U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #48, 98-04-20
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1159
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, April 20, 1998
Briefer: James P. Rubin
STATEMENTS
1 Mourning the death of Octavio Paz
1 Secretary Albright to meet PM Netanyahu, Chairman Arafat in
London on May 4
3 Possibility of further meetings in Europe the week of May 4
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
1,5 Amb. Ross & Assistant Sec. Indyk trip to travel to region
this week
2,6-7 UK & European Union role; UK PM Blair's efforts; Roadblocks
remain
3-4 Need for parties to make hard decisions
4 No current plan for including more parties in London
meetings
5-6 Speculation on outcome of meetings is premature
CHINA
7 Arrival of Wang Dan welcomed; US doesn't control timing of
prisoner releases
8 Signs of recent toleration of dissent
8,10 Chinese human rights practice falls far short of
international standards
8 Exiling of dissidents; US concerns with Chinese practices
10 Role of NSC's Kristoff in Wang Dan's release not decisive
11 Spare parts for Sikorsky helicopters for China; No relation
to Wang Dan's release
IRAQ
11 Information to IAEA still incomplete
11-12 UN six-month report shows failure to cooperate
11-12 No significance to parade in Baghdad
12 No information on the role of the Russian ambassador in
Baghdad
TWO KOREAS
12-13 Bilateral talks ended April 17; US support for meaningful
dialogue
AFGHANISTAN
13,18-19 Amb. Richardson's efforts over the weekend
13 New efforts to hold internal talks April 27
14,15 Meeting of warring factions April 20 in Islamabad; Some
prisoners released
14 US supports quick end to fighting
NIGERIA
15 Election process seriously flawed and failing so far
15 US calls on Abacha not to run for president
IRAN
15-16 Leak of US report on terrorism; Assessment of Iran's 1997's
record
CANADA
16 PM Chretien's trip to Cuba;
CUBA
16 No sign constructive engagement works with Cuba
17 Criticism of US Cuba policy at Summit of the Americas
17-18 Comparison of Cuba with Chinese or Iranian government
behavior
AZERBAIJAN
18 Temporary halt to rebroadcasts of Radio Free Europe and
Radio Liberty
SERBIA
19 Happenings in Kosovo are matters of international concern
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #48
MONDAY, APRIL 20, 1998,12:55 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Sorry for the delay.
Let me start with regard to the death of Octavio Paz. The people of the
United States join Mexico in mourning the death of Octavio Paz. We offer
our deepest sympathies to his family, his many friends everywhere and the
Mexican nation. He was more than one of Mexico's greatest men of letters.
His incomparable poetry and penetrating essays and criticism brought him
international acclaim, culminating in the first Nobel Prize for Literature
awarded to a Mexican citizen. We in the United States will remember him
with great affection and gratitude for his revealing explanations of the
reality and complexity of our southern neighbor. His tremendous literary
and critical talent served to build lasting bridges of understanding
between our two peoples.
Moving to another part of the world, in order to clarify what I think has
been some minor, modest confusion with respect to what will go on in London,
let me say the following. Sometime ago, Secretary of State Albright asked
Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat to see her separately in
London. The purpose of these meetings is to determine whether the ideas the
US has shared with the parties can provide a basis for a breakthrough
on the four-part agenda that we have talked to you about and, ultimately,
the beginning of the permanent status negotiations. Ambassador Ross, along
with Assistant Secretary Indyk, will be leaving at the end of this week to
meet with the leaders in the region in an effort to focus on the issues
that we believe need to be addressed if Secretary Albright's separate
meetings in London will be productive on May 4.
The United States has been working with the parties for many months now to
try to put the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations back on track. We are
prepared to continue that effort if the parties are prepared to take the
decisions required to make this effort succeed; and it is clear that the
time has come for those decisions to be made.
QUESTION: Of course there are all sorts of questions that flow from that.
For one thing -- and this may not be the main question -- but if Ross and
Indyk are out there early, wouldn't they know while they're out there,
before she would get to London, whether the parties are disposed as you
would have them be disposed? In other words, is the London trip on for sure,
whatever Ross and Indyk might find?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. The British angle here - if Blair or whoever meets with
Arafat and Netanyahu, would that be separate? And how does the US feel
about a European willing to intervene?
MR. RUBIN: I have no information on separate meetings that may or may not
take place. For those of you who followed us on our travels in this area,
you know that we've been to London several times in the past to meet with
one or the other of the leaders. And in different times, different ones of
those leaders met with Prime Minister Blair and sometimes they didn't; so
we're not sure what the exact plan would be. But as far as the European
Union's role in the peace process, we are very clear that we appreciate
the efforts that the European governments have made to contribute to the
peace process, both politically and economically. We've been consulting
with them all along, and will continue to do so. They have made important
technical contributions on issues such as the interim issues with regard to
the seaport and other matters. We're hopeful that they will continue to be
in a position to do that.
With respect to the current situation, I'm confident that Prime Minister
Major, in his discussions --
QUESTION: Blair.
MR. RUBIN: You started me on that. (Laughter). Prime Minister Blair, my
apologies, made clear to the parties his desire for there to be progress.
