U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #70, 98-06-10
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
882
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, June 10, 1998
Briefer: James P. Rubin
KOSOVO
1-2 Update on violence/Refugees to Albania/Sanctions
1-2,3 Amb. Gelbard at Contact Group meetings/G-8 Meeting on
Friday / Policy options
2-5,6-7 NATO's acceleration of planning process/Defense Minister's
Meeting tomorrow in Brussels/UN Security Council
resolution/Timing of NATO and UN actions
3,5-6 FRY military operations in Kosovo
3-4 War Crimes Tribunal and possible definition of Kosovo
conflict as "internal"
6 Dialogue with Pres. Milosevic
6 Possibility of recognition as an independent country
7-8 Kosovar Albanians' peaceful tactics and international
support
8-9 Amb. Hill meetings with FRY officials and Kosovar Albanians
/ Suspended talks
12 Discussion during Secretary Albright's meeting with
Senators today
ARMS CONTROL
9-11 Secretary Albright's call for stringent export controls on
man portable air defense systems (MANPADS)/International
meeting soon
INDIA/PAKISTAN
11-12 Secretary Albright's meeting with Senators on the
possibility of new CTBT hearings/ Discussion on current
legislation and the issue of sanctions
BELARUS
12-13 Update on Lock Out of US Ambassador in Minsk from his
residence
TURKEY
13 U.S. Policy on Turkey and Kurds
SWITZERLAND
13 Wiesenthal Center Report on action of right wing groups
during WWII
NIGERIA
14 U.S. Ambassador request for meeting with Gen. Abubakar
IRAQ
14 GOI reaction to Amb. Butler's "Road map"/GOI-UNSCOM
cooperation
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #70
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1998, 1:45 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Greetings. The lights seem particularly bright today; but
fortunately for you, they're against your backs.
Welcome to the State Department briefing room. It is Wednesday, tomorrow is
Thursday.
(Laughter.)
Let me start with Mr. Schweid.
QUESTION: We've heard a lot about India and Pakistan and that part of the
London deliberation, but not much on Kosovo. Mr. Cohen is talking about
Kosovo. What does the Secretary hope to accomplish on that end?
MR. RUBIN: Let me start, Barry, with a situation report. As we understand
it, violence now does appear to be increasing in Kosovo, with fighting
spreading to additional areas. Some fighting may be continuing in the
Decani region. We also have preliminary reports of violence in the Klina
region, on the highway between Pristina and Pec. The dialogue between the
ethnic Albanians and Serbs is currently on hold, pending an improved
security environment - particularly, and end to Belgrade's military
operations.
Refugees continue arriving in Albania, albeit at a slower rate. There are
currently some 200 crossing into Albania per day. We estimate that there
are between 10,000 and 11,000 refugees in Northern Albania, and that the
existing international assistance efforts of the UNHCR, the ICRC and the
government of Albania can address the current needs of this population, but
would need additional assistance if large numbers of new refugees begin to
arrive in Albania.
With respect to the series of meetings that are occurring, I spoke to
Ambassador Gelbard about an hour ago and he had just finished a meeting
with his counterparts from the Contact Group. What he indicated to me is
that going into the meeting on Friday of the foreign ministers - which will
probably take place primarily through the G-8 formula where all of them sit
- that there's a recognition that this is a matter of grave concern; that
with respect to the prescriptive remedies, that is what we want to see
happen -- namely a return of refugees, an observation force in a position
to know what's going on there, a cease-fire and a situation that would
enable the conditions for negotiations to return. That is what the foreign
ministers will be moving to address.
On the sanctions side, as you know, the President decided to re-impose the
sanctions that we first proposed. The executive order is in train, and I
discussed in detail yesterday what that would mean.
What is happening right now is there is a growing recognition in the
international community that the situation in Kosovo is deteriorating, and
that its continued deterioration poses a threat to the region and by
extension, therefore, a threat to international peace and security. The
large numbers of refugees I just referred to is a harbinger of the danger
of allowing the situation to deteriorate further without action.
