U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #108, 98-09-18
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
600
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Friday, September 18, 1998
Briefer: James P. Rubin
BOSNIA
1 Elections/US view on Free and Fair Elections
MEPP
1,2 Ross's Statements on Mtgs and venue of mtgs between
SecState and Netanyahu/Arafat at UNGA/Status of Talks
AFGHANISTAN
2,3 6+2 Meeting/Conflicts between Taliban and
Iran/Diplomats/Issue of a RecognizedGovernment/Iranian
Military Action
UNGA
3,4 Meetings/Schedule
IRAN
4,5,6-7 Declines meeting with SecState at UNGA/Dialogue and
Bi-lateral meetings/Issue of Behavior/SecState use of the
word "interesting"/Meaning of Listening/fm Speech at the
Asia Society
WHITE HOUSE
6 Transcripts of phone conversations with President Clinton
N. KOREA
7,8,9 Foreign Operations Bill and KEDO/Nuclear capability/Access
to Underground Facility/Talks with Congress/Heavy Fuel
Oil/Waiver Authority Next Year's Funding
9 Debris from Missile Launch/Terrorism Talks
JAPAN
9 2+2 Meeting and types of discussions/Theater Defense
DEPT
10 Holbrooke's meeting at State Department
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #108
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1998, 2:10 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Welcome to the State Department briefing. We get later and
later, but we try harder and harder. We will have a briefing at about 3:00
p.m. on the subject of anti-terrorism steps that we've been taking. So I
will try to answer your questions and give you time, in case I say anything
that makes you run to your computers to do that before that briefing. We
have a couple of statements we'll be posting. Let's go right to your
questions.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment yet on the Bosnia elections?
MR. RUBIN: We do not. We understand that the vote count will be complete
in about a week. The head of the mission there, Robert Barry, has concluded
that early release of preliminary and partial returns would not contribute
positively to dialogue among the contending parties.
Obviously a lot of the factions are making certain claims as they are want
to do; but it is our view we have to wait for the final results and for
those results to be certified by the provisional election commission. So we
do not intend to comment on partial results, except to say that regardless
of which candidates take office, our expectation of them will be the same,
and that is, Dayton pays. If you are prepared to implement the provision
of Dayton's requirements, then we are prepared to work with you.
If you are not, we will respond accordingly. Our financial assistance, our
diplomatic work and all of our work will be premised on that simple
principle. Those who will support the Dayton accords will receive support
from the United States and, by extension, the West.
QUESTION: Same subject. Was this, in the eyes of the United States, a
free and fair election that we will honor?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, it was a free and fair election; as far as we could tell,
it was the freest and fairest election in Bosnia's short democratic
history.
QUESTION: In the Middle East, Ambassador Ross has made some statements,
staying on another day or so and there won't be any joint meeting between
the Secretary and Chairman Arafat. He said they were meeting separately in
New York. Can you fill in the blanks?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. Secretary Albright indicated yesterday that she intended
to meet with the two leaders when they were in New York. It is not expected
that that means they will meet together. It's not something one rules out,
and I don't want to rule out meetings of that kind because both the
Secretary and obviously the President will do the work they think is
appropriate if it will make a difference. So I wouldn't rule out meetings,
but it is not intended at this point, to my knowledge, to be a three-way
meeting. But I wouldn't rule it out.
QUESTION: What's the adjective for today for where they are? Imminent,
not imminent?
MR. RUBIN: We're not there yet. There is still significant work that
needs to be done if we're going to break through this impasse. As I have
said before, sometimes even when some issues are resolved, remaining issues
take on a greater and greater significance and the parties are unable to
come to an agreement. We do feel that steady progress has been made which
lends a very, very minor dose of optimism to our normal neutrality on the
subject of the likelihood of an agreement. But we are realists; we've been
at this a long time. It's been a long time since the tough decisions
have been made that have allowed an agreement to be reached. We'll have to
see.
