U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #95, 98-08-04
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
895
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Tuesday, August 4, 1998
Briefer: James P. Rubin
STATEMENTS
1 SECRETARY'S TRIP TO SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO
1 STATEMENT ON SUDAN RESUMPTION OF PEACE TALKS
SUDAN
1 IGAD brokered talks/ famine / US delegation/ assistance and
support/ cease-fire
IRAQ
2 Ambassador Butler's trip / Missile/chemical weapons files/
sanctions relief
2,3 UNSCOM discovery /people suffering / Butler's report
3,4,5 Kofi Annan trip/ humanitarian efforts / oil-for-food
program / lifting of sanctions
4,5 US in contact / crisis brewing /Visit of Shi'ite leader
6 Amb. Butler's blue print
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO
6-7 US Interest/ human rights/ control of territory /democratic
government
7,8 scattered shooting / airport opened / warden message/
status of Amcits
CAMEROON
8 Update of fighting for territory in the South
INDIA
8 Failed Meeting / Killing of civilians /fighting tapered off
ISRAEL/ MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
8-10 Visit of Labor Party leader/ talks broken off
ST KITTS & NEVIS
11-12 Update on extradition / Number of Americans who departed /
Police reinforcement / Steps for the protection of
Americans
SERBIA (KOSOVO)
12,13 NATO finalized options / decision makers / ethnic cleansing
/ humanitarian workers /
13,14 dislocation of people / humanitarian catastrophe /
finalizing plans /political leaders decision
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #95
TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1998, 1:00 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Greetings.
QUESTION: Greetings.
MR. RUBIN: I can't imagine what was going on in this briefing room, prior
to the State Department spokesman --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: Welcome to the State Department. Today is Tuesday. We have an
announcement about the Secretary's travel in August to Santa Fe that we
will provide to you. But let me begin by talking about the Sudan briefly.
Peace talks resumed today in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, between the government
of the Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement under the auspices
of the so-called IGAD process -- that is, Inter-Governmental Authority on
Development.
You're not taking that down, Barry - IGAD.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: The United States has consistently and strongly supported the
IGAD-brokered talks, both financially and diplomatically. We believe the
IGAD process offers the best hope for ending a 15-year war which as cost
more than 1.5 million lives. A high-level US delegation, led by Ambassador
Richard Bogosian, is attending the talks in Addis Ababa to lend US
assistance and support.
We have welcomed the agreement for a three-month cease-fire in the areas
most affected by the famine. We're looking to see an agreement by both
sides to extend the cease-fire, which would enhance the ability of the
international relief agencies to feed the hungry, and will also serve as a
confidence-building measure. We hope the parties can reach agreement on
monitoring modalities for that cease-fire and an expanding one, and we urge
the parties to come to the talks in Addis Ababa ready to negotiate
seriously.
With that statement, let me turn to Barry.
QUESTION: The breakdown in talks between the UN folks - Butler's group -
and Iraq sounds ominous. What is the size-up here; and specifically, do you
think sanctions could be maintained among your not-always-constant
allies?
MR. RUBIN: First of all, let me say that the decision by Iraq to break
off talks is disturbing. Let's bear in mind that Chairman Butler traveled
to Baghdad to follow up on an accelerated work plan he agreed on with the
Iraqis two months ago, which in turn followed a series of technical
meetings held over the last eight months.
To quote Butler in a comment today from Bahrain, "If we did that work
program for the next four or five weeks and experienced full Iraqi
cooperation, I (Butler) could have been in a position to report to the
Security Council the end or very near the end of the missile and chemical
weapons files."
In short, it is inexplicable for Iraq to break off talks that were
specifically designed to accelerate the lifting of sanctions. Iraq is only
harming itself and its people since this action only puts off the day when
UNSCOM would be in a position to verify that Iraq had finally complied with
the requirements of the Security Council resolutions.
