U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #151, 97-10-20

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

Monday, October 20, 1997

Briefer: James P. Rubin

NORTH KOREA
1-3		U.S. Food Assessment Team Traveling to North Korea October
		  25-November 4
3-4		Food Shortage Situation in North Korea
4-5		Reported Diversion of Food Aid
5		Reported Chinese Military Exercises Along the Border with
		  N. Korea
SOUTH AFRICA
5-7		President Mandela's Plans to Travel to Libya
ISRAEL
7		Developments in the Samuel Sheinbein Case
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
8		Assessment of Elections in Montenegro
9		Reports of Indicted War Criminals Harbored in Montenegro
10		Reported Vandalism at Bosnian Serb TV Transmitter in
		  Eastern Republika Srpska
COLOMBIA
10-11		General McCaffrey's Visit to Colombia/Meeting with
		  President Samper
11		Colombia First Lady's Visit U.S./Visa Issuance
PANAMA
11		Status of US-Panama Talks on Multinational
		  Counter-narcotics Center
CUBA
11		Visa Issuance for Mother of World Series Pitcher
GREECE/TURKEY/CYPRUS
11-12		Reported Turkish Aircraft Harassment of Greek Defense
		  Minister's Plane
CHINA
12-14		President Jiang Zemin Interview/Political
		  Dissidents/Democracy
RUSSIA
14-15		Status of Final Conclusion re August 16 Seismic Event
IRAQ
16		UN Security Council/Iraqi Sanctions
19		Status of Cease-Fire Between Kurdish Parties
JAPAN
16-17		Update on US-Japan Talks on Port Issue
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
17-18		Ambassador Ross' Travel to Region/Meetings
LIBYA
18		Pan Am 103 and Offer of Settlement to Family Members

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #151

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1997 12:40 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Happy Monday. I have one brief announcement, and then I'm here to take your questions.

A United States Government Food Needs Assessment Team will travel through the DPRK - North Korea - from October 25 to November 4. The seven-person team will examine both need and transparency issues. The team will include representatives from the AID, the Department of State, the Centers for Disease Control and other agencies.

I would remind you here today that all US assistance to North Korea is provided on a humanitarian basis. We have always regarded monitoring as crucial to the program. The monitoring system of the World Food Program, while not ideal, has ensured that there has been no significant diversion of American food aid. Nevertheless, we are seeking greater transparency with respect to distribution and assessment of need. The team will consult with North Korean officials and World Food Program representatives to strengthen the situation. The United States regards the food situation in North Korea as very serious, and the US Government recently announced the provision of $5 million in medical assistance to North Korea through UNICEF. The report of this team is designed to help us better understand the situation. The final travel schedule has not been confirmed.

Barry.

QUESTION: Jamie, can I ask you about that a little bit, without going over that celebrated briefing of a couple of weeks ago? You want better transparency, but you have a program and you find it operating well enough. In advance of the trip, could you say if there are no changes made - I don't know if there are still seven monitors instead of the 17 that I think the World Food Program wanted - if the situation remains the way it is, would there be any reason for the US not to continue food shipments?

MR. RUBIN: We believe that we have made clear to the North Korean Government the importance of having monitoring. I believe that some of the concerns that were expressed were resolved, in terms of people getting the necessary visas.

Again, as this team goes out there, its primary mission is, of course, to assess the problem and how deep the problem is. We've seen some excruciatingly painful stories about little children suffering, about famine being widespread. This is the first United States assessment team. There have been international assessment teams, but this will be the first United States assessment team. The goal is to get us new information, new assessment, new understanding of the problem.

In the course of those discussions, I would expect further consultations with the North Korean side about the crucial monitoring system, and why our ability to give assistance to the World Food Program for the World Food Program to give assistance to children is dependent upon an adequate monitoring system. I expect that will be part of the discussion. But I believe some of the acute concerns that were expressed have been worked through.

QUESTION: By visas, you mean there will be more monitors now?

MR. RUBIN: I don't know whether everyone has gotten their visa that they need, but I believe that that situation has improved.

QUESTION: Meaning more people can come in? More monitors.

MR. RUBIN: Meaning that there is an agreement that the monitors need to be able to do their job, and that some logistical hurdles have been overcome.

QUESTION: I don't want to prolong it, but a quick question. There are areas - you know, China doesn't insist on monitoring - there are areas of North Korea where US food doesn't go because there's no monitoring. Do you imagine the range, considering the horrible need, do you imagine the range of US assistance, geographically, will be expanded, or is it --

MR. RUBIN: That's premature at this point. Again, what's new today is the first American assessment team is going to go, be able to see with its own eyes many of these problems. When they return, many of the questions that you asked might be able to be discussed.

QUESTION: Jamie, did you say when?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did say when.