As a result of that growing recognition, NATO's officials are now engaged
in a very serious accelerated planning process. There will be a defense
ministers' meeting in Brussels tomorrow that Secretary Cohen will be
attending. The ambassadors are now working in preparation for that meeting.
They're taking into account initial reports from the assessment teams that
have recently been to Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia. Given this deteriorating situation, our NATO ambassadors are
discussing a wide range of options and exploring those options.
Those options will then be reviewed by the defense ministers tomorrow. Then
the foreign ministers will have an opportunity to engage, as well, on
Friday. The key addition, obviously, on Friday is the presence of the
Foreign Minister of Russia. We are supportive and acting in support of a
resolution in the Security Council that, because of the deteriorating
situation, would authorize all necessary means to restore international
peace and stability to the region. That is a very significant next step in
this process, and what I'm trying to communicate to you is that whether
it's the political side, the refugee side, the humanitarian side or
the military side, different countries, led by the United States and others,
are engaging in a process to try to make sure that we deal with the
situation early enough so that it doesn't spin out of control.
QUESTION: Jamie, you said the matter is grave. And I know that you don't
want to commit yourself to certain language about military intervention,
but you seem to be saying that military intervention - or suggesting,
rather - is inevitable at this point because the situation is deteriorating.
MR. RUBIN: My words are chosen carefully. I did not say it's inevitable;
what I said was that it's grave and that if President Milosevic doesn't get
the message and walk back from the brink, the likelihood obviously will
increase. We are considering serious military options because we believe
the situation warrants it. But no decisions have been made. You have to
start by planning; you have to start by figuring what you can and should do
and what will work in combination with your political objectives before
you begin to issue threats and then, ultimately, if necessary, carry out
those threats.
So that's what we're doing. We're not presuming any one outcome or another,
and we're not presuming any one decision or another. We're doing what we're
supposed to be doing, which is getting ready.
QUESTION: I maybe reading too much into this, but you referred to what
Belgrade's forces are doing in Kosovo now as military operations. It seems
to me up until yesterday, it was referred to as paramilitary or police
operations.
MR. RUBIN: I'm not trying to signal anything by that phrase, other than
that clearly, military forces of various designations - namely, military
equipment - is being used to conduct this campaign in Kosovo.
QUESTION: Would you say that equipment includes military aircraft, both
fixed wing and helicopter, as well as regular forces from the Yugoslav
National Army?
MR. RUBIN: I will try to get you an answer for the record as to what we
can assess publicly as to what we think is going on there. But clearly, it
is a military operation in the common sense definition that there are
troops that are accompanied by military equipment that are conducting
offensive operations.
QUESTION: Is any thought being given that the foreign ministers might
issue a deadline for Milosevic to walk back from the brink, as you phrased
it - to do the various things that you've outlined?
MR. RUBIN: Well, that is for the foreign ministers to decide. Obviously,
we are in a situation where time is important. We want to make sure that we
are acting with due care, exploring all the options. With respect to what
the foreign ministers may do two days from now, I'd like to give them a
chance to talk about it before we say it.
QUESTION: One issue that I'm a little in the dark about is the issue of,
Jamie, doesn't Milosevic - isn't he actually conducting a civil war under
territory that's in his own jurisdiction? And could you review what
possible legalities there might be with regard to NATO or anybody else -
the UN - taking any kind of military action in Kosovo?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. Very briefly, the answer is that pursuant to the last
Security Council resolution that imposed the arms embargo, the body of the
world charged with restoring or maintaining international peace and
security, the Security Council, determined that action in Kosovo posed a
threat to international peace and security. It was by that nature that they
imposed an arms embargo.
Clearly, the fact that we are now considering a measure that would
authorize all necessary means makes it even clearer that the international
community believes that this is a matter that affects the international
peace and security, and therefore can appropriately be applied or acted on
by the Security Council.
