U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #64, 98-05-26
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
957
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Tuesday, May 26, 1998
Briefer: James P. Rubin
STATEMENTS
1 Secretary's travel to Caracas, VENEZUELA, for OAS General
Assembly opening
1 Secretary's letter protests EU barley subsidies and ban on
genetically modified corn
1 Assistance for Palestinian refugees
INDONESIA
1-2 US encourages political and economic reforms, dialogue;
supports prisoner releases
TRADE
2-3 USG recourse, next steps in response to EU subsidized
barley
CHINA
3-4 Purpose of President's travel; US national interest lies in
China engagement
3 Encouraging signs in PRC restriction of critical
proliferation weapons sales
3-4 Administration policy on satellite waivers; prohibition on
sensitive tech transfers
CUBA / BAHAMAS
4 Repatriations of Cuban migrants; migration agreements with
Cuba; asylum process
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
4-7 Speaker Gingrich visits proposed US Embassy site in
Jerusalem; ISRAEL visit, mtgs
6-8 Gingrich charge that Secretary Albright is an agent for
Palestinians
4-5 FRANCE, EGYPT call for int'l summit on peace process;
current focus of US efforts
5-6 USG hopes Jerusalem status will be addressed in permanent
status talks
6 Southern LEBANON violence, lack of progress on SYRIAn track
GREECE / TURKEY
8 No Secretary travel at this time; possibly later
SAUDI ARABIA
8 MinInterior claims no foreign role in Al-Khobar bombing;
investigation continues
INDIA
8 No information on reported ISRAELi assistance to India
nuclear program
14-15 World Bank suspends loan; Glenn Amendment; EU, int'l
response to nuke test
IRAQ
9 UNSCOM Chairman Butler re sanctions could be lifted by
October if Iraq cooperates
10 Butler to brief UNSC on "roadmap" for Iraqi actions
9-10 US troop reduction in region, commitment to sanctions
enforcement
FRY / FYRoMACEDONIA
10-11 Kosovo fighting continues; Milosevic-Rugova mtgs; Rugova to
Washington
10-12 Suggestion for NATO role along FYRoMacedonia border; NAC
may discuss issue
10-11 No Contact Group mtg planned at Luxembourg NAC;
stabilization package talks
COLOMBIA
12 No USG assistance to support anti-guerrilla efforts; aid
for anti-narco traffic effort only
TURKEY
12 Arrests of human rights leader Akin Birdal attackers
CYPRUS
12 Miller likely to discuss S-300 missiles; US opposes
missiles, Turkey threats to respond
MEXICO
12-13 Operation Casablanca: GOM investigation of US agents;
Albright call to FonSec Green, regrets level of
consultation and method of announcement
HUNGARY
13-14 US congratulates Hungarian people on successful conclusion
of elections
PAKISTAN
14 Reported GOP delegation to US; no information on timing
ARMS CONTROL
14 Alleged JAPANese illegal transfer of precision measuring
devices to CHINA
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #64
TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1998, 1:15 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Welcome to the State Department briefing. It's been
a long weekend, so we're running a little bit behind.
Let me start by announcing that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright will
travel to Caracas, Venezuela, on Monday, June 1, to attend the General
Assembly of the Organization of American States, which is being held June 1
through 3. The Secretary will return to Washington on Tuesday evening, June
2. We'll have a statement with more details available in the press office
after the briefing, including arrangements for those of you who may want to
accompany her.
We have another statement which will be available in full after the
briefing, but I want to read some parts of it for you. Secretary Albright
today sent a strong letter of protest to European Commission President
Jacques Santer over the recent sale by the European Union of barley into
the United States at a heavily subsidized price. Such subsidies distort
international markets and undercut American farmers, who are the most
productive in the world.
One of America's goals for the coming round of multilateral trade
negotiations is to eliminate such subsidies altogether; thereby providing a
level playing field that US farmers deserve.
In her letter, Secretary Albright expressed her strong disappointment at
the EU action, and her particular dismay that it was taken in close
proximity to the 50th anniversary commemoration of the multilateral trading
system and the announcement of the trans-Atlantic economic partnership at
the EU summit. She protested as well the continued failure of the European
Union to allow imports from the US of genetically modified corn.