QUESTION: I'm sorry. I missed that.

MR. RUBIN: Would you like me to say it again?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. RUBIN: They will travel through North Korea from October 25 through

November 4.

QUESTION: What are the other agencies represented?

MR. RUBIN: I will get you a list. It's being headed by Len Rogers of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

QUESTION: Are there any areas of North Korea that have been deemed off limits for this assessment team, such as the two mountainous regions that no one has been to yet, except perhaps for Keith Richburg?

MR. RUBIN: I do not have information on that. We are hoping, in the next day or so, to be able to talk with Congressman Tony Hall. We did have a Department of State official accompanying him, and we will be getting a read-out from our people, as well as directly from Tony Hall, about what he saw, what he thought and what he learned.

As far as where the needs assessment team is going to go, I will try to get you further details about their itinerary; but that's still being worked out.

QUESTION: In the article over the weekend - two articles - about this, did you learn anything that you didn't already know?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I think the general tone of articles that we've seen have been the same, and that is that there is a tragic food shortage in North Korea. And that is why, despite our deep problems with many of North Korea's policies - and we have many significant problems - we have been prepared in the past to provide humanitarian assistance through the World Food Program to needy children, because we've long known that there are major food shortages, that people are suffering, that innocent children are malnourished and dying as a result of this food shortage.

I don't believe that it created a dramatically new fact base. It did indicate the scope of the problem. There were some direct anecdotes that I think our analysts will surely be interested in. But as far as - the article indicated that there were major food shortages and that people were suffering, and we believe that to be true.

QUESTION: And you don't glean anything in particular from the fact that this reporter was allowed to go - the first Western reporter was allowed to go into these areas?

MR. RUBIN: We do believe it is better when North Korea opens its system up to observation and better understanding. The more that people in that country are willing to allow our officials, as well as independent journalists, to learn what's happening there, we think the situation is better. More information is better than less information, especially in a society as opaque and a regime as difficult to understand as the North Korean regime.

QUESTION: Well, one of the points of the article was that people there are dying of famine in their own homes because they are so used to this stratified, rigid society, they can't get out; they can't even go to feeding points. I mean, is that - does that carry any weight in terms of what you'd like to ask the North Koreans to do? Because it seems to be pretty fundamental that you have to allow people to move around a bit more.

MR. RUBIN: It's a tragic situation there. I think that we would like to see the North Koreans understand that the more people understand what's going on there, the more willing people will be to try to help them.

As far as whether the fact that they're dying in their homes or suffering in their homes changes that they're dying, I'm not sure; other than to say that it's a tragic situation. There are clearly major food shortages. The regime itself is clearly spending its money on the wrong things, and people are dying because their scarce resources are being committed to a huge army. This skewed application of resources is causing the deaths and suffering for a lot of innocent people.

But what we can do is do what we have been doing, which is to talk with the North Koreans about the importance of letting people in. We are now sending our first American assessment team there, and they will be doing a comprehensive examination of the problem. After their trip, we'll be in a better position to answer some of the questions you might have.

QUESTION: Jamie, do you make anything of this report on South Korea last week that a North Korean - I believe it was a military craft that ran aground had aid packages from the United States on it?

MR. RUBIN: We understand that the remains of a can or cans of food, apparently donated to North Korea by an American non-governmental organization, were found on the submarine. They were not part of any US Government assistance to the DPRK.

There is no evidence still of diversion of food donated by the US Government -- no significant diversion - through the programs that are run by the World Food Program. And as far as this specific case is concerned, we cannot conclude from this information that there has been significant diversion of assistance donated by private American groups.

Monitoring is crucial to our aid programs, and we are confident that the monitoring of our assistance, through the World Food Program, is sufficient to ensure that there is no significant diversion. However, we are seeking improvement in the system and greater transparency. But this incident in and of itself does not bear on the World Food Program's efforts.

QUESTION: It wasn't a government contribution?

MR. RUBIN: That is what our people have determined.

QUESTION: I guess we've been through this in the past, but you wouldn't want to define "significant diversion", would you?

MR. RUBIN: "Significant" is one of those terms of art that is very important to being able to communicate information as best as we can.

If we thought that the diversion was significant, it would affect our program. We are constantly assessing the confidence we have in the World Food Program's efforts; and when it reaches a threshold that we determine is significant, we'll tell you and it will affect what we do.

QUESTION: Over the weekend there was a report by a news agency that there were Chinese military exercises along the border between China and North Korea.

MR. RUBIN: I've not seen that report, nor do I have any comment on it.

QUESTION: Another subject?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUESTION: Relating --

MR. RUBIN: Any more on this?

QUESTION: China?