So let me say this - we welcome and we hope that the discussions that Prime
Minister Blair has had in the region will encourage the leaders to make the
hard decisions that I referred to in the statement.
We're not aware at this point that there has been any substantive change of
the position of either of the parties. And as far as we're concerned, there
still are very significant and difficult roadblocks to restarting the peace
process. That is what Ambassador Ross will be talking about on his visit,
and hopefully will be able to clear away some of those roadblocks in
Secretary Albright's meetings in London with the two parties separately.
QUESTION: Is it consecutive, the stop in London? Or does she do anything
about changing her bags, changing her portfolio?
MR. RUBIN: At this point, it would look like those of you who are flying
with us to Asia should be prepared to stop in Europe on the same trip.
QUESTION: Now, you have ministers' meetings - finance and foreign - a few
days later, preparing for the G-8. Does she stay for that? In other words,
is this like a lot of --
MR. RUBIN: As far as the schedule between that, we'll keep you posted
before you leave, those of you who are traveling with us to Asia. I don't
have an answer.
QUESTION: But you say separately --
MR. RUBIN: I gave you May the 4th, which is, I believe, a Monday. The
meetings in Europe that you're referring to are at the end of that week. So
I wouldn't rule out at all the possibility of a return flight and then
another flight.
QUESTION: All right, and when you said separately with these, you mean
separate from the Europeans? Going in separately with each of them.
MR. RUBIN: No, I meant separately. Secretary Albright will meet with
Prime Minister Netanyahu in a bilateral meeting.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. RUBIN: Two people will be at that meeting.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. RUBIN: Then she will meet separately with Chairman Arafat, and two
people will be at that meeting - her and the Chairman.
QUESTION: Last question, and probably the most substantive of all of
these - there was the notion that the US would lay out call it whatever you
want, a plan, a proposal, a scenario, a script. And in fact, it seemed that
Arafat would not agree to move ahead, either with the Europeans or whatever,
until he saw that and, in fact, it was said, until the Israelis accepted
it. What happened to the proposition of the US laying out its prescription,
its formula - pick your own word - but you know what I mean. I don't
mean a blueprint, but what you want the two sides to do, publicly. Are you
going to do that before London?
MR. RUBIN: I can answer the beginning and the end of the question; the
middle doesn't resemble anything I'm familiar with, so let me stick with
the beginning and the end.
As far as the question of whether the United States would decide to speak
publicly about proposals that we had made or ideas that we had presented to
the parties, this has been an idea that has been kicking around for some
time. Our views on it haven't changed, and Secretary Albright has made
clear to you that if she has something to say on the Middle East peace
process publicly with respect to how it's going, and what the parties'
views are, and their reaction to our ideas, she will do so. But we are no
closer now to doing that than we were a couple of weeks ago when I read
about it in various newspapers as if it would have already happened
by now.
So what I can say about it is that we are going to continue working until
we think that we can't make any more progress diplomatically. At that point,
we will assess what we think is the best way to catalyze the peace process.
That is one idea that you mentioned; there are others. When we've made a
decision as to what we think will best catalyze the peace process, we'll
let you know. But we haven't reached the point where we think that
additional discussions are not useful. We think that they can be useful if -
- and only if -- decisions are made no longer on procedures, but on
substance. Will the leaders make the hard decisions on how much land,
on how much security cooperation, on what type of land? Will they
make the hard decisions so that the call for peace that is now not just in
the Middle East but around the world, can be heard by actions, and we're
looking for substantive decisions by the leaders and hard decisions and we
have not seen them yet.
QUESTION: Still on the London events, you made it clear that those were
separate, bilateral meetings. Is the Secretary leaving open the possibility
for some kind of multilateral conference involving, perhaps, the Middle
East partners, but perhaps also the European partners; or is that really
not under discussion at all?
MR. RUBIN: That is not something we're planning for right now. One always
wants to be flexible and be able to create a meeting with more people if
you have something successful to try to ratify or close with a larger group,
but we are not planning for any such meeting right now. I wouldn't rule out,
at some point in time, at the technical level on issues like the seaport,
that more than the just the United States and the two could meet.
But this quadripartite summit is something that is unfamiliar to those
in the Administration who work on the Middle East peace process.
QUESTION: You said that the Secretary had invited Netanyahu and Arafat to
meetings in London some time ago, I think you said. When was that
exactly?
MR. RUBIN: Prior to the events of the last 24-48 hours. I was trying to
separate out some of the confusion that has caused me to get late night
phone calls at my residence.
QUESTION: Jamie, you said over and over again the leaders weren't making
the hard decisions.
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
QUESTION: And since before Christmas, the Secretary has been having
bilateral meetings with them in Europe. What makes this meeting any more
different than the other meetings that she's had and doesn't seem to make
much headway every time she meets with them.
MR. RUBIN: Well, that's the kind of question that is reasonable today,
but if one of the meetings does make headway then it will be different.