Iraq's responsibility remains what the Security Council has made clear it
must do - that is, fully disclose its weapons programs and cooperate fully
with UNSCOM. If it were to do so, rather than breaking off talks with the
person delegated by the international community the responsibility to get
to the bottom of this, then they would be in a position to move quickly
towards compliance with this requirement of the Security Council. So Iraq
has only harmed itself; its actions are inexplicable; and we are continuing
to demand Iraqi compliance.
With respect to the sanctions issue, I do not believe this can do anything
but harm Iraq's standing in the Council with respect to sanctions relief.
Even those who had a more forward-leaning position in terms of looking at
an earlier hoped-for date for lifting the sanctions will only be undercut
in their efforts by Iraq's refusal to even deal with the work plan that
they wanted, that Ambassador Butler put together; and so they have set
themselves back again.
QUESTION: Iraq has kind of zig-zagged in the past - it sounds like the US
hasn't totally given up hope that there will be cooperation with Butler?
MR. RUBIN: The cooperation between UNSCOM and Iraq has ebbed and flowed
over the years. They tend to cooperate more when it's apparent that UNSCOM
has discovered something that they need to acknowledge or finally admit.
We'll have to see; it's hard to know. This drama has been played out many,
many times before. There have been many scenes and acts in this play, but
the bottom line is that the Iraqi people are suffering for the failure
of its government to do what the international community has demanded.
QUESTION: Would you care to resurrect the threats of grave consequences
that you all used frequently during the last crisis if they do not resume -
if they don't --
MR. RUBIN: At this point, what we want to do is wait for Chairman
Butler's report on the precise details of what happened in his discussions
and the state of play. And I'm not going to speculate on what would happen
after that.
QUESTION: Are there any signs of any obstruction on the ground as far as
the inspection work that is continuing is concerned?
MR. RUBIN: This would be a question that Ambassador Butler would answer
in New York to the entire Security Council and then we'd be able to talk
more about it. But let me say there has been work that has continued since
the crisis in the winter. There's been access for the inspectors; they've
been able to do their work. That's what we want to see happen because it's
only by conducting the inspections, verifying the weaponry that has been
there or has been destroyed that we can get to the bottom and answer
the question of how much chemical, biological and ballistic missile
weaponry and technology Iraq had; how much has been destroyed; and then
finally eliminate what is remaining.
QUESTION: Will the United States be urging Kofi Annan to return to the
region to help defuse the situation?
MR. RUBIN: I think that's a few steps down the road at this point. We
need to see what Chairman Butler reports, what he thinks is necessary; and
we'll have to see.
QUESTION: To pick up on your word "inexplicable" in terms of the Iraqi
people and the Iraqi Government - has it occurred to you that their
interests may not be identical -- that Saddam Hussein derives a certain
political benefit from a crisis atmosphere and the image of the outside
world starving Iraqi children?
MR. RUBIN: First of all, with respect to the humanitarian efforts, I
think I could provide you after the briefing some rather dramatic
information about what's gone on in Iraq over the last several years and
the extent to which the oil-for-food program has provided the Iraqi people
with significant standards in terms of caloric intake and medical supplies
and basic foodstuffs. So the Iraqi people are getting their assistance
because of the international community. We have no illusion that Saddam
Hussein cares about his people. I'm simply pointing out that even by his
stated objective, which is to lift sanctions -- if you look at the
statements from Tariq Aziz and Saddam Hussein over recent weeks they start
from the premise of getting sanctions lifted and demanding that sanctions
be lifted.
If one takes that goal at face value, all that they've done by denying
Butler the ability to complete his work and follow through on the work plan
is shoot their own goal in the foot.
QUESTION: Well, that's the stated purpose. May they not have an ulterior
motive, which is to derive this political benefit from this crisis
atmosphere?
MR. RUBIN: You are welcome to speculate on the motivations of Saddam
Hussein; it's not a growth industry, in my opinion. People have been
speculating on it back and forth. It's rather fashionable to somehow
declare that when the international community gets him to back down that
somehow it's good for him. It's impossible for those of us who measure
success and benefits in the normal way to come to that conclusion. But
you're welcome to such speculation.
