia's family, as we will tell you today, that we intend to get
to the bottom of it.
We were a little surprised by those remarks, yes.
QUESTION: Have you made him aware of your surprise in any way?
MR. RUBIN: I think I just did.
QUESTION: First of all, I'd like to apologize for coming late. If you've
already addressed what I'm going to ask you, I'm going to ask you to repeat
it. Do you have any comment on the fall of the Italian Government?
MR. RUBIN: We did not address that question before you got in. I
understand the resignation has not yet been accepted by the president, but
it is an internal matter. We are going to continue to work with the Italian
Government as closely and with as great interest as we have in the past.
They have gone through many different phases in their government, and we
will work with whatever government emerges. But I'm not aware that it quite
meets the threshold you suggested.
QUESTION: Do you think it has anything to do with the departure of Reggie
Bartholomew?
MR. RUBIN: Did you two in the front row plot that question?
(Laughter)
We have no reason to believe, none whatsoever - through diplomatic channels,
intelligence channels, or public channels - that the departure of the able
Reginald Bartholomew had anything to do with this.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:30 P.M.)
|
