U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #115, 98-10-14
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
931
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, October 14, 1998
Briefer: James P. Rubin
DEPARTMENT
1 No briefing here tomorrow; briefing at Wye River Conference
facility on Friday.
STATEMENTS
1 Releases on Lebanon Monitoring Group & Open Forum's
presentation on World Bank.
FRY/KOSOVO
1 Preliminary situation update in the countryside given.
1,4 US expects Serbs to sign agreements for air (with NATO) and
ground verification system (with the OSCE)
1-2 NATO will still need to judge compliance at end of week.
2 Monitors there now will evolve into OSCE verification
system over time.
2 US starting to hear of contributions to the ground
verification system.
3 Massacre victim's survival important for war crimes
investigation.
4 Verifiers will be unarmed, but will be backed by a force
which could extract them.
4-5 There will not be American ground forces among the backup
force.
5 No final decisions yet as to who might head the OSCE
verification force.
12-13 UN Security Council Resolution 1199 envisages a return to
previous troop levels.
13-14 Displaced persons need a climate of safety in order to
return to their homes.
14 Kosovo matters to the United States, for humanitarian and
strategic reasons.
UNITED NATIONS
5 Ambassador Holbrooke an extremely well-qualified
individual.
5 Secretary Albright hopes investigative matters are resolved
as promptly as possible.
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
6 Middle East Peace Process has been in crisis far too long.
6 Grave dangers lie ahead without an on-track peace process.
6 Hamas is a common enemy of those who want peace in the
region.
7 US continues to try to advance parallel measures on
security & further re-deployments.
8 Remaining concerns over PLO charter should be dealt with
directly by parties.
8 May 4, 1999, expiration for Oslo Accords is a reality.
9 Substantial, significant progress has been made in recent
weeks.
9 President Clinton will lead off the event tomorrow in
Washington and at Wye River
9,10 Secretary Albright will be at the Wye River Conference
Center for the duration.
9 These meetings represent the best chance to overcome
hurdles.
10 Secretary Albright spoke yesterday with Israeli Foreign
Minister Ariel Sharon.
10-11 Agreement depends on political will of the leaders
involved.
11 US view of reports of torture by Israelis, Palestinians
contained in Human Rights report.
CUBA
11-12 US hasn't seen the detailed proposal by former US officials
yet.
CHINA-TAIWAN
15 US welcomes resumption of dialogue, which US has been
encouraging for some time.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #115
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1998, 12:45 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Welcome to the State Department briefing. With
regard to our schedule, the current plan is that we won't be briefing
tomorrow and that we will be briefing at Wye on, to a limited extent, the
Middle East peace process and then any other issues for those who are there
or have an ability to call in their questions. So we'll do the briefing on
Friday from Wye.
We have two statements - one on the Lebanon monitoring group and two on the
open forum presentation on the subject of the World Bank. With those
preliminary comments, let me turn to your questions.
QUESTION: Any observations on Serb compliance with what they agreed to
two nights ago?
MR. RUBIN: This is a process that is obviously going to unfold over
several days. But I can tell you that there was a preliminary read-out by
our monitoring teams that are in the field that went out today -- two
American and one European teams. They encountered no denial of access; they
regarded the access as excellent; that the Serb police presence is much
smaller in the countryside than on Sunday; and the Serb police are
generally departing the countryside. On the road from Orahovac to Malisevo
they reported that 80 percent of checkpoints are gone; on the road from
Srbica to Klina there are still police checkpoints and bunkers.
On the East-West Highway south of Malisevo there are signs of returning
life. Villages are fuller and some of the local Kosovars that they met with
indicated that they were pleased with the changed circumstances in which
they were going to be provided greater security through this agreement and
its verification system.
Let me emphasize, these are very preliminary reports by a few monitors. The
key to this agreement if it's going to work is going to be the on-site
verification system on the ground and the aerial verification system in the
air that we are trying very hard to stand up in the coming days. I expect
that there will be agreements signed between NATO and the Serbs in order to
implement the aerial verification system, and agreements signed between the
European Security Organization - the OSCE - and the Serbs to implement
the ground verification system. So this combined air-ground verification
system will give us greater and greater confidence of the kind of
preliminary indications that I just gave you.