Until we believe we've exhausted all the possible refinements, exhausted
all the work that we think we can do behind the scenes, we're going to
continue to do it. We're going to make the decisions on how to revive the
peace process based on what we think will work, not simply the fact that
there have been a series of meetings of similar character. If one of those
meetings - this one or the one after that - were to yield success,
then it would have been worth it.
So we're going to continue to do what we think is best. Right now, what we
think is best is to have Ambassador Ross go to the region, see whether
there's a willingness to make some of those hard decisions. If there is,
then those decisions, hopefully, can be fleshed out in London with
Secretary Albright; and if not, we'll know that.
QUESTION: But her expectations going into this May 4 meeting are no
higher than they were before Christmas, when she met with the leaders.
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
QUESTION: Is there any magic to London, particularly, that because the EU
chairman --presidency happens to be there at the moment?
MR. RUBIN: No, there's no magic to London. I don't know how, over time,
this has become the favorite city, but I have no complaints about
it.
QUESTION: Jamie, do Ambassador Ross or Assistant Secretary Indyk plan to
travel to Syria?
MR. RUBIN: One moment - it might have something to do with the basic
distances, too. I mean, it's about the same distance for each of the
relevant people to fly to. But it's become a convenient place to meet, and
we'll continue to do it as we think appropriate.
QUESTION: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt - do Ross and Indyk plan to go
there as well?
MR. RUBIN: I am not familiar with their entire itinerary. As I understand
it, the focus of their efforts will be in the Palestinian Authority and in
Israel. I would be surprised if those other issues - particularly the
Lebanon issue - didn't come up. But I think the focus of their efforts are
in those two - I'll have to get their itinerary for you. I'm not aware
they're going to Syria.
QUESTION: Yes, for planning and coverage purposes, if you could let us
know what they're going to do.
QUESTION: I thought I was clear, but then you sort of fuzzed it up, which
may have been your intention.
MR. RUBIN: Well, if it was, I'm glad. (Laughter).
QUESTION: Is the May 4 meeting going to be a make-or-break session? In
other words, if there is no progress there, then the United States will
wash its hands of it as promised, because the parties are not prepared to
make substantive decisions.
MR. RUBIN: What I indicated in announcing her meetings was that we are
going to continue to work on this process so long as we think there's a
chance that the leaders will make the hard decisions.
If we conclude in London that they're not, then that may be the end of it.
But I am not going to decide and announce for you in advance a decision
based on the performance of and positions of the leaders who haven't yet
taken those decisions. So it's impossible to answer the question in
advance.
QUESTION: Jamie, (inaudible) it could well be the end of the US role in
the peace process?
MR. RUBIN: If one wanted to create a little headline to write, I guess
you could see that I didn't rule that out. What I'm saying to you is that
you can't answer that question until you have the meeting. But clearly, the
time is running out for these hard decisions to be made.
QUESTION: As currently envisioned, is this a one-day event?
MR. RUBIN: As I understand it. If that changes, I'll let you know. It may
include an overnight, but it's not a multi-day event, as far as I
know.
QUESTION: What about the European involvement in all this now? I mean,
we've seen the French have been in the area, the British have been in the
area at very high levels. Isn't there some contribution that the European
commission can make to get these leaders to - I mean, why aren't you
meeting with the British in London who've just been there and could put
real substantive pressure on both parties? Why aren't they involved?
MR. RUBIN: I think, as I indicated in response to the first question on
this subject, that they are someone we consult with; and we consult with
them often. If, as a result of Prime Minister Blair's meetings in the
region, that the leaders are willing to make hard decisions they have been
heretofore unwilling to make, that will be a good thing. But so far, we
have no evidence -- we're not aware of substantive changes on their
part.
We do keep the Europeans informed, we consult with them and will continue
to do so; and in particular, we talk to them about some of the technical
issues, for example, related to the seaport issue, which is one of the
interim issues, and we will continue to do that. To the extent that anybody
can encourage successfully the leaders to make the tough decisions that we
think need to be made, we welcome that.
QUESTION: A follow-up -- you're sidelining them, essentially.
MR. RUBIN: I don't see it that way.
QUESTION: You're saying, technically, in offering the --
MR. RUBIN: You're shaking your head, someone else is saying other and
another. I don't know how to answer the question other than to answer it.
The answer is, we welcome any involvement of any important world figures
who can encourage the two leaders to make these hard decisions. That's at a
political level. At a technical level, the European Union has a particularly
unique contribution to make with respect to issues like the seaport,
and we've made that clear and will continue to do so. So we're not
sidelining them or not sidelining them; I'm trying to, as best as I can,
answer the question of how we and the Europeans work together.
QUESTION: New subject? I'd like to ask you whether you have any further
comment on the arrival of Wang Dan in the United States? And, more
importantly, how does the Administration see what some might characterize
as kind of a dribbling out of Chinese political activists from prison in
advance of or right after major Sino-American political events, like summit
meetings in the US or in China, or Secretary trips, that sort of thing?
MR. RUBIN: We have long urged the Chinese Government to release prisoners
like Wang Dan. Therefore, we welcome his release and we welcome the fact
that he is now in the United States.