QUESTION: Another subject - what's the Secretary's goal going to be in
the 6-plus-2 meeting on Monday?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say that we have had a meeting of this kind before. The
6-plus-2 is a forum that was set up in 1997 by the UN to promote a peaceful
resolution of the conflict in Afghanistan. The UN Secretary General has now
invited this 6-plus-2 group to meet at a ministerial level. Secretary
Albright will represent the United States, and we understand that the
Iranians will be represented by Foreign Minister Kharrazi.
Both the United States and Iran and Pakistan and China and Russia and
several other countries have been part of this group for some time, and
they have met before but never, obviously, at the ministerial level.
We believe the usefulness of this group is made particularly salient by the
latest tensions that have flared between the Taliban and Iran. We certainly
hope that a meeting of this kind in which we are able to express our
concerns about the danger of aggravating the situation and the danger of
any country taking steps to interfere in Afghanistan are made clear. We
would certainly expect the Iranian Government to make clear its concerns
about what's transpired there, and we share their outrage over the killing
of diplomats.
What we want to see is a dialogue through whatever means are appropriate to
avoid an escalation of the situation. It's tough to be more specific than
that in advance.
QUESTION: Well, the US approach toward Afghanistan had been based on
trying to have some sort of multi-dimensional government - a pluralistic
government; and that seems increasingly unlikely. I'm wondering what --
MR. RUBIN: We still do not believe that any one faction can successfully
govern Afghanistan. Although there may have been gains that have been made
by the Taliban, in the absence of an all-party type approach, there is
going to be continued conflict in Afghanistan; that is our judgment.
So while there have been other times when one has taken a different
snapshot of the situation in Afghanistan and made different judgments, it's
been our judgment all along that at the end of the day, in the absence of
cooperation between all the factions, that no one faction can rule
Afghanistan. So while some may believe that their current situation gives
them greater leverage, at the end of the day we do not believe that any one
faction can govern - it must work with all the factions. So that position
hasn't changed.
QUESTION: And what's your current assessment about the likelihood of some
sort of an Iranian military action?
MR. RUBIN: I don't believe our assessment has changed. I've asked the
question, and it is still our view that there are significant capabilities
on the border - tens of thousands of soldiers, hundreds of pieces of heavy
equipment as part of an exercise. But the capabilities provide a capability
to act. As far as the intentions are concerned, it is difficult to
know. The public statements have been of a different kind on different
days. But what they add up to is not something we have concluded one way or
the other.
QUESTION: I didn't notice on the schedule that we've been given that the
Secretary was seeing the Chinese Foreign Minister in New York. Is that --
MR. RUBIN: It wasn't on the schedule?
QUESTION: I didn't see that.
QUESTION: No.
MR. RUBIN: I'll have to check on that; I don't know the answer to
that.
QUESTION: Some of the best stuff wasn't on the schedule. Is Ivanov just a
dinner meeting - no other meeting?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have any information about next week's schedule.
QUESTION: But I mean, there's no --
MR. RUBIN: We gave you a schedule because a lot of people asked --
QUESTION: We appreciate it very much.
MR. RUBIN: -- and I don't want to say anything from here that would be
incorrect about the Secretary's schedule. So I hope you will understand
that the schedule as you have it is all I can really comment on.
QUESTION: All right, but what about, in any event, schedule aside, where
do you stand now - any closer to having a venue and a format for Netanyahu
and Arafat?
MR. RUBIN: No. I addressed that a little earlier, and I do not have a
venue or a time for that.
QUESTION: All right, can I ask you about - go ahead, Sid.
QUESTION: What does the - aside from the urgency of consultations about
the brewing conflict, what does the meeting itself say about Iranian-US
relations?
MR. RUBIN: We have made clear that the United States is prepared to have
a direct dialogue with Iran. They have not chosen to take us up on that
offer. As the Secretary said yesterday, we are going to be watching very
closely to see what Foreign Minister Kharrazi says in his speech at the
Asia Society; and we'll be quite interested to see what his comments and
speech indicate.