QUESTION: You referenced to - well, rather than shooting himself in the
foot and maybe he's hurt his cause with other governments. Has the US been
in serious contact lately with these other governments? He has protectors
on the Council - sympathizers.
MR. RUBIN: We're in regular touch with the key countries that are on the
Security Council. I expect the next round of serious consultations to occur
on Thursday, when Ambassador Butler - prior to, during and after Ambassador
Butler's report.
QUESTION: Jamie, if I can ask you -- you seem unwilling to say, though
I'll ask you whether the United States is concerned that a new Iraqi crisis
seems to be brewing.
MR. RUBIN: The question being --
QUESTION: Does the United States see a new Iraqi crisis brewing -
question mark?
MR. RUBIN: Ah, question mark. I'll tell you a joke about that afterwards -
about questions without question marks.
Look, it's impossible to predict. Saddam Hussein and his henchmen for many,
many years have been creating artificial crises, artificial situations that
then are turned off in a matter of days. If the desire was to gain support
for the lifting of sanctions, all I'm saying is that that failed, because
it's our judgment that people will see this for what it is - which is a
demand by Iraq to immediately declare them in full compliance, when all the
evidence over the recent weeks has been in the opposite direction, whether
it was the VX gas or other pieces of evidence that UNSCOM has been
collecting that demonstrate there still is considerable work to be done
to uncover what they had, what they've destroyed and what they might
have left.
Is it going to escalate; is it going to develop in that direction? It's
impossible to predict at this point. All I can say is that we have a lot of
experience dealing with Saddam Hussein. We've very successfully contained
his efforts over the last six years, whether that's been through the no-fly
zones or the determination to get the inspectors to be able to do their
work. We will continue to follow a policy that has kept him contained and
kept the pressure on him to finally come clean in this area, in the absence
of which sanctions cannot be lifted.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up and ask you, is it still the case that
there is one American aircraft carrier in the Gulf; and do you have an
update on the sort of status of American forces there?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have a --it's a good question; I will try to get one
of my Pentagon colleagues to brief you on that. I don't know the exact
order of battle in the Gulf at this time.
QUESTION: One more on Iraq -- how goes the effort to build up the Iraqi
opposition forces - political opposition?
MR. RUBIN: We are putting that plan together; it's been briefed to
Congress. I can try to get you some more information about it. It's a long
term effort to try to bring greater coordination and skills to those who
can present an alternative for the people of Iraq to the leadership that
has done so much damage to the country of Iraq.
QUESTION: And are you inviting the Kurdish faction leaders to come?
MR. RUBIN: I believe that we are expecting talks along those lines this
fall.
QUESTION: But how far are you along on the Shi'ite leader? When last I
pursued this, if the think tank invites him, you wouldn't bar the door to
him; but the think tank says it hasn't invited him but if he came, they
wouldn't bar the door. Are you going to bring in this highly - I don't know
what -- regarded or influential leader of southern Shi'ites who's parked in
Iran at the moment as a way of getting under Saddam's skin?
MR. RUBIN: I don't know what our plan is in that regard. I'll try to get
you an answer.
QUESTION: Regarding this inexplicable road that Saddam has gone down,
there is some thought that he has taken -- maybe -- calculation that Europe
is thinking about Kosovo and therefore distracted in that direction and the
President is thinking about his domestic problems with Monica and what not.
What are your thoughts on that?
MR. RUBIN: I've heard a lot of speculation over many years over what
might motivate him to take these actions. All I can say to you is that this
government and the governments with which it works closely in Europe has a
long history of being ready, willing and able to deal with these situations
that Saddam Hussein creates. We are ready, willing and able to deal with
them; and I'm not aware that there's been any reduction in the intensity
with which we follow this issue and would be prepared to deal with it if it
got worse.