There are several issues that we have indicated we would like to see
progress on as part of the dialogue we have with the Chinese on human
rights, including the release of prisoners who are held only for the
beliefs that they have and not for anything that we believe they've done
wrong; including the signing of the covenant on civil and political rights;
including access to prisons for the International Committee on the Red
Cross. We've had an agenda on human rights that we've been pursuing both
publicly and privately with the Chinese for many months now. To the extent
that this release of Wang Dan indicates a willingness on the part of
the Chinese Government to respond to our urgings on human rights,
that's a good thing.
That means our engagement with them on this subject is advancing our human
rights agenda, which is the world's human rights agenda - which is trying
to reduce the number of prisoners released, trying to get the Chinese to
agree to an international covenant that, if signed and implemented, would
involve an oversight mechanism for Chinese human rights practices.
That's what diplomacy is all about - encouraging the other side to advance
the common agenda. The agenda here is progress on human rights, and clearly
his release is progress on human rights.
QUESTION: What about the other part of the question, which was the idea
that these releases are carefully timed to political events, like Jiang
Zemin's summit in the United States, Secretary Albright's trip next week,
the President's summit in China next month, or in June?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we don't control the release of these prisoners; the
Chinese control the release of these prisoners. To the extent that meetings
that we hold give them a reason to do something they may not otherwise wish
to do, then our engagement is working.
It is up to the Chinese to talk to you about why they make these decisions.
What I can tell you is that we've been pressing for the release of
political prisoners, pressing for the signing of international covenants on
human rights. And as the Chinese do so, we are advancing our human rights
agenda. If they choose to do so because of the timing, fine. But from our
standpoint, what's important is that it gets done.
QUESTION: Finally, if I may, would the US prefer to see a number of
prisoners - perhaps a large number - released at once, at one time, maybe
in connection with China's review of its own laws that ended up putting
them in prison in the first place?
MR. RUBIN: We've seen in recent weeks a somewhat more tolerant response
to dissent, and an increased willingness to cooperate with international
human rights mechanisms on the part of China. These are positive steps, and
these are steps that we, in fact - signals that we saw in our most recent
human rights report.
But let me say this - as our human rights report also noted, China's
practices still fall far short of international norms and standards, and
repressive measures continue to be used to tightly control dissent --
particularly dissent directed against the government or Chinese communist
party members.
We believe there are many, many other political prisoners in China, and
there is a long, long way to go if China is to enter the mainstream of
nations that provide democratic freedoms to their people. We will continue
to press them in that regard; and whether they choose to respond in a large
group or a small group, we're going to continue to press them to respond.
QUESTION: Jamie, can you point to some specifics when you say you've seen
somewhat more tolerance towards dissent? Can you cite a few examples?
MR. RUBIN: Well, for those of us who have read the newspapers in recent
days, I think we've seen clearly on the part of some of China's thinkers
and intellectuals a willingness to say and do things that is new and
encouraging.
At the same time, that doesn't mean that the refusal to allow people to
freely express their views, the fact that there are still many, many people
in prison is still going on. But we've seen increased willingness to
question certain long-held tenets publicly. I think for those of us who
have read the newspapers in the last few weeks, you'll know what I'm
talking about. I'd have to get you for the record some specific examples to
justify the statement I made, but I think they reflect what I just
indicated.
QUESTION: Yes, but is it satisfactory to the Administration, this
arrangement where a dissident will be released and then exiled from the
country? I mean, is that good human rights practice?
MR. RUBIN: We believe that Mr. Wang, as a Chinese citizen, should be
allowed to return to the People's Republic of China. We've expressed this
view to the Chinese Government. They say that any decision on his return to
China would be made in accordance with Chinese law. As far as what that
means, not only I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not a Chinese lawyer. I recommend
that you ask them what that means.
But in our view, people like Wang Dan should be able to be released, to
speak out in his own country. That is the view of the United States. He
made this decision to come here; we're pleased that he's here. It certainly
a lot better for him to be here where he can speak out, where the
international media can hear him -- and, hopefully, some of that will get
back to China - as opposed to languishing in prison.
QUESTION: And will any Administration officials, specifically the
Secretary or the President or his National Security Advisor, be meeting
with Mr. Wang?
MR. RUBIN: Well, right now he's in medical treatment. I would expect
there would be an appropriate level meeting with him. I doubt it will be
with the Secretary, prior to her departure later this week.
QUESTION: Jamie, to go back to that question about exiling political
dissidents, does the Administration see a problem here that the Chinese are
actually manipulating the situation in such a way that the two most
prominent dissidents that were the most problematic for the Chinese are now
out of the country, completely neutralized, in the United States, far away
from Chinese soil?
Does it occur to the Administration that by focusing all the attention on
these two prominent dissidents, getting them to the United States, that
you've really given the Chinese what they were hoping to get in the first
place -- attention away from the human rights agenda? Because nobody seems
to be familiar with any names, particular names, of any of the dissidents.
These are the two names that have been at the forefront, and these are the
two people who are now in the United States.