With respect to legal definitions of whether this is an internal conflict
and what that would bring to bear, that's part of the War Crimes Tribunal
issue that we addressed early on, where we have made clear that we believe
the War Crimes Tribunal applies to this territory because it's in former
Yugoslavia. It's up to the Tribunal to work on that.
QUESTION: Are you saying that whatever the Security Council says it is,
as far as Kosovo is concerned, whatever it rules, then, will overrule
whatever international law?
MR. RUBIN: Well, without purporting, I have never gone to law school and
I don't want to overdo my legal understanding of this. But as I understand
the situation, when the Security Council makes that kind of a determination,
that governs; unless it affects in some way domestic law of various
countries in the world. With respect to the United States, we have a veto
in the Security Council and therefore, if we don't believe that's true,
we're in a position to veto it.
But with respect to the precise legal situation, I'd like to leave that to
the lawyers; other than to say that when the Security Council makes its
determination, that's an extremely important determination.
QUESTION: Jamie, do you consider the Security Council resolution that
you've described an essential prerequisite for any military action that
NATO might take in or around Kosovo? Do you expect Russia and China to
support such a resolution? And do you have any time table for when it might
be adopted?
MR. RUBIN: Right now we are in a consultation phase. And we are not
supporting it for no reason; clearly, we think it would be useful. Whether
its failure to pass would kick in certain other factors which your question
implies, I don't care to speculate at this time.
We think it would be useful for the Security Council to act in this general
way. We are now working on the language. We think that if President
Milosevic understands the road he's heading down better than he obviously
understands it now, the chances of him walking back from the brink are
greater. But we do not have a firm understanding of what all the countries
in the Security Council will do. We will be working on a text in New York,
and at that time we'll know better what the countries are going to
do.
We obviously would like to see any such resolution receive the support of
all the countries that are on the Security Council because the chances of
us ever having to consider implementing that resolution in a way pursuant
to NATO military planning would be less if the resolution knocked some
sense into President Milosevic.
QUESTION: Timing?
MR. RUBIN: Timing - this process takes some time, and it's just began in
the last few days and it's in the consultation phase.
QUESTION: When you say it's useful, do you mean it's essential or can
action be taken under Chapter 7 without that resolution?
MR. RUBIN: Well, again, you're trying to drag me into a lawyer's
discussion. What I can tell you is that for now, we would like to see this
resolution passed. There are certainly countries in the world that have
traditionally not wanted to act in the absence of Security Council
resolutions. You know the United States has different legal interpretations
than some other countries, and different political imperatives than other
countries.
So for now, what we are focused on is planning in NATO and a Security
Council resolution in the UN in New York. And, hopefully, the planning will
be completed on an accelerated basis, as President Clinton indicated
yesterday. And, hopefully, countries will realize the wisdom of supporting
such a resolution as a way of, at a minimum, getting the message through to
President Milosevic to walk back from the brink.
QUESTION: When is planning to be completed in NATO?
MR. RUBIN: The defense ministers will meet tomorrow, and they will
accelerate some of the guidance for the planners to do their work. They
would be in a better position to know the answer of timing after they have
a chance to meet with the planners tomorrow.
QUESTION: Could I go back, also, to Sid's question about the forces on
the Yugoslav side? Can you say anything about the extent to which the
federal army is engaged, as opposed to police, at this stage?
MR. RUBIN: My understanding is that there are components from basically
all the different designated types of forces in Serbia that are engaged in
one form or another. What we want them to do is to go back to their
barracks - the ones that were in Kosovo, and those that were not there at
all, to return from where they came from.
QUESTION: Do you know about the numbers? Have the numbers increased in
the last --
MR. RUBIN: Right, I mean, clearly, there's been an increase in the
violence and, therefore, by implication it would be logical that there's an
increase in the force levels. But giving you an order of battle from the
podium is not something I'm in a position to do.
QUESTION: Last night there was a report, or yesterday there was a report
out of Kosovo that a substantial number of new tanks or armored vehicles
were brought into the area - 50, at least - and 1,500 new troops and things
like that. In this way, is there any sense that a build-up is continuing,
even as the conflict continues?