QUESTION: There is some, I'm sure, entirely erroneous speculation which
says that perhaps the United States isn't really too bothered if Saddam
Hussein continues to cooperate on a limited basis -- and thus, delaying the
day of which sanctions can be lifted - because it means that you'll have
people on the ground in Iraq, he's limited in what he can do and in the
developments he can make. That said, is the United States really anxious to
see this whole matter deal with? If the Kofi Annan agreement is adhered
to and that sort of trundles along at its own pace, isn't quite a nice
outcome for the United States?
MR. RUBIN: I've certainly heard that speculation, and never understood
where it directly comes from. I know it's the kind of thing that the parlor
game includes. But as far as we're concerned, the job here is to identify,
locate and destroy the danger; and the danger is the weapons of mass
destruction. Our focus is on how to ensure that Saddam Hussein can never
again threaten his neighbors or the world with weapons of mass destruction.
In order to do that, UNSCOM has to get to the bottom of what he has
and get it destroyed; that is our primary objective here.
Sanctions is a policy of containment that is a result of his failure to
comply with that and other resolutions. It's a means, not an end.
QUESTION: More on Iran --
MR. RUBIN: Welcome back, Lee; go ahead.
QUESTION: What do you think is in the blueprint that Ambassador Butler
has? Is there something in there that you think - in the blueprint - can
you explain the blueprint a little more?
MR. RUBIN: I really don't know, other than, as I did, I tried to be as
helpful as I could in quoting what Butler said: "If we did that work for
the next four or five weeks and experienced full Iraqi cooperation, I
(Butler) could have been in a position to report that we were at the end or
near the end of the missile and chemical weapons files."
So clearly, a focus of the blueprint was the chemical and missile files and
things that needed to be done in a short number of weeks that would permit
him to believe that he had verified the absence of such weaponry.
QUESTION: Does the US feel that could happen in the next couple of weeks -
that he could have actually verified the absence of chemical and missiles?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we have full confidence and respect for Ambassador
Butler's work and the work of the experts. If you go back over the last
many years of the to-ing and fro-ing on Iraq, you'll see that we have been
fully supportive of the experts' judgment by UNSCOM as to what they have,
what they have refused to reveal and what needs to be done to close the
gaps. So that is whose judgment we will be happy to accept.
It would be a happy problem to deal with if he fully complied with the
resolutions.
QUESTION: On the Congo: What are American interests right now in the
Congo? Do we have, if you like, any sort of lion in this fight? Do we care
whether Kabila stays in power --
MR. RUBIN: It took me a minute, but I did get it. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: --or does it - I mean, do we actually care whether Kabila stays
in power or not, or are we invested in him, given the diplomacy of the
past? Are we disappointed in the way he's run the country since he took
over? Do we find reasons for this rebellion such as it is? What can you
tell us about the Congo?
MR. RUBIN: Terrific questions. Kabila's rule has been a mixed bag --
there have been some successes and some significant setbacks in terms of
human rights, economic and political developments. There was the release of
Tshisekedi; there was the schedule for elections. There was not human
rights access for the human rights investigators; there was not the kind of
free and fair political environment we were looking for; and there was less
than full acceptance of some basic democratic principles.
On the economic side, we'd hoped for more; we'd certainly hoped that more
would be done. I'm not prepared to comment on whether we would like to see
a change in the government there; that's not something we normally do. I
can say this - that we want the government in Kinshasa to be in a position
to control its territory. We do believe strongly in the territorial
integrity of the Congo - the Democratic Republic of the Congo - and let's
bear in mind that it is in a strategic location. There are many important
countries that border on it, and as goes the Congo so well might go
the stability of some of the countries in the region. There are strategic
minerals and resources in that area. So we want to see the country stay
together under its current borders, and we want to see the people there
have a government that can help them thrive and prosper in a democratic
way. Those are our objectives.