MR. RUBIN: I can assure you that all of the issues you raised occur to
the Administration, and that we take very careful decisions after
consulting many people and trying to do what's best for the human rights
process. So I can assure you that we take these concerns into account
before we make our decisions.
With respect to the two dissidents that you mentioned, let's bear in mind
that they are now not languishing in prison. And in commenting on whether
that is a good or a bad thing, let's hope that people take into account the
fact that they are no longer languishing in prison, and that they are in
the United States where they are able to speak out freely. That is
certainly much better than the situation that was the case when they were
in prison, languishing and unable to speak freely. With respect to whether
this will diminish the United States' concern about other prisoners,
the answer is no.
QUESTION: Is the Secretary going to have a specific list of prisoners
that she is going to ask be released when she meets with the Chinese?
MR. RUBIN: When the Secretary is ready for me to talk about what she
intends to do on her trip, I will.
QUESTION: Can you get into whether the United States helped engineer this
release? The Los Angeles Times had a very full, comprehensive story naming
names, a State Department person, and NSC, et cetera.
MR. RUBIN: We hate it when they name names.
QUESTION: Well, you don't mind taking a bow if help get a famous
dissident out of prison, do you?
MR. RUBIN: While you were outside the room, I did address the overall
question of what we do and don't do with respect to human rights and our
human rights agenda with China.
There was nothing in that article that differed from many of the things
that I've said here from the podium; namely that in our meetings with
Chinese officials, that we have expressed concerns in several areas: the
signing of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the
need to release prisoners who have been languishing in prison -- prominent
dissidents; the need to allow access for the ICRC to prisons. Those were
items on our objective list, and if we thought there was progress in
those areas, that would be sufficient for us to make a decision not
to sponsor the resolution in Geneva on human rights in China.
At the time we made that clear that we would not sponsor such a resolution,
I spoke to you about our objectives here from this podium, about what we
wanted to achieve, including the release of additional dissidents. So it is
correct that in our diplomatic discussions with China, that one of the
issues that we repeatedly raise -- that Secretary of State Albright has
raised and that President Clinton has raised - is the release of political
prisoners. Therefore, while there is still a very, very long way to go,
the release of Wang Dan is very welcome to the United States.
QUESTION: If Ambassador Kristoff and her colleagues go and put this deal
together -
MR. RUBIN: First of all, Sandra Kristoff is not an ambassador. Second of
all --
QUESTION: I think she is.
MR. RUBIN: She's a senior director for East Asian Affairs at the National
Security Council.
QUESTION: But she became Ambassador to APEC. She still has the rank.
MR. RUBIN: I've never seen it on any of the lists that I have. Nevertheless,
there were many meetings that were held between the United States and
Chinese officials over the recent several months; that was certainly one of
them. But I wouldn't regard it as decisive.
QUESTION: Could I ask about another subject?
MR. RUBIN: Are we still on China over here?
QUESTION: Is there a helicopter technology sale pending between the US
and China? If so, what is its current status?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have the exact wording here with me today, but my
understanding is that there has been no decision to waive the restriction
that would prohibit the provision of spare parts for helicopters --
QUESTION: I'm sorry, there are too many negatives there for me to
capture.
MR. RUBIN: Let me try that again. There has been no decision to allow the
sale of spare parts to China. That is something that would require a waiver
by the President or appropriate officials for either the reason that enough
progress had been made in pursuing a democratic change in China or a
national interest waiver; no such decision has been made. I can't rule out
that it's not poking around in the bureaucracy, but it's not been decided
upon.
QUESTION: And might the release of Wang Dan in any way affect that
decision?
MR. RUBIN: To the extent that we see issues together, we tend to see
issues together in the same area. In other words, I did indicate to you
that having made progress on the human rights agenda of the United States,
the objectives we saw with respect to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, the release of prisoners, access to prisons, that
that affected our decision not to sponsor a resolution before the Geneva
human rights commission. But the idea that these are horse-traded across
substantive issues is not something I'm familiar with, at least in this
Administration - or at least in the time when I've been able to observe it
closely.
QUESTION: Different subject - a couple of days ago, the Iraqis held a
nice, big military parade, at about the same time that Richard Butler was
waxing somewhat pessimistic on the state of the inspection process. Do you
have any comment?
MR. RUBIN: Just commenting on those two separate events?
QUESTION: Well, maybe separate.
MR. RUBIN: Let me just say this - for seven years, the UN and the IAEA
have been attempting to get the Iraqis to provide complete, verifiable
accounting of their weapons of mass destruction programs. For the
International Atomic Energy Agency, this means providing important
information on Iraq's nuclear program, including its progress in weapons
design, uranium enrichment, procurement efforts and Iraq's efforts to
conceal its programs. Iraq handed the IAEA incomplete information in a
piecemeal fashion, and we look forward to hearing the report on that
subject.
With regard to the six month report that is now circulating in New York,
what this latest report from the UN indicates is, there is a compelling
case that Iraq has not complied with UN Security Council resolutions in any
area of substance. The report presents clear and very disturbing evidence
that Iraq has failed to cooperate in coming forward with the information
needed to allow the UN to conclude that Iraq has, indeed, destroyed the
weapons it says it has destroyed. We are especially disturbed that non-
compliance has taken place after signature of the UN-Iraq Memorandum of
Understanding, an agreement which we welcomed and which Iraq is bound to
comply with.