MR. RUBIN: Yes. Well, that was - do you mean North Korea, or --

QUESTION: China. Can we just --

MR. RUBIN: Well, then let's move over here. Yes.

QUESTION: In relation to South Africa, what's the US response to comments made by President Mandela over the weekend, which described America as an arrogant and racist country, in relation to your opposition to his forthcoming trip to Libya?

MR. RUBIN: I haven't seen that specific quote, fortunately. But let me say that we have the highest possible respect for President Mandela. He's an historical figure. We have the warmest possible relations with the government of South Africa.

However, we believe that when you are a good friend, you are capable of expressing your opinion. In our opinion, at a time when Libya is under sanctions and is refusing to abide by the international community's demands on an issue so fundamental - terrorism -- an issue that undermines the very core of the international system, the use of terror in flying international aircraft, that it is important not to send the wrong signals.

So our position has been that governments should have the lowest possible diplomatic contact with the government of Libya unless and until the government of Libya returns to the norm of international behavior by complying with the international community's demands, including, obviously, turning over the suspects who were involved in such a dastardly deed.

We have the highest respect for President Mandela. Obviously, there is a difference in that point of view, and so we would be disappointed if there were a ratcheting up of the diplomatic contact with a government under sanctions.

QUESTION: Would you hope that he'd be pressing the case on the Lockerbie suspects?

MR. RUBIN: Well, if he does choose to go, we certainly would very much hope that one of the prime topics of any discussion with the government of Libya by any nation would be the importance of Libya complying with Security Council resolutions.

QUESTION: On that subject.

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUESTION: Does it take any sting out of the situation, given the fact that he is going overland and not by air?

MR. RUBIN: Absolutely. By air would be a violation of the sanctions, and we did not suggest, nor am I suggesting here, that we have any indication that President Mandela would be violating sanctions. This isn't a question of violating sanctions. Let me repeat that, so there's no misunderstanding.

What it's a question of is what level of diplomatic contact one wants to have with a regime that is prepared to pursue such rogue behavior as supporting international terrorism or preventing these people from being brought to justice.

QUESTION: He says he's trying to - (inaudible). Do you see it that way?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I think I - we can keep going on this, but I think I've been very clear. When you have a good friend, as we consider President Mandela and the government of South Africa to be a good friend, friends are capable of stating differences calmly and objectively. We would be disappointed if he decided to make such a trip, not because of anything but the fact that Libya is under international sanctions, and to give them any solace at a time like this would be unfortunate. On the other hand, if he does take the trip, we would hope that the issue before the international community -- namely, sanctions -- would be addressed.

QUESTION: Another subject.

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUESTION: On Israel --

QUESTION: Same - on Mandela, can I ask a question?

MR. RUBIN: About the trip to Libya?

QUESTION: Yes. Basically, you say that he is a friend of the United States.

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUESTION: But his remarks are that Americans are dull. As a friend, what is the limit of that friendship; what are the boundaries?

MR. RUBIN: Well, we don't find Americans dull. I haven't seen the specific transcript of his remarks, but you're reading a report of his remarks.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. RUBIN: We need to see the transcript. We don't comment about reports of remarks. And I haven't seen that, but I can assure you that we don't regard Americans as dull.

QUESTION: Do you have a reaction to the Israeli decision by the judge to extradite Mr. Sheinbein? And I have another follow-up, if you don't mind.

MR. RUBIN: Yes. I spoke to Secretary Albright about this this morning. As you know, she had written a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu seeking the maximum cooperation of the Israeli Government in this effort. The Secretary of State welcomes the decision of the Israeli Attorney General, and we are grateful for the government of Israel's full cooperation in this case.

We will continue to work closely with the Department of Justice, Montgomery County prosecutors and the government of Israel as extradition proceedings progress. We would hope that Mr. Sheinbein would return to the United States as soon as possible. We do understand the Israeli judicial system will begin its consideration of the US extradition request upon receipt of the necessary documentation.

In other words, we are pleased that the government has taken this decision. The Secretary very much wants to see justice served here and hopes the continuing discussions between legal officials from both sides will clarify the situation with the view to having Mr. Sheinbein return to the United States.

Yes, we'll do one more follow-up, sure.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you think that the pressure that Congressmen Callahan and Livingston put on Israel by freezing the money until the 23rd had an impact on this?

MR. RUBIN: Well, as I understand from the latest report, they're saying they didn't do that; that that wasn't what the freeze was about. I do think long before that happened, Secretary Albright wrote a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and we have been raising this in diplomatic channels, trying to express to them the importance we attach to this issue. But at the end of the day, we believe they made the decision for their own reasons.

QUESTION: Today in Montenegro, there's a new President, apparently. He's a fierce critic of Milosevic - Djukanovic, I think, is his name -- and he says he wants better contacts with the West. Is there any effort to oblige him - to either send people there to talk to him, or to assist him in his new reign?