MR. RUBIN: I think I indicated in the response to the first question that
the violence is increasing in the last 24 hours.
QUESTION: My question is on the build-up.
MR. RUBIN: With respect to the exact order of battle, I will try to get
you an answer for the record as to what we can say publicly about what we
know that's going on there.
QUESTION: Jamie, this man Milosevic, with whom we've had dealings in the
past, has now, under some pressure, agreed to hold talks with Mr. Rugova,
and under the cover of those talks, launched what appears to be a rather
massive at least paramilitary operation.
MR. RUBIN: Sounds like you read my briefing yesterday.
QUESTION: Yes. Is there any point in doing business with this man at all
in the future? His word appears not to be worth much.
MR. RUBIN: Well, as I said yesterday, the credibility of President
Milosevic is certainly a waning asset, in light of the fact that he has
used talks as an opportunity to pursue this kind of military action. But
for now, he is the President of Serbia; and if one wants to see this
conflict - the President of the FRY, Serbia and Montenegro - he is the
person one needs to do business with if one wants to get things to change
on the ground. It is very easy to simply say, let's not do business with
him, unless you don't want a negotiated outcome.
If you want a negotiated outcome, you need to do business with a person
able to deliver. We still believe he's able to deliver. If you don't want a
negotiated outcome, then you're in a position to adopt sort of a laissez
faire attitude, well then let's not do business with him. We, the United
States, and the international community believe that it will be better for
the people of Kosovo and the people of Serbia, more broadly, if this
problem is resolved at the negotiating table. Therefore, one needs an
interlocutor capable of delivering.
There's no question that President Milosevic delivered in Dayton. For those
of you who covered Dayton, you know that happened. And so, clearly, he is
in a position to deliver. That doesn't mean we enter into discussions with
him with joy and happiness, considering what he has been responsible for.
But it does mean those in responsible positions who want to get a
negotiated outcome need to deal with that person who can deliver.
QUESTION: Let me just, in this context, try one softball - one off-the-
wall question.
MR. RUBIN: I like the idea of a softball better.
QUESTION: No, this is an off-the-wall question. Is there any consideration
being given to recognizing Montenegro as an independent country?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of that at this time.
QUESTION: Jamie, can I take you back into the legal side, but it's one I
think you can handle, even as a non-lawyer? Am I correct that it is
possible for NATO to act without a UN resolution?
MR. RUBIN: Certainly.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. RUBIN: But as I indicated, there are some countries who see UN
Security Council resolutions as a necessary prerequisite for their
participation. So that may end up being a hypothetical legal point.
QUESTION: This is somewhat of an oddball question, too
MR. RUBIN: Another off-the-wall question.
QUESTION: Well, since '92 - I may have my dates wrong, but roughly '92 -
the Kosovars have basically not participated in Serbian politics and
institutions. They set up their own shadow government and shadow institutions
and so forth. Does the US think that was wise policy on their part; and do
you counsel Rugova to change policy at all?
MR. RUBIN: Well, pursuant to the agreement that the Italian interlocutors
made with regard to the education agreement, we were looking for a way for
the Kosovar Albanians to participate in the school system and be in a
position to, thereby, participate more broadly in the situation.
We're not in the second-guessing business; we're in the problem-solving
business. Clearly, by avoiding violence, the leaders of the Kosovar
Albanians have won greater support in the world for their legitimate effort
to pursue their rights than they would if they were acting by random
killing and taking some of the steps the UCK took, which we condemn.
So the ability to obtain support around the world for your cause is often
directly related to the tactics you pursue. The peaceful tactics that were
pursued by Dr. Rugova, including non-participation in the activities of the
authorities there because their rights weren't being respected, is all of a
piece. One can't just take a piece out of it and say, well, gee, it would
have been better if they did this or they didn't do that. Where we are
today is that there is a broad body of opinion amongst the Kosovar
Albanians that they want to resolve this problem peacefully and receive
their legitimate rights.