The Department of State is working with the US Department of Agriculture,
the US Trade Representative and other interested agencies on appropriate
responses to this unjustified European Union action.
We'll also have a statement on assistance for the Palestinian refugees that
was announced in Jordan by Ambassador Egan.
QUESTION: Unless there's a question on your announcement, I would ask you
whether the State Department is content that Mr. Habibie of Indonesia says
he'll hold elections, but hasn't given a date, while opposition folks say
he ought to set a date. Do you come down on one side or another on
that?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say this. We regard recent developments as a positive
first step. The only way that Indonesia can overcome its current difficulties
is to move to a more democratic and open political system. We therefore
welcome the announcement of these initial measures as a step forward, and
will continue to monitor President Habibie's progress closely. We also urge
the President to make clear his intentions regarding the many necessary
political and economic reforms so clearly desired by the Indonesian
people. In doing so, it will be vital for the government to continue
its dialogue with all segments of the Indonesian political spectrum
so that the aspirations of all the people will be clearly reflected.
Let me also say that we do welcome the release of two important political
prisoners. It is a welcome and important step in Indonesia's path to a more
open and representative political system. However, many prisoners of
conscience remain, and we believe that all of those held for the peaceful
expression of their beliefs should be released. We will continue to watch
this issue very closely as an important indicator of the Habibie Government's
commitment to political reform and human rights.
QUESTION: I guess he could make clear his intentions on elections by
giving a date, but it doesn't sound like you're breathing hard on him right
now - that he's done enough positive things that you're not uneasy about
the lack of a date so far?
MR. RUBIN: Right now what we want to do is give the Indonesian people and
the Indonesian leadership an opportunity to engage in a dialogue and come
up with an Indonesian plan that they can put together. We have no American
plan, but obviously we want to see political and economic reform proceed
apace, and so we'll be waiting to see what additional steps have been
planned.
QUESTION: Could I ask a question about your opening statement? Does the
United States have no recourse in the WTO or any other forum?
MR. RUBIN: We're going to be getting together interagency to decide what
the next steps will be. The interagency group will begin consideration
today of an appropriate response, and we will participate - the State
Department - in those discussions. I don't want to speculate on what it
could be. I wouldn't characterize this as a trade war; but obviously we
believe that a wrong decision was taken, and we think it's our job to
continue aggressively to protect the interests of Americans when they are
harmed by EU programs.
As far as what the response will be, that is something we will be
discussing internally in the coming days.
QUESTION: Is there any recourse against the American brokering firm which
ordered the barley --
MR. RUBIN: Again, we will be looking at precisely what we think the
appropriate responses will be.
QUESTION: On China. The Republicans have been saying that the President
should not be going to China next month. I wonder if you could tell us why
it's necessary for him to go, in light of continuing evidence that the
Chinese have tried to interfere in domestic politics here?
MR. RUBIN: Let me answer the question this way. The State Department and
Secretary Albright are interested in the national interests of the United
States of America. We believe it is in the national interest of the United
States and the people of the United States to engage directly with the
Chinese Government to advance America's interests. In several areas over
recent years we've seen concrete benefits from this policy of engagement.
Whether it's been the release of dissidents, whether it's been the
Chinese announcement of their decision to sign international covenants
on civil rights and other rights, whether we've seen religious leaders be
released from prison, in the whole human rights field, America's interests
have been advanced by our policy of engagement. Part of that policy of
engagement has been to lead up to a trip by the President to China.
Secretary Albright strongly supports that trip.
The other area that I think we can point to that seems to be forgotten in
all the reporting about nonproliferation is the wholesale change in Chinese
nonproliferation policies and practices. We've gone from a time prior to
the engagement work that President Bush and President Clinton have done,
when China was prepared to sell widely dangerous weapons to dangerous
countries. We're now at a point where China has made national decisions
that we believe they are implementing not to go forward with critical
proliferation sales - sales we were concerned would endanger the American
people.
So we are improving the security of the United States and the world by
keeping China on a course where its nonproliferation practices are in sync
with the rest of the world and improve the security of the world by denying
to other countries the ability to make nuclear weapons and to purchase
intermediate range missiles.