MR. RUBIN: Yes. Official results are not in, but the Djukanovic camp is claiming victory. With more than 98 percent of the votes counted, preliminary reports have him several thousand votes ahead.

The United States welcomes Prime Minster Djukanovic's commitment to improving relations with the international community and making progress on areas of mutual concern. We commend the motivation and the determination of the Montenegrin voters who exercised their right to vote, especially their rejection of nationalist and ethnic rhetoric and their support for political and economic reform.

We do believe that Montenegro has a better track record than Serbia on democratization. This election was significant in that it allowed the people of Montenegro a real voice in the political process. We hope this trend continues.

Although there have been some complaints concerning election day irregularities, observers on the scene - including American observers - reported that turnout was extraordinarily high and the balloting was relatively free of abuse.

In other words, we do see some hopeful signs, and we welcome his apparent victory, and we hope that he will be in a position to move forward in trying to improve relations and get Montenegro with the international program of support for the Dayton agreement, support for democratization, and keep moving in the right direction.

QUESTION: What are the problems that you see that Montenegro - what are the things that Montenegro should do in order to have the best possible relations with the rest of the world?

MR. RUBIN: Well, the first and foremost thing that both Serbia and Montenegro should do is to exercise all possible leverage and work as hard as they can every day, from morning until night, to see that the peace agreement that the international community spent so much time and effort trying to create is implemented.

We do believe that as part of the former Yugoslav Republic of Yugoslavia - I didn't quite say that right - but Serbia and Montenegro both can play a role in trying to promote the Bosnian Serbs' compliance with Dayton. That is the first and foremost. Secondly, there are important benchmarks in the area of democratization and human rights within Serbia and Montenegro. Third, again, as part of the two countries left from what was Yugoslavia, encouraging tolerance in the area of Kosovo and other minority questions.

So there's a three-part agenda - it's the human rights concerns within Serbia-Montenegro; it's the compliance with Dayton; and then it's democratization. And there is still plenty of room for improvement in all of those, but we'll have to get you someone to discuss that in greater detail once we see when the election comes through.

QUESTION: Are they harboring indicted war criminals in Montenegro? They were at one point.

MR. RUBIN: There have been reports of war criminals coming in and out. That would be an example of not pursuing compliance with Dayton. That would certainly affect our ability to bring them into the international fold.

QUESTION: And is there any concern that Djukanovic has talked so vehemently against Milosevic - there's a lot of speculation, at least, on the wires and in some of the press that he may want to split Montenegro from Serbia, thereby destroying what's left of Yugoslavia. Where does the United States stand on that?

MR. RUBIN: I don't think we have a position on that. We're interested in more than how the two entities are configured -- is what the two entities' policies are. We have deep concerns about the policies of Serbia and Montenegro in the area of war criminals, as you suggested, in the area of democratization, and tolerance for minorities.

QUESTION: One last question in the region, which is, Croatia did turn over a lot of war criminals a couple of weeks ago. They've made some other changes of senior officials, I think, in Eastern Slavonia and in Mostar and some other places. Are these real changes, as far as you can tell? Or is it a cosmetic set of changes?

MR. RUBIN: There are ten people in The Hague; that's real enough for me.

QUESTION: What about the others?

MR. RUBIN: As far as what will happen, some of the people who were responsible for the kind of steps the Secretary was so public in criticizing during her trip there are out of power. That's also a good thing.

But like all parts of the world, we'll be waiting to see whether these steps in the right direction are sustained. But clearly there's been major progress, and I think you've now seen that clearly stated by the chief prosecutor of the War Crimes Tribunal, who is quite pleased that she's now going to get down to do the important work that she's been preparing to do.

QUESTION: Towards the end of last week, a pirate radio transmitter surfaced -- one that was being operated by Bosnian Serbs that support Radovan Karadzic. That transmitter appears to have suffered some malfunction or explosion overnight. What does the State Department know about the transmitter, the pirated transmitter? Do you know anything about what actually took it out of operating function?

MR. RUBIN: A transmitter on Mount Zep, in the Eastern Republika Srpska, which was being used for unauthorized transmissions, was vandalized by Pale supporters over the weekend. Key components, i.e., receivers and transmitters, were removed from the site. We support the High Representative's demand that President Krajisnik is responsible for this action and that the removed parts be returned.

I can say that the US Air National Guard Aircraft Commando Solo are being used to transmit a brief message to normal recipients in the broadcast area explaining what has happened and advising that normal transmissions will return as soon as possible. Separately, we have seen reports that a transmitter in Bijeljina has been damaged by an explosion. We are seeking details on that.