With respect to what we want to see happen in the current situation, there
was some scattered shooting in Kinshasa overnight, but less than the
previous night. It appears that Congolese military operations continue
against a pocket of rebels in the vicinity of Camp Tshatshi. But today in
Kinshasa, traffic and commerce have resumed; although still below normal
levels. The airport is open; a Sabena flight from Brussels arrived and
departed without incident this morning. The area of the Kivus is more
sketchy; and although we know Goma is calm, there are conflicting reports
of continued clashes in Bukavu and other areas of south Kivu.
Military commanders in Goma and Bukavu announced yesterday and the day
before that their forces would no longer respect the authority of the
Kabila Government. These announcements and the clashes in Kinshasa follow
the departure last week of Rwandan forces from the Congo. The Rwandan
Government denied any involvement in the rebellion. What we want to see is
all the sides to show restraint and resolve these differences in a non-
violent way. That's what we want to see happen.
QUESTION: A quick follow up - do you have any reason to discount - as you
discounted Mr. Milosevic's claims yesterday to halt his offensive - the
Rwandan Government's claims to have no involvement in what's going on
now?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I would have to check the evidentiary base on that
before I gave you a considered answer. We want to make clear, however, that
we don't believe that governments should be intervening in the internal
affairs of their neighbors. That's not something that we advocate.
QUESTION: Are Americans there? If there are any, are they safe?
MR. RUBIN: We have no reports that any Americans have been hurt in these
clashes. Our embassy in Kinshasa issued a warden message urging Americans
to remain at home; and we continue to monitor the safety of the American
community.
QUESTION: No evacuations?
MR. RUBIN: No.
QUESTION: Two questions - let me go first on Cameroon. Over 4.5 million
people of Cameroon, also known as Amazonia,are fighting for freedom from
Cameroon and Nigeria - both are fighting for a piece of territory. What is
the future or what is any update on Cameroon - Southern Cameroon?
MR. RUBIN: I will have to get you something after the briefing. And the
second question?
QUESTION: Do you compare this with Kashmir - the same thing happening in
India and Pakistan?
MR. RUBIN: I knew it was coming. To make the comparison, I would need to
answer the first question.
QUESTION: On India, do you have any comments on the once-again-failed
meeting of two prime ministers for India and Pakistan in Colombo, Sri Lanka,
during the SAARC meeting? And also, scores of innocent people are being
killed in the last two days in Kashmir, innocents by militants. Now, nobody
is really talking about it in the media or the State Department when Hindu
Kashmiris are being killed there - nobody is talking about them.
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think if you had been here yesterday, you would have
heard me talk about them. But I'll be happy to tell you what I said
yesterday. From Thursday through Saturday, artillery and small arms
exchanges across the line of control separating Kashmir intensified,
reportedly killing dozens of people - many of them civilians - Sunday.
Today, however, the fighting tapered off. There are firing incidents along
the line of control almost daily during the summer.
Adding to the tensions are continued killings of civilians inside Kashmir,
and now in the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh. We condemn these acts of
terrorism, and that's something I made very clear yesterday as well.
QUESTION: Jamie, the would-be prime minister of Israel - the Labor Party -
Ehud Barak - is here with some high-powered advisors. They're on a blitz so
far as access to the media, but I wondered what kind of audience they might
be getting.
MR. RUBIN: They're not on the Secretary's schedule today. I'll have to
check what the plan is for the rest of the week.
QUESTION: They made a trip to the Hill, and I believe they've seen Indyk.
But I wondered how much attention they're getting from the US Government.
MR. RUBIN: Right, I mean, they'll have to provide their own schedule to
you; and somehow I'm sure they will.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: Yes, they might. But I would need to check what her schedule
is for the rest of the week to tell you whether there would be such a
meeting between the Secretary and the opposition leader.
QUESTION: Then maybe I can use one of Barak's remarks this morning as a
way to get your latest view of the situation in the negotiations, unlike -
I mean, very much like the United States, he is foreboding. He sees through
the fog, as he puts it, a collision ahead. Is the US despairing, as it
sometimes is, about the situation?