We also believe that the suggestion in various quarters that the United
States has given, under some policy of the President, a high technology to
China is simply wrong. China does not benefit militarily from US commercial
satellite launches, in which proper export licensing procedures are
followed. US commercial satellites are subject to strict control, and our
policy specifically excludes the transfer of sensitive technology.
Let me repeat that: contrary to what everyone is casually saying, there are
no policies to transfer sensitive technologies to China. On the contrary,
we go through enormous hoops to try to prevent the transfer of high
technology items to China, even while advancing America's interest in
getting satellites in space. So in all these cases, what we are doing is
advancing American interests. Our safeguards policy on these matters
specifically precludes US companies from providing assistance to China with
respect to the design, development, operation, maintenance, modification or
repair of launch vehicles. The very things people are suggesting have
happened are specifically prohibited by our licensing practices.
There is, of course, a Department of Justice investigation underway to
determine if two US companies provided information to China outside the
technology safeguards - meaning, acting in contravention of our policies -
and it is for the Department of Justice to comment on that. But broadly
speaking, we believe that America's interests are advanced in the human
rights field, in the nonproliferation area, in the trade area, in the
environmental area, in the anti-narcotics trafficking area, in the
international crime area by our engagement with China, and that is what the
President's visit is all about.
QUESTION: The government of the Bahamas has been repatriating a lot of
Cubans lately - dozens in the last days. Do you have any comment about
it?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we certainly do sympathize with those struggling in Cuba
because of the condition caused by a failed communist system. We emphasize
that all countries in the region have an interest in promoting safe, legal
and orderly migration, and in discouraging migrants from attempting
dangerous crossings.
To that end, the US and other countries in the region, including the
Bahamas, have established migration agreements with Cuba which recognize
the obligation to protect bona fide refugees. Undocumented Cubans arriving
in the Bahamas are first sent to a facility in Nassau; then they are
interviewed to determine if they qualify for asylum; and a representative
from the UN High Commissioner travels to Nassau to conduct such interviews.
We understand that some 40 Cubans have been given asylum in the Bahamas in
the last two years as a result of this process.
So we did not receive any specific requests with regard to some of the
specific people who were returned. It's our view that all the countries in
the region have a responsibility region-wide to deal with these refugees,
and to make sure that bona fide refugees are not returned.
QUESTION: When Mr. Newt Gingrich went to Israel to place the cornerstone
of the new US Embassy in Jerusalem to show support for moving the embassy
from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, he took a tour around the site instead. What
are your comments on that? Second, both French President and Egyptian
President - they both called on an international summit that would include
new countries to be involved in the peace process, other than the United
States. Does the United States support this summit?
MR. RUBIN: We understand that the visit of Speaker Gingrich and other
members of Congress went very well. During the visit, the representatives
expressed views on several subjects related to bilateral issues in the
peace process. Members of Congress are, of course, entitled to their views.
Our positions on these issues haven't changed.
With respect to the question of the summits, right now we are focused
rather intensively on trying to bridge the gaps between the Israelis and
the Palestinians that still exist so that we can put the Middle East peace
process back on track. We're focused on those efforts through bilateral
arrangements. There's a lot of telephoning going back and forth, continuing
discussions. That's what we think is the thing for us to do to try to
promote peace.
QUESTION: Well, if there is a possibility that the peace process will be
moved forward by this international summit, would you still support this
thing?
MR. RUBIN: We would support anything that would promote the peace
process. But right now we believe that the thing that would best promote
the peace process is for us to be able to reach closure between the
Israelis and the Palestinians on the US ideas that would not only involve
further implementation of the Oslo accords, but would launch permanent
status negotiations for a permanent peace. So that's what we think would
best do that, and that's why we're focused on that. It's obviously up to
other countries to decide if they want to have a meeting.
QUESTION: Does the State Department have any problem with the way Mr.
Gingrich stated his view on Jerusalem?
MR. RUBIN: Again, he's entitled to his views.
QUESTION: But is isn't it the same - first of all, it's the view of the
platform the President ran on; but we don't hear it too often lately. You
say your views of Jerusalem haven't changed, but we haven't heard them
enunciated, not only by you, but by Vice President Gore, et cetera. He did
a "We're all for you, Israel" the other night, but he happened to leave out
a couple of things - the Administration's view of statehood and the
Administration's view of Jerusalem. Could you share with us the Administration's
unchanged view -- if it hasn't changed - of Jerusalem?