So for simplicity's sake, the 70 percent of the Republika Srpska that gets transmissions from Banja Luka continues to. The 30 percent that had no transmissions but then briefly had these rogue transmissions is now dark, and this plane is communicating our intention to try to bring transmissions back.

The international community is demanding that the vandalized transmitter's parts be returned, and we are determined to work as quickly as we can, in a determined way, to get as much of Bosnia -- especially the Republika Srpska -- as possible to have access to unbiased, relatively normal reporting. We are using the resources of all US Government agencies, and there are a whole bunch of people now working with the Office of the High Representative to try to see whether we can get as free media as possible going in the Republika Srpska and the rest of Bosnia.

QUESTION: Jamie, as I understand it, Barry McCaffrey is meeting today with President Samper in Colombia, and there are some in Colombia who interpret this as the sign of a warming trend between the United States and Colombia. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. RUBIN: Yes. I would not regard it as a warming trend; I would regard it as the way of trying to get down to serious business, and the serious business is fighting drugs. We believe it is important for General McCaffrey to visit Colombia and see firsthand the problems narcotics production and trafficking have generated for both Colombia and the United States.

The meeting between Colombian President Samper and General McCaffrey does not signify a change in our bilateral relationship. In his meeting, General McCaffrey will reiterate our expectation that Samper use his office and his influence with the Colombian Congress to push forward important counternarcotics reforms; in particular, making sure that the extradition bill is retroactive. Without retroactivity, the bill would be seriously weakened, and we believe that a bill with retroactivity needs to be pushed from the highest levels of the Colombian Government.

We also believe President Samper needs to ensure that the asset forfeiture, money laundering and sentencing laws recently passed are aggressively implemented. His administration needs to further tighten prison security so that imprisoned drug lords cannot live in luxury and continue to run their illegal enterprises from behind bars.

The Samper administration also needs to aggressively confront the public corruption that is narcotics-related and show his support for the men and women on the front lines of this battle. President Samper needs to ensure that the national police budget not only is not cut any further, but is restored to the levels requested by the police and urgently needed to combat the drug trade.

I think you can see from that list that we still have serious concerns in this area. Although there's a tendency to often exaggerate the diplomatic significance of meetings, we do not regard this as any change.

QUESTION: May I follow up on that?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUESTION: The first lady of Colombia is coming to Washington. She's going to be at the IBV tomorrow. I'm just wondering, to clarify, if this suspension of the visa affects her or not?

MR. RUBIN: I don't really know the answer to that question.

QUESTION: And on Panama, do you have any report that you can tell us about the negotiations?

MR. RUBIN: No, other than that we're working to try to get them done as soon as possible. We're hopeful that we will be able to create this multinational counternarcotics center.

QUESTION: Can you take the question - (inaudible) --

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I think I just did. If I didn't say I take it, I hereby take it. I have hereby taken the question on Samper's wife.

QUESTION: Can you explain how it came to pass that the mother of the Cuban pitcher obtained a visa to come to the United States to watch her son pitch in the World Series?

MR. RUBIN: We will take another visa question on Cuba.

QUESTION: Last week, there was an incident over the Aegean in which the plane of the Defense Minister of Greece was harassed by two Turkish fighters. Do you have a reaction on that?

MR. RUBIN: I don't have a specific planned reaction. But I can tell you that we would like to see the over-flight ban returned to. We would like to see both sides conduct exercises in such a way as to minimize friction. And we would like to see as much progress as possible in this very complex issue of Cyprus.

So Ambassador Holbrooke has visited with the Turkish Government. I don't have a direct read-out on his trip, other than to say that we've continued our discussions; and in the case of over-flights, we think that both sides should return to the previous state of play.

QUESTION: Since this incident hasn't anything to do with over-flights over Cyprus, and since the Greek Government says that this applied to --

MR. RUBIN: I thought you were talking about airplanes and the Defense Minister's plane. So why doesn't it have anything to do with over- flights?

QUESTION: Do you consider an over-flight the Defense Minister of Greece to visit Cyprus?

MR. RUBIN: Right, but it's still over Cyprus. That's an over-flight.

QUESTION: He was going back to Greece, over the Aegean and two Turkish fighters harassed his airplane.

MR. RUBIN: We must have different --

QUESTION: The Greek Government says that he supplied reports to NATO, to the US and to European Governments about the incident with complete details. Could you look into it?

MR. RUBIN: It's still an over-flight, which we think shouldn't happen. There should be a return to the previous prohibition on over-flights.

Yes, China, go ahead.

QUESTION: Jiang Zemin, in an interview with Time magazine said that release of prisoners is a Justice Department function, and not for him to negotiate. He also characterized Wei Jingsheng and Wang Dan as criminals, not political dissidents. Given that he made this statement ten days before the summit, how does it impact the summit? Any possibility of raising the issue with him and securing the release?