The message from all of this is that even while the Iraqis may have allowed
inspectors to visit palaces, they continue to lie and hide the truth
regarding the existence of long-range ballistic missiles, VX and serin
chemical weapons and anthrax and other biological weapons. It doesn't
surprise us that they are doing so, but it nevertheless shows how far away
they are from the time when the UN could declare them in compliance with
the relevant provisions and the relevant resolutions.
QUESTION: Does the parade, perhaps, underscore their --
MR. RUBIN: You know, they give parades over there all the time, and I'm
always especially amused at the parades that are reported with great
fanfare that have people marching around in circles with no rifles. So, it
doesn't mean much to me there's a parade in Baghdad.
QUESTION: On the North-South -- can we switch to Korea, the talks ended
now?
MR. RUBIN: Any more on Iraq?
QUESTION: Yes, I have one. The Russian Ambassador is Baghdad is playing
an mediator role between Saddam Hussein and the two Kurdish parties in the
north and this development is almost different and opposite of the US,
British and the Turkish Ankara process.
MR. RUBIN: When asking me what is not a front-burner issue, it would be
helpful if you let us know and then we could try to get the information
before the briefing instead of spending the afternoon doing it when we have
all the people there who can answer these questions. Give us a call 10:30
a.m., 10:45 a.m.; tell us what you're going to ask, and we'll be happy to
try to get information. If it's not a front-burner issue, it's hard to have
everything here.
QUESTION: The Administration has been sympathetic to the food problem in
North Korea. The North-South talks ended without accord. Apparently the
South will not provide fertilizer and other assistance the North needs
until its action on family unification, et cetera. I don't image you're
going to open a chasm between you and Seoul because the US and Seoul have
reached (inaudible) stand side by side. Does the US agree with that kind of
approach, or would like it to see South Korea do a little more to help
ease the starvation in the North? Would you like to assess the talks?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say the talks were the first bilateral government-to-
government talks since 1994, and ended on April 17. No agreement was
announced, although North and South Korea had previously declared their
desire to continue contacts after the formal talks ended.
The details of the discussions are a matter for South and North Korea. In
general, I can say that the US has long supported South Korea's efforts to
promote meaningful North-South dialogue. What that means is that we want to
see discussions held, we want to see decisions made that allow reduced
tensions in the Peninsula, and to be able to solve problems like the
families issue that you mentioned.
With respect to who said what to whom and who linked what to what, I'm
reluctant to get into it publicly, because the sides themselves have not;
and frankly, it's a negotiation between two other parties.
QUESTION: Jamie, (inaudible) - decisions made that would help solve
problems. If that answer --
MR. RUBIN: Let me just say, that applies to every problem in the world.
I'd like to see decisions made that help solve problems.
QUESTION: Right, but the question you were asked was whether you agree
with Seoul's approach to the talks, and you gave that answer.
MR. RUBIN: It wasn't a conscious effort to signal anything.
QUESTION: I took it as --
MR. RUBIN: It wasn't.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: If I'm not mistaken, the US-sponsored peace talks were supposed
to start today, but instead it appears that the truce, if that's what you
can call it, that Mr. Richardson brokered, has broken down and fighting is
starting to flare up.
MR. RUBIN: Is that the information you have? That's not the information I
have, so let me give you what I have.
Following meetings with faction leaders inside Afghanistan on April 17,
Ambassador Richardson announced that both sides had agreed not to launch
new military offenses until they meet for talks about a cease-fire and
prisoner exchanges under UN and Organization of the Islamic Conference
auspices by April 27.
The Ambassador laid out several other announcements, which I think all of
you have - if not, I'll get you a fact sheet on that. These are welcome
developments; they're the result of the 6 + 2 process - that's Afghanistan's
neighbors, as well as the US and Russia, led by UN Special Envoy Brahimi.
What is really important is what the Afghan factions do in the days ahead.
According to the information I have, both factions seem to be moving
forward on their commitments to Ambassador Richardson, despite some reports
of some fighting.
Representatives of the Northern Alliance and the Taliban met in Islamabad
on April 20 -- the first such face-to-face meeting between the factions
since early 1997 - on modalities for the proposed steering group meeting.
The Taliban also reportedly released some political prisoners as a goodwill
gesture.
Let me emphasize that Pakistan made an important contribution to the
success of these efforts; and we hope that all Afghanistan's neighbors,
including Iran, will play a positive and constructive role in supporting
this peace process. The United States fully supports the efforts of the
UN's special mission to Afghanistan, and Ambassador Brahimi, specifically,
to end the conflict. We want to see a quick end to the fighting in
Afghanistan and the formation of a broadly representative government. We
favor no faction, and call upon them all to work for peace in their
country.
QUESTION: Did you say some prisoners had been released?
MR. RUBIN: Reportedly that some political prisoners were released as a
goodwill gesture. I don't have anymore; we can try to get you some more on
that.