What President Milosevic doesn't seem to understand is that with each tank
and with each gun and with each use of force, he's decreasing the number of
Kosovar Albanians that want to pursue a peaceful solution and increasing
the numbers who support the UCK or the KLA.
QUESTION: Don't you think the Kosovars have a right to defend themselves
from this onslaught?
MR. RUBIN: Well, one always gets into the chicken and the egg situation.
Inherently we recognize people's right to defend themselves; but we believe
that the violence has to stop on both sides. Clearly, what has outraged the
international community is the fact that a modern army is being used in
Kosovo against a largely unarmed civilian population. But that does not
excuse those who commit acts of random terror as part of their pursuit
of their cause; we cannot support that.
QUESTION: Back on the issue of diplomacy, the talks that were suspended
last week, they were scheduled, I guess, to resume this week. What is the
outlook; and also, what are you advising Dr. Rugova to do?
MR. RUBIN: Ambassador Hill is in contact with both of the parties. I
would prefer not to get into a discussion of tactical concerns that we may
be discussing with the two parties on a daily basis. Those are private
communications. But in general, we would like to see the negotiations
resumed. We want to establish a situation where both sides recognize the
solution is at the negotiating table, not on the battlefield.
The best way to do that is for President Milosevic to come up with a
credible confidence- and security-building plan that will give the Kosovar
Albanians new confidence and new assurances that by negotiating, they are
not simply masking Serbian attempts to use force in Kosovo. So what
precisely the nature of that confidence- and security-building plan would
be is something that we would obviously be prepared to work with the
Serbian authorities on. But that's the principle that is governing our
desire for negotiations.
QUESTION: What must happen before the talks can resume in the --
MR. RUBIN: Well, we don't have preconditions; these are talks between the
two parties. They have indicated, and we understand their feelings - they,
being the Kosovar Albanians - that to talk in the absence of a confidence-
and security-building plan and in the presence of this kind of onslaught is
simply untenable; and we certainly understand that. So what we are trying
to do is work on the goals, which are refugees returning, reconstruction
of the houses that have been destroyed, observers to make sure this doesn't
happen. As goals, I am not going to say that each one of those things has
to be done in full and in advance before one could start talking again, but
clearly some confidence has to be provided to the Kosovar-Albanians that
when they talk, their people aren't going to be slaughtered.
QUESTION: You say that you're trying to work on these things in the
absence of talks. I know Christopher Hill saw Milosevic on the weekend. Are
there continuing talks with Milosevic on these issues?
MR. RUBIN: Again, we are in contact with both parties about the issues in
Kosovo. As far as who is talking to whom on an hourly basis, it is not
appropriate for me to say.
QUESTION: Have the talks moved into kind of a proximity phase where --
MR. RUBIN: No; there are no talks in the sense that the meeting scheduled
has been canceled between the Kosovar Albanians and the Serbian authorities.
What I am saying is that we are in touch with both sides on a daily
basis.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - talks were canceled for this week?
MR. RUBIN: Last week.
QUESTION: But what about this week?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not under the impression that any new session is
scheduled.
QUESTION: Do you want there to be talks this week?
MR. RUBIN: Roy, you know, you come in here and - I've said we want the
talks to start.
QUESTION: Well, these are American-organized talks with an American
present with Dr. Rugova coming with the American. This is not exactly
happening with by Dr. Rugova himself; it's an --
MR. RUBIN: Roy, if you want to be a diplomat and find out everything that
happens on an hourly basis, I will get you a form so you can join the
Foreign Service, and then you can know on an hourly basis every contact
that we have with each of the parties.
For now, in a public forum while diplomacy is going on, our position is as
follows. We want negotiations to occur; we believe they need to occur; we
understand the Kosovar Albanians unwillingness to participate in the last
session of talks because of what was going on in Kosovo; we are in touch
with both parties to try to create conditions under which the talks can
resume. Beyond saying that, I have no comment on your specific questions.