The second part to this question is, did the State Department at any point of time believe that either of these two prisoners would be released before the summit?

MR. RUBIN: As far as the second is concerned, we don't make a habit of telling you when we believe things and when we don't.

As far as our views about human rights, let me be very clear. We have long made clear to the Chinese Government -- Secretary Albright has done this in every meeting she's had with Foreign Minister Qian Qichen - that human rights are of deep concern to the United States, and the unjustified imprisonment of political dissidents is a major problem in our relationship, and that we will never be able to have the full potential of our relationship with China realized so long as we have these kind of human rights problems between us.

As far as what we think will happen, all I can tell you is that it's always been part of our dialogue - specific cases have been part of our dialogue -- and I would expect it to continue to be part of our dialogue up to and including the summit. So we'll have to see what happens. But there should be no doubt that human rights concern - especially when it comes to prominent dissidents like the ones you mentioned - is something extremely important to the Secretary and the President, and continues to be raised at the highest levels as often as we think is appropriate with the goal of accomplishing their release, as opposed to the goal of making public our concern.

QUESTION: The fundamental disagreement is that they're criminals and not political dissidents. That sort of takes the air out of --

MR. RUBIN: We believe that they should be released.

QUESTION: On that subject, the President of China told The Washington Post in an interview he thought maybe Einstein's law of relativity should be applied - that democracy is a relative term. You know, democracy is one thing in one country, one thing in another country. He's sort of appealing for understanding that their system is different. Would you apply Einstein's law of relativity to democracy in China? Or do you know imprisonment of dissidents when you see it?

MR. RUBIN: Can you always remember that you asked me to do Einstein's relativity of physics in China?

Let me answer the question this way - I'm neither a lawyer nor a physicist.

QUESTION: You are a realist?

MR. RUBIN: I'm not a magician; I'm a realist. No, this is not a joking matter, obviously.

QUESTION: No.

MR. RUBIN: We believe that dissidents are unfairly and unjustly imprisoned in China. Our human rights report is quite clear on this subject, and we believe that the specific names that have come up, those gentlemen - Mr. Wang Dan and Wei Jingsheng -- should be released as soon as possible. We would be delighted if they were released as soon as possible. Whether that's before or after the summit, it would be something that would be very important because of the important role that they have played and an important signal of Chinese willingness to deal with these concerns.

But we have no reason to believe right now that that is going to happen. We are continuing to work the problem. We would be delighted if it did happen, but any suggestion that it is going to happen would have to come from the Chinese side, and we don't have that at this point.

So what we're going to do is to continue to focus on the problem and focus on the importance of releasing them. However, I think for those of you who have covered US-China relations for a long time, this is a unique event. We're going to have a Chinese leader here. There hasn't been a Chinese leader here in a very long time. We have long said that when it comes to our relations with China, because of the importance of our relations with China to American national security interests and to the interests of our friends and allies in the region, that we have a multifaceted relationship.

We will work on human rights. We will work as hard as we can on proliferation. And we will work as hard as we can on trade. We will work as hard as we can on cooperation in the area of drugs, in the area of law enforcement efforts, in the area of the environment. China is going to have to play a critical role if the climate change issue is ever going to be resolved satisfactorily.

So as far as American national interests are concerned, we have specific national interests in the area of proliferation. Then, of course, we have humanitarian interests that are deeply embedded in our country, when it comes to human rights. We will be able to pursue both, we hope.

QUESTION: On another subject. In August --

MR. RUBIN: Any more on China? Okay.

QUESTION: In August, the State Department, among other US agencies, expressed concern about what could have been or what was seen to be, by some people, a nuclear explosion at the Russian testing ground. Has there now been a reversal of that suspicion?

MR. RUBIN: I believe that we never stated what we thought it was. We stated our deep concerns about the event and, as far as I know, we never stated what the event was. We have information that a seismic event occurred on August 16 in the Kara Sea, approximately 130 kilometers from the Russian nuclear test range at Novaya Zemlya.

We have not reached a final conclusion as to whether the August 16 seismic event was an explosion or an earthquake. While there is evidence indicating Russia was conducting nuclear-related experiments at the Novaya Zemlya test site at the time of the August 16 event, we cannot connect the activity at the test site to the August 16 seismic event in the Kara Sea.

In short, we don't know whether it was an explosion or an earthquake, in terms of any final conclusion. You often see in news accounts rolling conclusions as different people have them, but I'm not in a position to state at this time what our final conclusion as to what transpired there, other than to say we have not concluded that it is one or the other.

QUESTION: Wouldn't it be unlikely for any country to conduct a nuclear test x-hundred miles or x-hundred kilometers off the coast in an underwater site?