MR. RUBIN: The unchanged view of the Secretary is that I should avoid
making statements that would potentially interfere with the success of the
peace process. Jerusalem is an issue that hopefully will be addressed
directly in the permanent status negotiations that we are trying to launch
right now; and we don't believe that public discussion of it at a sensitive
time is helpful.
QUESTION: Well, you have a view about withdrawing from the West Bank; you
have a view about a comprehensive settlement --
MR. RUBIN: Right - there are some things --
QUESTION: But you don't have a view about Jerusalem?
MR. RUBIN: No.
QUESTION: Or at least you're not saying it.
MR. RUBIN: We make judgments -- that's why the policy-makers are paid
their meager salaries -- about what the best way is to promote peace.
Sometimes that means describing what our views are, and sometimes it means
saying that doing so would be a bad idea. For now, we believe that stating
our view on a subject that is as sensitive as Jerusalem at a time we're
hoping to launch permanent status negotiations is not wise.
QUESTION: Related, quickly. Southern Lebanon is heating up, is there a
suggestion - does the Administration or the State Department have some
feeling that, perhaps, an Israeli soldier was killed now as sort of a
response to the lack of movement on that track? I mean the Syrian track,
not the Lebanon track.
MR. RUBIN: I don't have any information on that. I'll try to get it for
you.
QUESTION: Do you think his trip has been helpful to your efforts to
broker understandings on the peace process?
MR. RUBIN: We think it's important for members of Congress to travel
around the world to many countries. We think that the more members of
Congress understand the complexities of the world we live in and the
different problems that international leaders face, the more likely they
are to understand the policies and practices we are trying to pursue. So as
a general rule, we're supportive of congressional travel.
QUESTION: But in this specific case - and also, would you say that his
comments illustrate a profound lack of understanding either for the peace
process or a profound will to be elected President of the United States?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say this. There were some rather stunning reports over
the weekend about Speaker Gingrich's reported willingness to provoke the
Israeli Government to disagree with his own government; and if true, those
would be rather stunning comments that would undermine the efforts we are
trying to make to advance the national interests of the United States.
Similarly, I found particularly appalling and outrageous his suggestion
that the Secretary of State of the United States was an agent for the
Palestinians. The Secretary of State is pursuing policies, at the direction
of the President, that are designed to advance the national interests of
the American people. She is an agent for the American people, and any
suggestion that she is an agent for anyone else is an extremely provocative,
unjustified and outrageous suggestion.
QUESTION: Can I ask, because I just want to make sure - is there any
question in the State Department's collective mind whether these things
were said? You know what I'm trying to say? In other words, as Gingrich
went around the area and made his statements, wasn't he accompanied, or at
least what he said became readily known to the embassy and to US officials?
Do we have to have any - do you have any question that what was reported
that he said was said?
MR. RUBIN: In the case of the phrase with regard to the Secretary of
State --
QUESTION: You know that was said.
MR. RUBIN: That was said in the United States.
QUESTION: I understand, you dealt with that directly. But the other he
was reported or whatever --
MR. RUBIN: Well, that was a reflection of things that reportedly went on
between Speaker Gingrich and Prime Minister Netanyahu in his office. Where
and when is unclear to us; but according to a normally reliable account,
there were some suggestions by Speaker Gingrich that it would be a good
idea to confront his own government. And we found those, if true, quite
troubling; but we are not aware of whether they're true or not.
QUESTION: Jamie, often times from this podium you've said that you've
urged the parties in the Middle East to refrain from provocative action. It
seems as though, looking at the Speaker's visit, one might say that his
visit was provocative and could have very well been misinterpreted by the
Palestinians. Is that a fair description of his visit, from the words that
you've just said?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think I just indicated that we thought the visit went
very well in terms of its overall content. On the other hand, there were
some specific things in the preamble to the visit that I was responding to
about Speaker Gingrich's comments, including specific comments directed at
the Secretary of State, which I found stunning and outrageous.