As far as the bilateral situation is concerned, nothing has changed. We've
made very clear our view that a bilateral dialogue in which we have an
opportunity to discuss the issues of concern to both countries that is
authorized and that is openly acknowledged is in the interest of the United
States and we would pursue it. They have not taken us up on that offer, and
we do not regard this meeting as a bilateral meeting.
QUESTION: Do you regard it as a step closer between the two of you?
MR. RUBIN: Again, that would require us to ascertain what the other
side's intentions were with respect to the meeting; because there's no -
you can't have something short of a bilateral meeting. It's either a
bilateral meeting or not. They've made clear they're not interested in that
at this time and they don't see this meeting in that light. So we don't
have anything more to say about it than that.
QUESTION: But I want to ask you more about it, all right? Do they just
have to be interested, or does their behavior have to change before you
have that meeting?
MR. RUBIN: I think it will come as no surprise to you, Barry, that we've
said for some time that we're prepared to have a bilateral meeting in order
to promote a change in their behavior. We have never made a change in their
behavior a prerequisite for a meeting and we're not changing that view;
it's nothing new here.
QUESTION: A lot of us - can I just go on -- we watch words because we go
with what we've got, and we have her words yesterday; and her words are
interesting. Of course there's a minor thing where she said she'd listen -
she meant, I suppose she meant she'd read what the Foreign Minister said to
the Asia Society. She doesn't plan literally to be there and listen, does
she?
MR. RUBIN: That doesn't mean that one can't listen if one's not there.
We'll have to see what form in which the Secretary gets her information;
someone might read it to her.
QUESTION: No, but there are all sorts of reporters and -
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: I don't believe so.
QUESTION: There are all sorts of reporters and diplomats who listen to
the briefing; and they're listening, but they're not here.
MR. RUBIN: Right. I'm agreeing.
QUESTION: It doesn't inhibit them --
MR. RUBIN: Listening, right.
QUESTION: But what she said that really interested me - and I wish I'd
brought the words along - is she spoke as if there's some interesting - not
only that this is an interesting area to explore, but she spoke - for
example, you just spoke about an acknowledged public meeting. Indeed, she
spoke yesterday as if there's quite a bit going on, indirectly at least,
with Iran. We've had - I can't find the words - I think she used the
word "interesting" that we've had sort of - they're words
that imply we're feeling each other out in a kind of a, if not only
preliminary, way; that we've gotten someplace into this, but they haven't
done what we want them to do. Now, would you like to leave us with the
thought that nothing really has happened of any substance - they haven't
agreed to see us; they haven't changed their behavior; we're interested but
that's where it stands now; or is there something going on in between
that?
MR. RUBIN: I find it difficult to respond to the seven forms of that
question, but let me pick one of them.
QUESTION: Pick any one - it'll advance what we know.
MR. RUBIN: I think if you're looking for an assessment of what she meant
when she said the word "interesting" or something to that effect - I think
we thought it was interesting that the Foreign Minister of Iran chose the
Asia Society to give a speech, which is the very place that Secretary
Albright gave a speech on Iran; and that's interesting and nothing more
than that.
QUESTION: It sounded like she was saying our feelers and such with maybe
going back and forth - maybe between intermediaries -- is in and of itself
interesting and promising and provocative. That's too much?
MR. RUBIN: I gave you what I think she meant by the words interesting. I
can't comment on the diplomatic channels that might or might not exist,
other than to say they exist on this subject. But I don't think it would be
correct to conclude there's a lot of activity in that area that justified
the words that she used.
The words were - I was there -- I believe they were intended to refer to
the fact that it was quite interesting for the Foreign Minister of Iran to
choose the Asia Society to give us a speech that has been billed as
responding to the Secretary's speech. That is interesting. I don't think
it's happened all that much. So that was where the word interesting came
from.
QUESTION: Who was billing it as a response -- the Asian Society or the
Iranians?
MR. RUBIN: People are talking about it that way. I don't know whether
it's the Iranians or the Asia Society.