QUESTION: Different subject -- the Secretary, in her speech, called for
export controls on shoulder-fired missiles. Can you shed some light on why
she raised that; is there a new and growing threat?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. As part of the response to airline safety problems, in
particular the TWA flight, Vice President Gore set up a commission that was
looking into airline safety matters. A particularly dangerous type of
weaponry is known as MANPADS - man-portable air defense systems - which is
a particularly non-politically correct definition of a weapons system. They
provide a low cost, easily deployable, highly portable and extremely lethal
surface-to-air missile capability. An example, on the US side, is the
Stinger. These platforms are hard to defeat, and their proliferation
presents a significant risk for use in terrorist activities -- in
particular against civil aviation.
The proliferation of these systems is expanding -- the armed forces of more
than 115 countries and dozens of sub-national groups are now equipped with
portable surface-to-air missiles. In light of this, we have imposed some
rather stringent export restrictions, and we want to promote similar
stringency around the world. What the Secretary is calling for is a process
whereby those countries that are in the position of supplying these
weaponry are able to apply rather rigid end-user controls so that the
weaponry does not fall into the wrong hands.
We consider this a growing threat; it's a threat that we want to deal with.
We've imposed some rather strict controls on exports of these weapons of
our own, and we're trying to get other countries to do so, as well.
QUESTION: When will those controls be imposed?
MR. RUBIN: I'll have to get you the details on precisely when - I think
it's increasing over the years.
QUESTION: A lot of those got on the market through the US supplying
Afghan rebels.
MR. RUBIN: Right. Thank you for the history lesson.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: Well, I just don't understand what relevance that has if we're
trying to put controls on them and we're trying to get others to put
controls on them, to point out that we have recognized the problem - it's
obvious - it's well known fact that in the aftermath of the war in
Afghanistan, there was an increasing problem with this. That's why we're
trying to deal with it. But if you want the United States Government,
through it's spokesman, to take blame for all the problems in the world,
you'll have to find another spokesman.
QUESTION: It certainly wasn't the Clinton Administration that pursued the
policy arming the Afghan rebels, but there was a program that was
implemented late in their Administration to buy back the Stingers which -
and I don't believe they were able to purchase any of them back. I'm just
wondering whether you're thinking of maybe re --
MR. RUBIN: I think what I'm trying to say is what we're doing now is
making sure that those countries that export them have a very tight export
control system. We have imposed that. They are some of the most stringent
export controls we have. We now need to get other countries to do that. To
the extent we are pursuing other measures to try to buy back existing
systems out there, I would have to get you an answer for the record, but
the initiative, which was what the question was about - what Secretary
Albright's initiative was - is the one I so stated.
QUESTION: Jamie, are there other countries who have expressed interest in
this?
MR. RUBIN: We are going to be having a meeting in the coming weeks to try
to get interest by the key suppliers. Yes, there are others.
QUESTION: Here at the State Department or somewhere?
MR. RUBIN: We will get you details on where that meeting will take
place.
QUESTION: Who else makes these weapons?
MR. RUBIN: More details to follow.
QUESTION: On the Secretary's speech , she made a rather pointed appeal to
Senator Helms to take CTBT out and dust it off and have a committee meeting
about it. Is there any reason to believe that he is more flexible on that
than he has been in the past? Have India and Pakistan made a difference?
MR. RUBIN: Secretary Albright had a very constructive meeting on Capitol
Hill this morning with about 50 senators on the subject of India and
Pakistan, and what we need to do to try to restore our ability to deal with
such problems. She will be initiating a series of meetings with members of
Congress on the whole question of sanctions. In that meeting, she felt a
growing recognition on the part of senators of the need to provide
flexibility to the Administration in the area of sanctions.
With respect to the Comprehensive Test Ban, there is a growing number of
senators who are asking Senator Helms to conduct hearings; and she has
talked to him about it. As far as what his intentions are, I think you'd
have to address that question to Senator Helms, not to us. But as Secretary
Albright indicated, she is ready, willing and able to testify at the
earliest possible time.