QUESTION: Okay, and then also, you say they're moving forward with their
commitments, despite some fighting.
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
QUESTION: How can a commitment -
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think, for those of you who've covered the State
Department a long time, you know that in conflicts like this, without
making any direct analogies to other conflicts in the world, one can move
forward and have meetings and do things that one has said without exerting
full and complete control on all the fighting forces that may occur in a
country as large as Afghanistan and still make progress on the peace front,
even while there are continued efforts to use military force in other
parts.
In other words, obviously, we'd like to see a cease-fire, obviously we'd
like to see them both fully comply with every aspect of the commitment, but
that doesn't mean there isn't going to be fighting, even while we think we
can move forward.
QUESTION: There's just one more question. The meeting in Islamabad today,
just the Northern --
MR. RUBIN: Northern Alliance and the Taliban.
QUESTION: Jamie, in Nigeria, it's been announced that the presidential
election is going to be substituted with a referendum on General Abacha's
continuation in office. Does this strike you as a perfect example of
democracy?
MR. RUBIN: There's nothing about Nigeria's political evolution in the
last few months that strikes me as very democratic at all. It appears that
the government of Nigeria is manipulating the transition in order to secure
the nomination of General Abacha as the sole candidate in the presidential
election.
Thus far, we believe this transition that he promised in June 1994 is
seriously and fatally flawed. We urge General Abacha to live up to his
promise to his fellow Nigerians and the entire and to refuse the nomination
so that a genuine transition to civilian democratic rule may take place in
the August elections. We will continue to encourage reform and democratic
principles in Nigeria, which would permit a free and fair process -- which
would mean free political activity, release of political prisoners,
freedom of the press, free and fair and transparent elections.
So far, Nigeria's transition is seriously flawed and failing. In order for
the transition to result in a genuine civilian democratic government, the
process itself must have integrity and not be manipulative. What we've seen
so far is the manipulation of the democratic process by General Abacha and
his cronies.
QUESTION: Is the State Department just a few days away from saying in its
terrorism report that Iran has a terrible record, possibly worst in the
world? You don't have to cover the State Department very long to know
terrorism reports are regularly leaked on the Hill; and there is such a
story floating around now. But you, yourself, said the other day that you
haven't seen any change in Iran's behavior, particularly.
MR. RUBIN: Let me answer it this way -- there is a Pattern of Global
Terrorism report due on April 30, which describes what we know of terrorist
activities in 1997. That's the way the reporting works.
We have said many times before that Iranian support for terrorism has been
a long-standing policy of the Iranian Government. However, we note that
Iranian leaders have said that Iran does not support terrorism -- including,
notably, a clear statement from the Organization of the Islamic Conference
held in Tehran, which was last December. It will take time for us to
determine if there has, indeed, been a change in that policy. We are not
yet able to say that such a change has occurred. When there are positive
changes in Iranian policy, we are prepared to respond appropriately.
We have made clear that the question of terrorism is one of the subjects we
would like to be able to discuss with the government of Iran in an
authorized, acknowledged dialogue. We believe our mutual concerns can be
overcome in such a dialogue, and we would be prepared, in such a dialogue,
to address Iranian concerns as well.
QUESTION: Whether or not their statements reflect intention to change,
all around in '97, did the US discern any substantive difference in Iran's
behavior?
MR. RUBIN: I think I indicated, we are not able to yet say that such a
change has occurred.
QUESTION: Your comments here are all limited to last year, during most of
which Khatemi was not president of that country; is that correct?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I guess he was elected mid-year.
QUESTION: Okay, so it would have been difficult - you said it would have
been difficult to grind in his impact in the report you all are preparing
to release.
MR. RUBIN: I'm certainly indicating that in December a very important
statement was made about rejecting the use of terrorism. This report is
reflecting actions from January to December. If that statement yields
changes in actions, it couldn't happen before December - it could, but we
would consider that extremely unlikely. So what we're going to be looking
to see is whether that statement in December, and subsequent statements of
a similar nature, will yield changes in actions during the year 1998, when
the report for that year comes out, which would be another year from
now.
In the meantime, we can say we haven't seen enough to say that a wholesale
change has occurred, because we want to be very careful and prudent about
how we make judgments on such an important issue. It took us a long time to
lead to the conclusions that we've reached about Iran, and we want to make
sure that any new conclusions have been given due consideration and careful
and prudent work.
QUESTION: Do you approve of the Canadian Prime Minister's visit to
Cuba?
MR. RUBIN: Well, it's not up to us to tell people where to go, obviously.
We certainly can say that we understand that the purpose of Prime Minister
Chretien's proposed trip would be to follow up on the 14-point cooperation
program signed between Cuba and Canada in January '97.
We have not seen any evidence that constructive engagement with Cub has
produced results with regard to improving respect for human rights or
promoting democracy in Cuba. We hope that Prime Minister Chretien will
pursue an agenda that promotes human rights during his trip to Cuba. That's
about all we have to say about that.
QUESTION: There was quite a lot of criticism before the US position on
Cuba at the Summit of the Americas. What's the US Government's reply? Is
this going to influence the negotiations that are going to start this
summer in any way?