QUESTION: Wouldn't you find more interesting what the president of the
country will have to say at the General Assembly than what his top diplomat
has to say?
MR. RUBIN: Certainly I always find what President Clinton has to say more
interesting than what Secretary Albright has to say, as anybody who works
in the government is concerned. Certainly you're correct in assuming that
President Khatemi outranks the Foreign Minister.
QUESTION: There were reports in the British papers regarding that the
Mossad is in position of transcripts of sensitive conversations that were
garnered by wire tapping of specific phones --
MR. RUBIN: Boy, you're throwing all those words out there. Do you want me
to do the no-comment now or wait until you're finished?
QUESTION: -- including the phone of the President. According to the
reports in the British papers, these transcripts also include conversations
between the President and Miss Lewinsky. Do you have any indication that
such transcripts do, in fact, exist and are in the possession of the
Mossad?
MR. RUBIN: I have no intention of commenting on any part of your
question.
QUESTION: Would it be of concern to the United States Government --
MR. RUBIN: Let's go back to Iran.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: If this, in fact, were the case, would this be of concern to
us?
MR. RUBIN: I don't intend to answer a wildly hypothetical question like
that based on a bunch of stuff that I know nothing about and wouldn't ever
have any intention of commenting on. I hope that was clear enough for
you.
QUESTION: You caused this question -- perhaps inadvertently -- by the
parallel to the President and the Secretary of State. Indeed they both have
the same policy line. When she listens to this interesting -- very
interesting because it's before the Asia Society -- speech that the Foreign
Minister makes, will she be listening to Iranian policy, does she think, or
will she be listening to one segment of Iranian policy? When we hear
Albright, we know we're hearing American policy.
MR. RUBIN: I think we might want to try in the future to avoid Friday
afternoon briefings. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Well, I mean, there's so many voices out there. Who's speaking
for Iran? Who does she think speaks for Iran?
MR. RUBIN: I really don't understand what's motivating the two questions -
QUESTION: There's something interesting going on in New York next
week.
MR. RUBIN: -- but let me try to explain it. Let me try to explain it as
best as I can.
Because of the sense we have that the Foreign Minister's speech at the Asia
Society was specifically chosen to talk about the things that Secretary
Albright talked about in her speech, there's an expectation -- which may
prove out to be wrong -- that there's more likely to be things in the area
of most interest to us said there rather than what the President of Iran
will say to the whole world about any number of subjects. Does that satisfy
the question?
QUESTION: Satisfy?
MR. RUBIN: Does it answer the question?
QUESTION: It's clear.
MR. RUBIN: Good, okay.
QUESTION: KEDO funding - yesterday the House passed a foreign operations
bill which included an amendment that tries to kill the KEDO funding next
year; so do you have any comment?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say that we've made clear we have serious concerns
about certain congressional restrictions; Secretary Albright spoke to that
yesterday. KEDO is one of them. We believe that this is an agreement that
is in our interest. We all have to bear in mind that in the absence of this
agreement, in 1994, we were facing a situation where sanctions were likely
to be imposed and North Korea threatened war if sanctions were imposed, and
our military was taking steps to be in a position to be ready for
any such action. That was a very dangerous situation.
What has brought us back from that brink was the decision by the North
Koreans to freeze the nuclear materials facilities and to allow the IAEA to
monitor those facilities and to stop their reprocessing - steps that were
not required by the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime that went beyond the
requirements of normal non-proliferation requirements.
So as a result of that agreement, we avoided a very dangerous situation -
dangerous because North Korea having a nuclear weapons capability of that
magnitude is dangerous to us, it's dangerous to our neighbors. The way out
was the KEDO agreement - the agreed framework that set up KEDO. That was
designed to induce North Korea to take these extraordinary steps and agree
to inspections and no reprocessing, which no country had previously agreed
to under the international proliferation system.