With regard to the visit, it went reasonably well. There were a lot of
things that could have happened that didn't happen; and we were in contact
with him to try to make sure that, just like when we travel to the region,
representatives of the United States don't stir up more difficulties than
they're intending to and understand the potential ramifications of their
actions. So we were in touch with him with regard to specific things.
Generally speaking, the visit went relatively well.
However, with respect to specific things that the Speaker indicated, my
views on that I just said.
QUESTION: So it would be fair to say that he did fan the flames a little
bit while he was over there, as far as where we are?
MR. RUBIN: Again, I'm trying to distinguish between the Speaker's trip to
the region and who he met with and what he's done, and specific things that
he said about the Secretary of State and specific things he's reported to
have said to the Prime Minister of Israel.
QUESTION: Did she tell him - or did anyone else tell him, like the
congressional liaison person - about how unhappy she is, you are, everyone
here seems to be with his reference to her as being an agent? Or is this
the first he is hearing of her displeasure?
MR. RUBIN: I don't know who said what at all levels. I know that when the
Secretary of State first found out about it, she was extremely troubled and
found it particularly striking because she had briefed him after her
negotiations in London. His response to her had been that he understood
what a difficult task it was to bring these two parties together to try to
achieve this result, and how difficult that was and how she was working
hard to try to overcome a difficult problem. To then be described in the
way that she was described, she was particularly struck by that kind of
language.
QUESTION: Could we ask you about her travels? Greece and Turkey aren't on
this trip either.
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
QUESTION: Is that still on the board someplace?
MR. RUBIN: I suspect that the Secretary will visit Greece and Turkey at
some point, but not on this trip.
QUESTION: Another subject --
MR. RUBIN: Let's stay in the general Middle East region, then we'll go to
the Balkans.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. RUBIN: Let's see how big the region is.
QUESTION: Well, yes, right. Friday, the Interior Minister of Saudi Arabia
was quoted as saying that there was no foreign involvement that he knew of
in the Khobar Towers bombing incident. Does the United States know enough
about - does the United States have sufficient access to information in
that investigation to be able to say whether or not it believes also that
there was no outside involvement?
MR. RUBIN: To the best of my knowledge, our investigation of this effort
continues and has not stopped. With respect to whether we have enough
information to reach judgments, that is a matter for the investigative
officials themselves to address. Therefore, I recommend that you address
that question to the FBI, who is conducting the investigation. But as a
general rule, we would expect cooperation from the Saudi Government; that's
the position of the Department. And with respect to what conclusions
they may have drawn preliminarily or with respect to whether they think
they have enough information to draw conclusions, I would recommend you
address that question to the investigators.
QUESTION: I would also ask - there are reports in the Arab press that
Israel may have helped India with its nuclear efforts. Do you have anything
on that?
MR. RUBIN: I've seen nothing on that.
QUESTION: On Iraq - the same region --
MR. RUBIN: We'll stay with the NEA region, and then we'll go over to the
Balkans, if you can hang in there.
QUESTION: While on vacation in Australia, Richard Butler has said that he
believes it's possible sanctions could be lifted by October or after
October. He feels that inspections can be finished by then. Does the US
share that view?
MR. RUBIN: We share the view that if Iraq were to make a wholesale change
in its policies towards UNSCOM, the process would be accelerated. That
would mean moving from a posture of deny and delay and obscure to a posture
of cooperate and conform with the rules of the international community. So
if Iraq were to change its posture and begin to come forward and provide
all the information that it has so far denied, that would certainly
speed up the process.
With respect to any dates, we expect that Ambassador Butler will be
reporting to the Council early next week, and he will lay out for the
Council what Iraq must do. Our view hasn't changed that Iraq must comply
with all relevant Security Council resolutions. But certainly it would
speed things up if they were to go from denial to cooperation.
QUESTION: If they take actions that satisfy UNSCOM and Richard Butler,
would that be enough for the United States?
MR. RUBIN: It's Ambassador Butler's job to determine technically what
Iraq has and hasn't done. Then it's the Security Council's job to determine
whether that meets the standards the Security Council set out in its
resolutions. That is what the Security Council would make judgments
on.
QUESTION: Is the announcement that the United States will be drawing down
the troops that it had sent to Iraq as a contingency military action -- is
the withdrawal an indication that the United States is letting up on its
resolve to enforce the sanctions and to use military might to do that if
necessary?