MR. RUBIN: Again, you are going to try to draw me down the path of drawing a conclusion, and I am determined to say that we have reached no final conclusion. We have raised this matter in our discussions with the Russians. We will continue to do so, but we have reached no final conclusion.

QUESTION: Do you want to leave that, Jamie, that the weight isn't in one direction or the other? The people you used to work for are pretty convinced it's a seismic event and --

MR. RUBIN: The moment we have a final conclusion --

QUESTION: The community thinks it's earthquake. The State Department - the US Government thinks it could be either or?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I've seen different government officials stating it from both sides. And rather than pick a side, I'm going to wait until we have a final conclusion.

QUESTION: Have you not concluded, though, that it was not a nuclear explosion? There was no radioactivity?

MR. RUBIN: We have reached no final conclusion as to whether it was an explosion of a nuclear kind or any other kind or an earthquake. We haven't reached a final conclusion. There are some preliminary reports about what we thought when it first happened, preliminary reports about our preliminary conclusions. But until we reach a final conclusion, I don't think it's wise for us to state what we think it was from this podium.

QUESTION: And being unable to determine, what does that tell you about your ability to monitor the treaty itself? Do you have concerns about that?

MR. RUBIN: Remember that the monitoring of a treaty is not proving a negative. It is not proving that something didn't happen. The monitoring of a treaty is being able to monitor with confidence that a militarily significant event has occurred. We believe, had the treaty been in effect, we would be in an even better position to have come to a quicker conclusion or an ultimate conclusion about what happened here.

So on the contrary, the comprehensive test ban would give us additional tools to be sure that when an event that we have not made a determination has occurred, we will be in a better position to make that determination. Just because you can't decide what something is instantly doesn't mean that you are not in a position to respond in a timely manner if it was militarily significant.

QUESTION: Is there anything on the Goldman-Sachs bond offering for GazProm?

MR. RUBIN: No, I have no update for you.

QUESTION: How about also the Shell deal for gas?

MR. RUBIN: No update for you on that.

QUESTION: In the UN word is spreading that the US is backing off - I don't know if you can deal with this at this moment - travel by Iraqi officials. Can you tell us where the ball is now?

MR. RUBIN: Well, what happens in New York is a privilege that you all don't often have here is that you see the rolling negotiating process. I have watched that unfold, and it's quite a thrill to watch all the countries tell all their journalists what every different sentence was said in every different meeting. So then there is an openness to that process that is rather unique, and I observed it.

I guess what I would have to say from having observed it, and many debates like this on Iraq, is that first, as our current position, we are looking to have the strongest possible action taken by the Security Council to confront Saddam Hussein's refusal to live up to international requirements. I think I can say that we found it outrageous and ridiculous in the extreme that their response to recalcitrance is to propose further recalcitrance.

Frankly, their statement that they would not let UNSCOM do its job if certain steps were taken by the Council has rebounded negatively. And there's been a strong reaction on the part of Council members that it's not up to Saddam Hussein to determine what the requirements are; it's up to the Security Council.

I would say this: the negotiating process in the Security Council is designed to achieve an objective. The objective is the strongest possible result. And sometimes that means starting out stronger than you know you can get with the maximum number of votes. So you may be watching that diplomatic effort unfold, but we are not walking back from our original objective, which is to get the strongest possible Council action to achieve Iraqi compliance.

QUESTION: One last follow-up, and if you can't go further, then that's okay too. But the suggestion is that - of course, nobody doubts the US wants the strongest possible action. What people doubt is that your friends, your allies, are not all that supportive of the US, so the talk is now that you're backing away from the restrictions on travel.

MR. RUBIN: Secretary Albright spoke to Foreign Minister Vedrine this morning about this issue. She sent a message to Prime Minister Primakov over the weekend. We are going to work to try to achieve, again, the maximum support for the maximally strong resolution. You have to balance the strength of the resolution with the unanimity that you can achieve because the Security Council has been unanimous in its demand that Iraq comply with its demands. So we want to keep as much unanimity as possible.

QUESTION: Different subject -- the Japan shipping dispute that was afoot while you were gone last Friday. Apparently negotiators did not reach final agreement and sort out all of the details on the breakthrough that was announced Friday. I'm wondering if there is a problem there that you know of, or if it's just that it's complex. And a follow-up to that being, have you heard anything about what the Federal Maritime Commission has decided to do as regards the fines and any other sanctions it was talking about?

MR. RUBIN: Secretary Albright received a detailed briefing from Under Secretary Eizenstat this morning. He indicated that he and his Japanese counterparts, as well as other officials from both sides, met throughout the weekend. The talks are still continuing today. The framework of a resolution of the issue was reached Friday after his work with Transportation Department Under Secretary Mort Downey and Japanese Ambassador Sato.