MR. RUBIN: We are not in the prediction business today. There has been
direct engagement between the parties. We are now in touch with both sides
in order to determine if there is a basis for reaching an agreement. We're
trying to make a judgment about whether it is possible or not to reach an
agreement.
So having hopefully made extensive contact with both the Israelis and the
Palestinians, we want to be in a position to make the determination of
whether we're in a position to reach an agreement or not.
QUESTION: And should you - and I don't think this is entirely hypothetical
- should your inquiry reveal to you that there isn't a basis for an
agreement, would that be the occasion for the US to step forward and give
at least its summary of the situation?
MR. RUBIN: We'll have to make that decision based on the judgment that we
make as to where things are. The fact that they may or may not be able to
reach an agreement talking to them directly, engaging with each other, may
or may not lead to action by the United States. It depends on what we hear
and how close they are and whether we think that there are other ways to
get an agreement. Remember, our goal here is to do what we can to try to
bring the peace process back on track to determine whether there is a
basis for a breakthrough that we have been working hard on for some
weeks and months now. Based on that judgment, we will determine the next
steps.
QUESTION: Did your plea yesterday for specific proposals from "the
parties" have any affect in today's session?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I do believe some specific proposals were made, and
we're trying to determine what the prospects are.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: You'd have to - I'm not in a position to make that kind of
statement.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: I didn't think so.
QUESTION: That's what the implication of the question - all right.
MR. RUBIN: The questioners' implications in this room occasionally are
things that I can not be sure of.
QUESTION: But anyway, are the talks at an impasse? Are the talks broken
off?
MR. RUBIN: As I said, what we are doing is in touch with both parties,
working closely with them trying to determine what's happened in their
recent direct engagement to see whether there is a basis for reaching an
agreement or not; and that is what we're doing right now.
QUESTION: Can I try another subject?
MR. RUBIN: Just because one doesn't meet on one day doesn't mean they've
broken off, necessarily.
Same subject? I think we should go to the one and two-finger system. One
finger is same subject, and two finger is different subject.
QUESTION: Which finger would you like?
(Laughter.)
MR. RUBIN: Well, the one that would be signaling your deep respect and
affection for your spokesman, of course.
QUESTION: Who is handling the communication on the Middle East negotiations?
I mean, Dennis is on vacation; Aaron is on vacation. Who is it that's
talking to these people every day?
MR. RUBIN: I see. Let me assure you that Ambassador Ross has all the
equipment necessary to stay in touch with the parties and do his job, as
does Aaron Miller and as does most senior officials involved in working on
an important subject when they are taking a few days off.
QUESTION: The impression was given that you all were sort of letting them
do their thing. They've now done it - or not done it - and you seem to be
assessing, maybe thinking about getting involved again. Would that be --
MR. RUBIN: Right, I'm trying to not prejudge our next steps until we
judge where we think we are.
QUESTION: So there could be some sort of bridging proposal?
MR. RUBIN: Again, I think I've indicated that I can't really go any
farther than that. Yes, two fingers - new subject.
QUESTION: St. Kitts - any update on "Little Nut" or any of his friends?
Are Americans leaving in droves or not at all?
MR. RUBIN: The St. Kitts Government has not requested security assistance,
as we discussed yesterday, but we have had two security officers on the
island discussing with the remaining Americans how we can be of assistance.
With respect to the status of the extradition process, the case begun in
1996 was recently remanded to the examining magistrate for reconsideration
by a higher court. The timing of a new decision, possible defense appeals
and an ultimate appeal to the so-called Privy Council as court of last
resort is not certain but could take some time. We discussed this matter
with the St. Kitts Attorney General, who was in town over the weekend in a
meeting with State and Justice Department attorneys.
QUESTION: Can we go back to Kosovo?
MR. RUBIN: He's got the floor - he's put his one finger up.
QUESTION: Jamie, is there any news on the number of Americans who have
left since - are there any totals?