MR. RUBIN: No. The decision was a decision that the Pentagon is going to
explain in some greater detail today. But the basic pillars of our policy --
robust forward presence, rapid reinforcement capability and support and
enforcement of the UN Security Council mandates - that is, the military
side of our overall policy - remains the same. Decisions that were involved
will leave behind a more powerful force than before last fall's crisis.
So this is an adjustment in the force posture that the Pentagon, at the
direction of the President, is going to take. But it in no way changes our
determination to see Iraq's threat deterred and contained, and to see
international Security Council resolutions enforced.
QUESTION: But that build-up was quite costly, and explained that it was
quite necessary to carry out your military goals against Iraq. If
Washington sees the need to do that again, are you going to go through with
another costly build-up, bring those troops back; or can you do what you
need to do with the forces you have there now?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I wouldn't be able to make that judgment. It would
obviously be dependent on the circumstances and what the military
commanders thought they did and didn't need.
I just would point out that the basic policy of maintaining a force
structure and the firepower necessary to deter Iraq from threatening its
neighbors or threatening the world with weapons of mass destruction has not
changed. With respect to specific cost issues and specific force posture
issues, I'd recommend that you address those to the Pentagon.
QUESTION: Chairman Butler seemed to suggest that UNSCOM should take the
lead in mapping out the way that the Iraqis should go. Do you think that
there's going to be a problem or do you see a problem with that and,
perhaps, the Iraqis complying only with what is on the map, and maybe
hiding other weapons or maybe developing something else?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I guess that depends on what's on the map. We're waiting
for a briefing from him next week on specifically what his road map looks
like, so we can be sure that it meets the basic principles that we think
undergird the Security Council resolutions.
But in general, we've found that Ambassador Butler and Ambassador Ekeus
before him have been fully capable of laying out what Iraq needs to do. The
problem isn't in what Ambassador Butler or Ambassador Ekeus ask Iraq to do;
the problem is in what Iraq refuses to do.
QUESTION: The Balkans. In Kosovo there's been quite a bit of escalation
between the Kosovar irregulars and the Serbian troops. I would ask, one,
what is your take on this escalation? Is it in fact? Two, General Clark was
here last week and said it might be very well if NATO went into the border
areas of Albania to plug up the supply of military - to shut off the supply
of military hardware. And three, what has become of the talks? I understand
we don't have any at the moment; but what's the schedule on that?
MR. RUBIN: We are aware of reports of fighting over the weekend in
several locations in Kosovo, and understand from credible sources that
several houses were burned in one village. The embassy is continuing to
investigate these reports. The upsurge in violence only underscores further
the need to make progress in the discussions between Rugova and Milosevic.
That dialogue process remains on track.
Since their meeting last Friday, representatives of both sides have been in
contact with Ambassador Chris Hill, who has offered to play a facilitating
role in the discussions. We understand that they plan to meet again
sometime this week. We will continue to encourage the two sides to address
key issues. Dr. Rugova and key advisors will visit Washington later this
week, and will have meetings with senior Administration officials.
With respect to NATO and the border areas and the region, let me just say
that we have always wanted to see what the proper stabilization measures
would be to ensure that if the conflict did spill over, we would be in a
position to protect our vital interests.
I would expect that further discussion of NATO's role, what role the UN
would play with regard to the former Yugoslav of Macedonia - these are all
things that continue to be discussed in NATO and UN channels. Frankly, I'd
expect it to come up in a serious way when Secretary Albright is in
Luxembourg later in the week.
QUESTION: Will she be talking with the Contact Group ministers about what
they're - maybe pull back on some of the measures against Serbia?
MR. RUBIN: Well, again, we're going to see how developments unfold; we're
going to take a look at the negotiations. Rugova will be here. I would be
surprised if, in her discussions with her counterparts in Luxembourg, that
Kosovo wasn't one of the top items on the agenda. But what exactly --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - is not scheduled?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of a Contact Group ministers' meeting.
QUESTION: Does the Administration advocate additional deployment of
troops in the region, along the Macedonian border, perhaps - NATO troops,
that is? And would American soldiers be part of that, if so?