QUESTION: Does she have a specific request in mind with regard to the
Glenn Amendment? Does she want Congress to either repeal it or to re-write
it?
MR. RUBIN: This is a process; it has to begin somewhere, and the process
began with the Secretary of State having a discussion with members of
Congress - senators - roughly half the Senate - about the problems of lack
of flexibility with various laws in the sanctions area. We are not at a
point where we are seeking a particular piece of legislation; no such
legislation has been drafted. Broadly speaking, we are supportive of
Senator Lugar's effort to bring greater rationality to laws on sanctions.
But with respect to any specific legislation, the key legislation now
before the Senate is Senator Lugar's legislation, and we want to work with
members of Congress to make it possible for the Executive Branch to have
greater flexibility so that the pursuit of diplomacy doesn't become simply
the imposition of sanctions -- that we are in a position to have the
incentives and disincentives we need to influence the behavior of other
countries. That's the purpose of diplomacy and the purpose of our foreign
policy. I am not in a position to announce or reveal any new position by
the United States on the Glenn Amendment, other than to say that broadly
speaking, we think we need greater flexibility.
QUESTION: Does she feel that the Glenn Amendment specifically does tie
her hands as she is trying to involve a new policy - because it requires, I
think, a completely new authorization from Congress to lift any of those
sanctions?
MR. RUBIN: The law is in place; we intend to follow the law. We will work
with Congress if we believe there is a need to adjust any provisions in the
law. We will follow the law. I am not in a position to make a specific
comment on any specific legislation, Roy. I am in a position to talk about
a process the Secretary began to begin to work with the senators on
dealing with the inherent lack of flexibility in a large number of
laws passed by the Congress.
QUESTION: Did she tell them that in this specific case there's really so
little - she is very limited in what the United States can do because it's
such an all-or-nothing sanction?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think that's a self evident fact; I can certainly tell
you that.
QUESTION: Did the meeting this morning with the senators cover just India
and Pakistan or was Kosovo also addressed?
MR. RUBIN: I believe there was some discussion of other matters, but the
purpose of the meeting was India, Pakistan, and I believe Kosovo came
up.
QUESTION: Can I ask about Belarus? I saw a report that the United States
is prepared to cut off electricity and the water at the Belarus Embassy in
Washington if they go ahead with their eviction plans. Is that true?
MR. RUBIN: Let me run through a little bit of where we are. We have had
an intensive dialogue with the Government of Belarus on this issue. On June
9, Foreign Minister Antonovich informed Ambassador Speckhard after a
renewed protest that President Lukashenko has authorized a one-week
extension of the June 10 deadline. There have been several extensions of
the deadline, to get to your question from yesterday, since the Foreign
Ministry first informed embassies of the Belarusian Government's April
23 decision to remove all residents from Drozdy, ostensibly to conduct
utilities repairs.
Throughout the past six weeks, we have repeatedly met with senior officials
in the Belarusian Government here and in Minsk to protest the crass and
disingenuous eviction attempt. Other countries have done the same. We have
warned that these measures violate the Vienna Convention, specifically
Article 22, which provides for the inviolability of ambassadorial residence,
and that the United States would be forced to take retaliatory measures if
the Belarusian Government carried through with its plan.
As a signatory of the convention, the Belarusian Government is obligated to
take all appropriate steps to protect the residence and to make sure that
it is supplied with adequate services.
With respect to the lease question that came up yesterday, the Belarusian
Government owns the entire complex. The US Embassy and the Belarusian
Deputy Foreign Minister signed a lease on the residence in July 1992, valid
until March 2001.
With respect to what we would do here, let me say that our ambassador is
still in his residence in Minsk. It would be premature to speculate on what
steps we may be prepared to take; but our response would be measured and
appropriate to the violation of international law involved.