MR. RUBIN: I believe 50 have left.
QUESTION: Well, yesterday you said 50 have left or are planning to leave
when the --
MR. RUBIN: Right, and the numbers still - we haven't gotten an update
that changes that number substantially.
QUESTION: But it's have left or are planning to leave when the semester
is over was the formulation yesterday.
MR. RUBIN: We'll try to get you a specific answer after that briefing.
Any more one-finger questions?
QUESTION: Are you disappointed that the St. Kitts authorities have not
requested police reinforcements from other Caribbean countries?
MR. RUBIN: We have had two security officers on the island. The St. Kitts
Government can request assistance from the Caribbean Regional Security
System and we've urged them to do so, and so therefore we hope they
will.
QUESTION: Do you think they're taking adequate steps to protect the
Americans there?
MR. RUBIN: I should have thought of this a long time ago.
QUESTION: -- the St. Kitts police are taking adequate steps to protect
the Americans there?
MR. RUBIN: We do regard this security responsibility as being primarily
theirs. We're working with them and we've urged them to request assistance,
and we want them to therefore do that.
QUESTION: To take you away from this subject, if you're willing to go to
Kosovo or at least discuss it.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: It may be contrived a bit, but people in Brussels don't think
anything really new has happened. This is in reference to what you were
saying yesterday about contingency planning. I wondered if we could - I
have to challenge what you said because, as I say, what they say doesn't
really, to me, seem so different from what you say.
MR. RUBIN: Right. What I was trying to indicate yesterday is that the
process is being finalized, and NATO has taken a look at a set of options
and finalized those options. With the changing situation on the ground,
refinements were sought in recent days to a set of options that had been
finalized. The point of all this is to minimize the time between a decision
by the political decision-makers and the time when NATO would be in a
position to act. So these plans are being both finalized and operationalized
so that NATO will be in a position to act quickly if a political decision
to do so is made.
What I am suggesting and was suggesting yesterday is that the final touches
are being put on the contingency plans. They do have to be adjusted based
on the situation on the ground; and the situation does change. So I'm
familiar with some of the - how should I say - the technical distinctions
between particular words as used, but the point is the same - we're
finalizing the plans.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - if you use the word contingency, I don't know
what the issue is. However, let's just go through a little bit of a
checklist - no consultation yet with those political leaders yet on action,
right? And you did use the word operational - that seems to move it a
little bit.
MR. RUBIN: No, again, it's a term of art for the people who work on the
planning, and that means operationalizing the planning so that if political
leaders make a decision, you can quickly act rather than when political
leaders make a decision then having to be in a position to organize
yourself to act.
QUESTION: Those are questions - (inaudible) - this really is a bit -
former Yugoslav military spokesman who has written, I guess in a Yugoslav
newspaper, that essentially what the West has done is given Milosevic a
green light for 30 days -- I don't know if you've seen this - to suppress
the really wild, radical liberation secession forces. In a sense, what he's
saying is that they have license, the Serbs, to do a little messing up --
provided they don't do ethnic cleansing.
MR. RUBIN: That is a ridiculous claim; the short answer is absolutely
not. The United States and the international community have publicly and
privately demanded that Milosevic cease his offensive operations in Kosovo.
The continuing Serb offensive is exacting an unacceptable toll on human
suffering. We could not condone and would never condone this irresponsible
behavior by Milosevic's forces.
We will continue to bring that message to him in the strongest possible
terms.
QUESTION: Would you say what he's doing is ethnic cleansing?
MR. RUBIN: I gather there are - Roy Gutman is not here with us today, but
there are many people who have different terms - think that term of art has
an elaborate set of meanings. What I can tell you is that it's clear to us
that the objective of the use of force is directed at one ethnic group -
the Kosovar Albanians; and inhumane and irresponsible and unacceptable
means are being taken by the Serb forces in pursuit of their military
objectives against one ethnic group.