MR. RUBIN: Well, again, I'm not suggesting that anything has changed here,
other than this has always been a matter of concern to us. We have wanted
to be sure that contingency discussions were held so that if the crisis
spun out of control, we were in a position to have planned for things. But
that doesn't mean that we are any closer to implementing any plans. There's
always planning going on.
All I'm suggesting is that the stabilization package for the region is
something that Strobe Talbott began to talk about on his visit, and that
has been followed up in NATO channels, in UN channels and in a lot of
bilateral channels --that is, to talk about the problem of the border and
to talk about the question of the future of the UN force in the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which is part and parcel of that problem.
Those discussions continue.
QUESTION: I'm sorry, but what's the US position?
MR. RUBIN: Right. Again, there's nothing new to report in the US
position; other than to say that we're continuing to be seized with the
problem and talking about it. When we have a US position to report -- other
than a position that is we would like to assure that there is maximum
stability in the region -- I will try to communicate that to you.
QUESTION: The Colombian guerrillas have been increasing its activities to
probably trying to put in evidence the weakness of the Colombian military
capability to fight them. My question is, is the United States willing to
give more military or technical assistance to the Colombian forces to fight
the guerrillas, especially when the presidential elections are just a few
weeks away?
MR. RUBIN: I think you know very well that that is not what American
assistance is for. You've asked me the question probably 25 times over the
last six months about what our assistance is for, so let me repeat. When we
give assistance, it is for the purpose of fighting narcotics traffickers.
To the extent that guerrillas are supporting or are engaged in narcotics
trafficking, they may see the fruits of our assistance used against them.
But to suggest, as your question did, that we have now been supporting
the Colombian military directly in its fight against the guerrillas, or
would increase the support, is simply contrary to everything I've told you
for the last six months.
QUESTION: Turkish Government captured a group of suspects which attacked
Turkish civil rights activist, Mr. Akin Birdal. When that attack occurred,
you made a statement about this one. Do you have any comment on the latest
development?
MR. RUBIN: No, but we'll try to get you one after the briefing.
QUESTION: Another question. Last week several US officials, including
General Wesley, emphasized how much concern of the Greek-Cypriot side's
installation of S-300 missiles in the island. Now Mr. Miller is in the
island. Do you think his agenda included this S-300 missile subject,
too?
MR. RUBIN: I would be very surprised if our able Ambassador Miller, in
any discussion in that region, did not bring up the issue of the S-300
missiles. Our view is very simple: we think it would be a mistake to
introduce those weapons. We also think it's a mistake for Turkey to issue
threats about what it would do if that were to happen.
QUESTION: I have a question on Mexico. The Foreign Minister of Mexico
says that the government of Mexico will launch an investigation on the
agents who participated in the Casablanca operation. Do you have any
response to that, or can you assure the government of Mexico that no laws
were broken during that operation?
MR. RUBIN: With regard to the conduct of the investigation and the
results, I would recommend you speak to the Justice Department about it.
With respect to the report of the Secretary's discussion with the Mexican
Foreign Secretary, let me simply say that Secretary Albright did call
Secretary Green last week. One subject of the call was the money laundering
investigation, in which Secretary Albright did express her regret in
general terms about the level of consultations and the manner of announcement
of the investigation. Therefore, any further questions about the conduct of
the investigation, as opposed to the announcement and the consultations,
would be best directed at the Justice Department.
QUESTION: But from the point of view of foreign relations, do you think
that this will - or has this damaged the relations between Mexico and the
United States?
MR. RUBIN: We have every reason to believe that both Mexico and the
United States want to fight drug trafficking. In the course of fighting
drug trafficking, investigative activities took place. We certainly hope
that Mexico puts its desire to fight drug trafficking over any question
about consultations.
QUESTION: The last - that sentiment, that feeling came about in that
conversation between the two Foreign Ministers last week?