MR. RUBIN: Criticism of US policy on Cuba is nothing that surprises us, I
can assure you, whether it's from intellectuals in the United States,
members of Congress on one side or the other, or Latin American countries,
or, frankly, countries from most parts of the world. So we were not
surprised by criticism of our Cuba policy. That doesn't mean that we're
going to make any changes, though, and our Cuba policy remains the
same.
We do not believe, for example, that Cuba joining the OAS is an issue that
should even be on the agenda. If you look at Secretary Albright's famous
map, every other country in the region is a democracy; and Cuba is still
the last bastion of communist dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere.
QUESTION: Just a few minutes ago, you were again saying - for probably
the 15th time - that you would welcome a dialogue with Iran to see if that
would be --
MR. RUBIN: Are we making the Iran-Cuba connection?
QUESTION: Albright is going to China. These are two countries whose human
rights record probably is worse than Cuba's. Why don't you --
MR. RUBIN: I think we've made clear, Barry, that --
QUESTION: What is it about Cuba that is such a --
MR. RUBIN: Let me explain. President Khatemi was elected in a relatively
free election. When Fidel Castro submits himself to a free election, things
might be different here in the United States.
QUESTION: And China, of course, has free elections.
MR. RUBIN: China - we've described the China-Cuba analogy for you 100
times; you want me to do it again?
QUESTION: No, no, because the US really took a whipping. There isn't a
country in Latin America that agrees with your Cuban policy. And I just
don't understand why you don't invite them to have the kind of dialogue you
would have with Iran or China.
MR. RUBIN: Let me explain our policy towards China and Cuba for you,
Barry. With respect to China, we believe that we have genuine national
security considerations that are at stake in the area of nonproliferation
that require us to engage in a direct discussion with the Chinese
Government.
We can point, over the last seven to ten years, with myriad changes in
Chinese Government policies, that have made the world a safer place --
whether it's in the area of missile transfers, the termination of nuclear
assistance to key countries around the world, or the joining of the
Chemical Weapons Convention. These are national security policies that
affect every American, and the fact that we have engaged with China has
improved their behavior on proliferation and therefore has made the world a
safer place. That is a reason to talk to the Chinese about proliferation.
With regard to Cuba, we have made the decision that, because Castro is
essentially the first revolutionary and is still in power, there is nothing
to be gained by talking to Castro, because he will only seek to justify his
own actions and his own revolution and any change that he makes would be a
repudiation of this entire life. While talking to leaders in communist
countries that are not the original revolutionary, they can see adjustments
in those policies without regarding their whole life as having been a
failure.
So we don't see the reason why we have to have a knee-jerk policy towards
every country in the world. If we did that, you'd have nothing to write
about. We need to take decisions based on what we think would work best in
each country. And if there are going to be occasional differences that you
can happily point out as inconsistencies, we're just keeping you in
business.
QUESTION: Well, you write all the time about people - (inaudible) -- you
meet with them in London and all over the world.
QUESTION: Today the government of Azerbaijan has shut down broadcasting
of programs -Azerbaijani Service of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty on
the medium waves. Azerbaijani Minister of Communication explained the
decision to stop translation of RFE/RL was taken, due to the radio didn't
have license for broadcasting its program to Azerbaijan. But some political
parties in Azerbaijan stated that the real reason for the shutdown was
politically motivated. Do you have any comment on this?
MR. RUBIN: Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty are rebroadcast in
Azerbaijan on the medium-wave band through local transmission towers. While
RFE/RL have renewed the contracts for use of these towers, this fact
apparently was not communicated to the tower operators and the transmissions
have been temporarily halted. Broadcasts continue to be available in
Azerbaijan on the short-wave band. We anticipate this misunderstanding will
be cleared up shortly and the broadcasts will resume.
QUESTION: One little thing to tie up on Richardson's talks on Afghanistan
-- he was engaged in those talks recently. Did he engage in any discussion
with the Iranian representative to those talks on subjects other than
Afghanistan?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not familiar with that if that had taken place; I've heard
nothing to suggest that, and I think I probably would.
QUESTION: Okay. Could you look into that, if there's anything to --
MR. RUBIN: Sure, sure. I don't even know that the representatives were
all there from those countries. I don't think so.
QUESTION: I don't believe - I plead ignorance on that score, but --
MR. RUBIN: I don't believe any of those representatives were in
Afghanistan or in Pakistan while he was making those efforts, so the answer
is no.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Jamie, this week in Serbia, residents vote on a referendum on
whether international representatives should be involved in helping to
solve the dispute in Kosovo. The former Minister of Information for Serbia
was in Washington today, driving home the point that it's an internal
problem and Washington should stay out. Any comment?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. The representative of the Serbian Government who made
that point must have missed the reaction of the international community for
the last month. The Security Council itself has made clear that what
happens there is a matter that effects the international security and peace
of the world. It is not an internal matter. The Security Council has made
that decision, and it's time for the Serbian representative to read up on
his Security Council resolutions.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:50 P.M.)
|