But with respect to making a flat statement about the term "ethnic
cleansing," look - they are moving people around; they are forcing people
to leave their homes; they are killing people based on their ethnicity.
QUESTION: At one point you - I think it was you - said that, at the
beginning, it looks a lot like the old movie ethnic cleansing to us.
MR. RUBIN: It does, absolutely.
QUESTION: So is there some hesitation in --
MR. RUBIN: Again, I gather that when you use that term, a bunch of
lawyers start examining what its meaning is, and I'm trying to communicate
to you in English rather than letting the lawyers nit pick it to death. An
ethnic group is being attacked and moved from their homes and killed
because of their ethnicity; and that looks a lot to us like the kind of
ethnic cleansing that went on before. That is why we are demanding that he
stop and that he allow the humanitarian workers the access they need
to do their job to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe.
QUESTION: Not to belabor this, but you just sort of said an interesting
thing which makes us - do you then believe that none of these people are
being moved or attacked because of their insurgency against the authorities
of this region?
MR. RUBIN: No, I don't think that. But what I think is that the
disproportionate methods being used to pursue some limited objective like
clearing a roadblock is causing massive dislocations of people who live
there; and this is an unacceptable action on the part of Milosevic. That
doesn't mean that there isn't some ability to clean a road or to clear a
roadblock that we could legitimately dispute; but when the tactics are so
disproportionate that they're causing this kind of humanitarian suffering
and may well cause a genuine humanitarian catastrophe, that is what
we are condemning and that is what we regard as unacceptable.
QUESTION: Then why doesn't NATO act to stop this stuff that looks like
ethnic cleansing?
MR. RUBIN: I don't believe that was the standard that we've set. What
we've said to you all before is that there are two factors that led to the
decision to engage in military planning. Let me say this - Milosevic's
failure to respond to the basic demands of the international community for
unrestricted access to the displaced persons and stopping the offensive is
keeping planning for possible military action on the front burner. So the
reasons why the planning began is because of the risks of instability
in the region, from refugees spilling over or fighting spilling over, as
well as the humanitarian dimension. Those two factors is what generated the
military planning and will obviously be important in any decision-making
that's made by the political leaders.
QUESTION: I guess what I'm trying to get at is everybody sort of raise it
in their stories tat appeared today. So what would be the triggering
event?
MR. RUBIN: I don't intend to preview that publicly. We are finalizing and
working on a set of contingencies, including limited contingencies, that
are designed to give us the flexibility; and if we decide that we want to
make some specific trigger, we'll decide that ourselves and make that known
either privately or publicly. But what I'm telling you is that I don't
intend to set that publicly right now, other than to say that we're
finalizing the plans.
QUESTION: And you said that the intention in finalizing and operationalizing
these plans was so that you could do something quickly if you needed it.
But then you're not going to go ahead and try to get the political decision
to do it if necessary in advance, which would streamline it - which is
probably the biggest hurdle, in my humble opinion - it's the biggest hurdle
to any action --
MR. RUBIN: I don't want to prejudge what political leaders will do in
terms of triggers and anything like that. Certainly political leaders can
make a decision that if x, y or z happens then a, b or c will happen. But I
don't want to prefigure in public a discussion of military contingencies
like that.
QUESTION: I think we're out of questions. Jamie, we want to say you're
going to great strides to let Foley brief, but we want to wish you the very
best in what seems to be a very, very long weekend.
MR. RUBIN: Well, I do have a very important personal engagement that is
of vital and critical interest to me.
QUESTION: We're going to miss you, but we wish you the very best and one
of our confederates here wants to mark the occasion.
MR. RUBIN: Uh-oh --
QUESTION: A little thing for you and a little thing for your about-to-be
better half.
MR. RUBIN: Terrific. Well, I'd better wait to open it with her.
QUESTION: Oh, you can open it now.
MR. RUBIN: Thank you very much.
QUESTION: Bye-bye.
(The briefing concluded at 1:45 P.M.)
|