MR. RUBIN: Again, I wouldn't want to specify anything more about the
conversation than I just did.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Mexico has just said that they are committed to
fight narco-trafficking, but not in that way. The United States is still
applying unilateral measures to combat narco-trafficking. He says that he
is probably going to retain the bilateral cooperation with the United
States. And also, it wasn't too late for Secretary Albright to regret this
action? I mean, after three years it's not too late? The Mexican Congress
has been very upset -
MR. RUBIN: Again, all I can say is that we value our cooperation with the
Mexican Government in the fight against drug traffickers, and we certainly
hope they put their need to fight drug trafficking over any of their
concerns about consultations.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary - was she informed of the Justice Department
operation in Mexico?
MR. RUBIN: The State Department was aware of the operation, yes.
QUESTION: At what point were they made aware of the operation?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not in a position to detail those type of facts.
QUESTION: How far into the operation, generally speaking, was --
MR. RUBIN: I'm not in a position to get into that level of detail.
QUESTION: Do you have any statement on the outcome of the Hungarian
general elections?
MR. RUBIN: The United States congratulates the Hungarian people on the
successful conclusion of their recent parliamentary elections. The
international monitors confirm that Hungary's two-round elections adhered
to the highest standards of democratic practice and reported no significant
irregularities. We will follow with interest the negotiations in the coming
days and weeks to form a new governing coalition, and we look forward to
working closely with Hungary's new government in the years to come.
QUESTION: Jamie, what happened to the Pakistani delegation that was
supposed to come today?
MR. RUBIN: We still - I don't believe I ever said there was a delegation
that was coming today.
QUESTION: Well, their officials have said there was a delegation that was
going to come today.
MR. RUBIN: Those officials who knew about it told me they weren't sure
when the delegation was coming, and we're still not sure.
QUESTION: Does the State Department have any information on the illegal
transfer of precision measuring devices from Japan to China that could be
used in the development and manufacture of nuclear weapons?
MR. RUBIN: We'll take that question.
QUESTION: On India - the World Bank is talking about blocking some loans.
Do you have any details on that?
MR. RUBIN: Other than to say that obviously we intend to implement in
full the correct interpretation and implementation of US sanctions under
the Glenn Amendment. We have already begun to take action in some areas,
such as suspending International Military Education and Training and
stopping issuance of munitions licenses, and OPEC and Ex-Im have suspended
new commitments.
We are working with out international partners to suspend new lending to
India through international financial institutions. In that regard,
contrary to a lot of what I read, we are happy to see that the EU Foreign
Ministers have indicated they would work for a delay in consideration of
loans to India if India does not accede to relevant international
nonproliferation agreements.
However, some of these Glenn Amendment sanctions are so novel and
unprecedented that we want to study them very carefully and make sure we
clarify a lot of the details before we impose them and create precedent in
this area.
QUESTION: So you're saying the EU did not say it would forego sanctions -
they said they would work on delaying loans to India?
MR. RUBIN: What I'm saying is that there was a general impression given
that the United States was the only country in the world doing anything
about the Indian test other than words. At the time, I indicated very
strongly that I thought there were a series of countries, including Japan
and Germany and others, who were taking very stiff action. Unfortunately,
despite my best efforts, it's still remembered as an issue where only the
United States is doing anything.
So I am pointing you to the fact that the European Union has indicated that
they would work for a delay in considerations of loans to India if India
does not accede to the relevant nonproliferation agreements - in particular,
the CTBT -- which means that other countries, the EU now as a group, is
signaling that India's test has made it more difficult for it to receive
international financial assistance. That is a sanction in the broadest
sense of the word. There is a negative effect on India from the test.
With respect to the World Bank current action, my best understanding is
that the management of the bank decided, at this point, to delay consideration
of the loan. And what I'm saying to you is that we are working, pursuant to
our sanctions, to suspend new lending to India through such facilities.
QUESTION: And you believe that the Europeans will vote with you?
MR. RUBIN: I didn't say that. We don't speculate as to how other
countries vote. I'm just trying to give you a general sense of what our
position is. I can be very specific: we are going to work to suspend new
lending to India.
Generally, the Europeans - again, contrary to the impression one gets from
international media accounts - are moving towards imposing what is
effectively a sanction - that is, a negative effect for India if it doesn't
joint the CTBT -- as a result of the test. With respect to how EU countries
would vote in the World Bank, you'd have to ask them.
QUESTION: How much was the loan that was just suspended?
MR. RUBIN: I'll have to get you that for the record.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:00 p.m.)
|