QUESTION: Jamie, the inviolability of the ambassador's residence would
also apply here in Washington. You all are not prepared --
MR. RUBIN: Right, but in any convention, if one side violates the
convention, appropriate and proportionate responses are understood in
international law to be proper.
There, I pulled a little legal mumbo-jumbo out of my pocket.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Another subject - one of the State Department employees, he
works for the Policy Planning Department, he wrote a book about the Turkish-
Kurdish problem. He advised the Turkish Government to sit and open a
dialogue with the PKK terrorist organization, and he also defends the same
subject in Berlin about the Aspen Institute. I believe it is to prepare
some kind of conference. I wonder, as the State Department, did you change
your policy - (inaudible) - and discuss with the terrorist organization?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I'm glad to see you've been doing your reading; and we
welcome reading of books, especially. But my understanding is that the
policy of the United States has not changed in this area. That doesn't mean
that officials of our government are not permitted to express their own
views in their writings.
QUESTION: Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a report which analyzes the
activities of right wing groups in Switzerland during the Second World War,
and comes to the conclusion that the Swiss society was saturated from top
to bottom by the ideology and activities of these groups. The report
creates outrage in Switzerland; the Swiss object to many things, among them,
at the pinnacle of their influence, these groups had 1.5 percent of the
popular vote. Many other objections are made. Does the State Department
have any comment on this report?
MR. RUBIN: We have not had the chance to review the report in detail. We
understand, however, that it portrays Switzerland as heavily pro-Nazi
during the war, and links support of Nazi Germany to anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism, unfortunately, is a phenomenon that has been present in many
societies around the world. But it is important to note that those same
Swiss took in 50,000 Jewish refugees, of whom 30,000 remained throughout
the war and probably owe their lives to having refuge in Switzerland.
There is no doubt that there were pro-German elements in Switzerland, as
there were in so many other countries during the war. But it is clear, as
Under Secretary Eizenstat stated in his recent comments here, that the
Swiss people were overwhelmingly sympathetic to the allies, even against
the backdrop of Switzerland's strict neutrality. We would be concerned with
any broadside attack and urge anyone engaged in re-examining this topic to
strive for balance, not rush to judgment until all the facts are fully
established.
We continue to believe that Switzerland, in the past year and a half, has
taken the lead among wartime neutrals in reviewing this dark chapter in
their history, and in committing itself to provide justice in concrete ways
to Holocaust victims. In this regard, we look forward to the Historical
Commission report on Switzerland's relationship with Nazi Germany. This
commission has already issued a no-hold barred report on gold transactions;
in the fall, it plans to release its report on refugees.
The Commission eventually will address Switzerland's overall relationship
with Nazi Germany. We have great confidence in the integrity and probity of
that commission, and we look forward to what we expect will be a candid
account of these issues.
QUESTION: Jamie, is there anything new on Nigeria today? Has our
ambassador been in to see this new government?
MR. RUBIN: We would like to meet with the new Nigerian leadership. Our
ambassador in Nigeria has requested a meeting with General Abubakar, and we
hope the meeting takes place in the next few days. After the meeting occurs,
we will be in a position to review what our next diplomatic steps ought to
be.
QUESTION: Is there anything on the Middle East? Still close?
MR. RUBIN: We're working hard.
QUESTION: Any comment on - Mr. Butler's going to go back to Iraq, and
Iraq has already said we don't want your road map for disarmament. So where
does it go -- where does it go if they don't cooperate, as they said?
MR. RUBIN: We'll have to see what happens. Iraq is famous for making a
lot of different kinds of statements. What has to happen in order to get
sanctions lifted is Iraq has to provide UNSCOM with the material it needs
to get the job done. That material and cooperation has been laid out by
Ambassador Butler. And one hopes that the Iraqi Government, instead of
trying to deny humanitarian aid from coming into its country as it has most
recently, will realize that the welfare of its people, the welfare of its
nation and the welfare of Iraq in the world will be improved if they
finally come clean and provide the cooperation that's been so sadly
missing.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:25 P.M.).
|