We believe that if we can't fulfill our part of the agreement, it will be
much, much harder to convince the North Koreans to fulfill their part of
the agreement. As you know, we have serious concerns about a suspicious
underground facility. We've now gotten an agreement to a meeting in which
access will be required by the United States to that facility. We are doing
what we can to keep North Korea acting in compliance with the agreement. We
have no illusions about what North Korea's intentions are, what kind
of society they are; but we think this is the best alternative to the kind
of crisis and nuclear danger that we faced in 1994.
So we will continue to try to convince the Congress of the wisdom of that
position and make clear to them the dangers if we fail to pursue the
agreement and we fail to get North Korea to live up to its part of the
agreement.
QUESTION: Next week - or actually not next week, the week after anybody
from this Department goes to Congress to talk with some of the leaders?
MR. RUBIN: On that subject, people in this Department are in contact with
members of Congress morning, afternoon and night on that subject. So I
don't know what particular meetings are planned. But we intend to continue
to make our case to Congress about the danger to the world of a failure of
North Korea to live up to its required positions in the agreed framework
and the fact that if we don't do our share, it will be harder to get them
to do that.
QUESTION: Are they accepting that argument - based on your contacts with
them?
MR. RUBIN: Well, the premise of the question is that a certain committee
and a certain bill did not accept that argument.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, I'm asking because Albright herself said a couple
of weeks ago that one way or another, at least this year, we're going to be
able to meet our commitments. The implication was that if we can't get it
from the Japanese and the South Koreans, we'll get it from our own
Treasury.
MR. RUBIN: There are two issues. One is how we will provide the heavy
fuel oil for the remainder of this year; and we believe we have the
combination of waiver authority and we've done the consultations that will
permit that to occur.
The issue is next year's funding. There has been congressional action that
we strongly oppose for the reasons I stated.
QUESTION: Jamie, did the discovery this time of the parts of the rocket
or the satellite or whatever the North Koreans put up there landed near
Alaska cause the Administration to change its assessment of what happened?
MR. RUBIN: No, I'm not aware of this particular fact as you describe
it.
QUESTION: The Pentagon yesterday said it.
MR. RUBIN: Right. I know that between yesterday and today we haven't
changed our assessment of that missile, and the words provided would be the
same.
QUESTION: Do you have any announcement about terrorism talks with North
Korea?
MR. RUBIN: No.
QUESTION: What is the reason for Ambassador Saito's visit or call on the
Secretary at 6:00 p.m. this afternoon?
MR. RUBIN: Well we will have a two-plus-two meeting; I believe the
schedule shows that, on Sunday. And there are other important meetings and
it is, therefore, appropriate for those meetings to be as well prepared as
possible.
QUESTION: So what will they discuss in the two-plus-two and the visit --
MR. RUBIN: I expect them to talk about the US-Japan defense relationship.
I expect them to talk about the important economic challenges the world
faces. I expect them to talk about the threat that North Korea poses and
the importance of getting North Korea's agreement to restraints on their
ballistic missiles and the importance of keeping North Korea abiding by the
agreed framework.
QUESTION: The issue of the theater defense missile system, is that --
MR. RUBIN: The US-Japan defense cooperation, that would fall under that.
I would expect that to come up as well.
QUESTION: Do we expect it to come up or do we expect them to reach an
agreement on cooperation?
MR. RUBIN: I don't normally preview expected future agreements.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about Ambassador Holbrooke's visit
today in the State Department?
MR. RUBIN: I don't know who he was visiting; but I expect that it could
be any number of things, including the subjects that he continues to work
on -- Cyprus and Kosovo and also anything that may be going on in
furtherance of resolving the matter that you're familiar with.
QUESTION: Do you still think it will be resolved promptly? I mean, is
there still a State Department view of that?
MR. RUBIN: We want it to be resolved promptly.
QUESTION: How's it looking?
MR. RUBIN: I can't comment on such a matter. I think my views on this
subject have been strongly stated.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. RUBIN: Thanks.
(The briefing concluded at 2:35 P.M.)
|