They met all night last night, into the early hours of the morning. They are now - working-level experts are now finalizing details, and we expect a comprehensive agreement will be reached very shortly, at which time I think the question that you asked as a follow-up will be answered. But we can't really answer the specifics of the agreement until it's reached, because we don't want to risk queering the deal.

QUESTION: Jamie, do you know which building will announce it, once it's reached?

MR. RUBIN: No, but I think Under Secretary Eizenstat has been certainly taking the lead on this issue. Where he does it from, I don't know. But I certainly can try to find out for you.

QUESTION: Middle East.

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUESTION: Dennis Ross has, according to reports coming out of Jerusalem, asked for a specific time-out of six to nine months, that would allow time for final status talks. Can you comment on it and confirm?

MR. RUBIN: I certainly am not going to confirm any of the details of what Dennis Ross, Ambassador Ross, may or may not have proposed, but I can say this. He has briefed the Secretary extensively in the last few days about his meetings and, before he left, what his intentions were. And she and he talked through some strategy on this. The Secretary is following these exchanges very closely.

She set two goals for Ambassador Ross. First, tangible results in the work of the interim committees; and second, to work out a package of issues -- which include security, time-out and further redeployments -- that will unlock the door to the permanent status negotiations.

As a result of her instructions, Ambassador Ross is encouraging the two sides to work with a sense of urgency on the unresolved issues. Ambassador Ross is working with them specifically on the airport, the seaport and safe passage. We do hope that some balance can be struck on how to deal with the other group of issues in order to permit the rapid resumption of permanent status negotiations. But it's not our practice to get into the details of what that package would look like. But the Secretary is anxious to make clear that now is the time for the leaders to take the opportunity and that there is a sense of urgency that the Secretary feels.

QUESTION: Why is there a sense of urgency?

MR. RUBIN: Well, frankly, this is one of those situations where some momentum has been built up. There is always a chance that an intervening development can destroy that momentum. When momentum builds, it's not a time to sit on one's laurels; it's a time to make the hard choices.

So the Secretary believes that we have some momentum that's built up since her trip and since the effort to get these interim committees established began, and the package of issues were laid out as an agenda - including the time-out, security, the permanent status and further redeployment. So now is the moment to seize the opportunity that's been created by her work and the meeting that was held between Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Failure to seize that opportunity could only give the opponents of peace additional time to screw it up.

QUESTION: Jamie, what is your reaction to reports that the Libyan UN representative is involved in sending letters to Pan Am 103 survivors to try to buy them off? Is this true? And what is the reaction?

MR. RUBIN: We do think the Libyan Government has cynically abused the openness of the United States in general and the availability of these family members to try to play on their obvious concern about this issue.

As I understand it, at different times different family members have purported to speak for the group, but it's our understanding - as best we can determine - that the group still believes that there ought to be a trial in either Scotland or the United States. Libya continues to try to thwart the will of the international community and throw sand in the eyes of various countries around the world in whatever way it can. But we're determined to see justice done in this case.

QUESTION: And the UN, I understand, did okay or approve a trial in England or Scotland?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, the UN resolution makes clear that that's where the trial has to be.

QUESTION: In your State Department designation of the international terrorist organization - one of the PKK front office is active right here in Washington, D.C. The name is AKIN. The Turkish Government last week told us they provided some proof and documents about this AKIN office and the connection with the PKK terrorist organization. Can you confirm that you got this kind of documentation? Because they said they delivered it to the State Department.

MR. RUBIN: That was not provided to me, but we can certainly check on that and get that to you as soon as possible.

QUESTION: Can I follow on - (inaudible) - Mandela --

MR. RUBIN: I think we did seven questions on Nelson Mandela.

QUESTION: I was going to ask your assessment of the latest fighting in Northern Iraq - if the possibility of what you called last week adventurism by Baghdad and Iran diminished? And what happened in Ankara - your evaluation?

MR. RUBIN: The cease-fire appears to be holding in Northern Iraq. There have been claims, counter-claims and denials of cease-fire violations. But the current situation appears to be quiet. The co-sponsors of the Ankara process met with representatives of both the KDP and PUK today in Ankara. We are in regular touch with both the KDP and the PUK to try to maintain the cease-fire. We have stressed to both parties that they must observe the cease-fire without conditions. As we have said before, we believe renewed fighting serves neither the Kurdish parties involved nor the Kurdish people.

In our contacts with the parties, we have discussed the need for them to abide by the call made by the co-sponsors on October 17. So we have been working with all the countries who are co-sponsors, working with the parties, trying to prevent this situation from getting worse. It appears that we have a cease-fire. We have no indication that the Iraqi military is in a position or moved in a position to try to exploit the situation.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:30 P.M.)

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