But let me be clear - it's a mixed bag, and we're not there yet and NATO
authorities will have to make a judgment at the end of the week whether
there is substantial and serious compliance on the part of President
Milosevic. But more important than the snapshots that we get in the coming
days is the ability to verify a fundamental change in the coming weeks and
months. That's the key to this agreement's effectiveness - is whether we
will have the verification system that will give the people of Kosovo
confidence that this isn't a shell game; this isn't hide the police and
move them out one day and come back in the next day. If the people are
going to come back to their homes and the aid workers are going to
help them, they need confidence that it isn't going to change tomorrow
or the next day or the day after that. That's the essence of the agreement.
QUESTION: When do you expect the 2,000 monitors?
MR. RUBIN: Well, it won't be in a matter of days. Let me explain how I
think this will unfold. What will happen is the monitors that are there now
under the Diplomatic Observer Mission for Kosovo will morph or evolve into
the OSCE verification system over time. So first the monitors will go back
in; countries will increase, probably, the size of their monitoring
missions very quickly so that process unfolds. Then as Foreign Minister
Geremek gets approval from his governing board in Vienna to launch
this first-ever 2,000-person verification system, contributions need
to be obtained, a headquarters needs to be set up in Pristina, a leader and
chief of the mission needs to be selected. So I would expect that to take
some time.
But the point is that it will probably evolve with the aerial verification
system able to move very smartly and quickly after the agreement is signed.
That ensures the protection of the planes and makes sure that they have the
technical arrangements done. So it will be a combination of the monitors on
the ground, the early standing up of the air verification system and the
evolving creation of this ground verification system.
QUESTION: The Russians, I gather, will also be participating in the air
verification regime?
MR. RUBIN: I don't think that's been finally decided; and that's
something that will have to be worked out. But certainly we're aware the
Russians have wanted to contribute to the verification of compliance. But
exactly how that happens, I think will evolve and become clearer in the
coming days.
Let me say on the ground side, we're starting to hear about contributions -
several-dozen-person contributions - from several countries that are not
now participating in the Observer Mission. So Secretary Albright has been
on the phone with Foreign Minister Geremek, Foreign Minister Cook, the
Foreign Minister of Norway, other countries over the last day or so to try
to ensure that we can stand it up as quick as possible. But as Ambassador
Holbrooke said earlier today, this is a first-ever mission for the OSCE; so
let me take 20 seconds to make the same sales pitch that he made to
those who might be listening.
There is a good job to be had, and we need you. So those of you around the
world who are looking to go to an interesting place to do some important
work, there is a mission to be performed.
QUESTION: Was it press or Holbrooke that said that the bullet that was
removed from --
MR. RUBIN: Sorry, what?
QUESTION: There was a bullet removed from a victim - the elderly man who
was allegedly shot by Serb police, who was taken out of the country and has
subsequently survived. He said that the bullet was removed from his leg and
is now in a safe in Macedonia; that it will be used for war crimes
prosecution. Is that a bit of Holbrooke dramatics or is that something that
is actually --
MR. RUBIN: Drama from Ambassador Holbrooke? I'd be shocked.
Let me be very clear - this is a serious matter. This was an important
achievement. We had a survivor of a terrible massacre who, through the work
of Ambassador Holbrooke and others at the embassy in Belgrade, was allowed
to get medical attention outside of Kosovo and whose life, as I understand
it, has been saved.
With respect to the forensic examination of evidence in that massacre, we
would want the War Crimes Tribunal to have the access it needs to the
evidence and the witnesses it needs to do its job. That is part and parcel
of Resolution 1199.
With respect to what they intend to do in a specific case, I prefer to
leave that to the Tribunal to decide.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: I don't know the answer to that. If Ambassador Holbrooke says
it is, I presume it is.
QUESTION: Jamie, yesterday I asked you - and you didn't know then, I'm
not sure you will now, but I'll ask again. Who will sign these agreements
that Serbia will --
MR. RUBIN: I think I answered that.
QUESTION: Well, you gave me an answer, but --
MR. RUBIN: No, today.
QUESTION: Well, I'll ask the question again specifically. Will Slobodan
Milosevic sign; and if he doesn't, will a lesser signature be sufficient?
MR. RUBIN: As far as who will sign on their side, I don't know which
person will sign from the Serb side. I believe some preliminary agreements
have already been signed by some Serb military authorities.
But the point is that the Serbian side will sign an agreement with NATO to
permit the aerial verification system, and the Serbian side will sign an
agreement with the OSCE to permit the ground verification system.
Let's bear in mind here, for those who have followed this for some time,
that prior to now, President Milosevic has refused to allow OSCE monitors
to go into go into Kosovo for many, many months and years unless and until
he had access to rejoin the OSCE. Well, that position has been thrown out
the window. There are now going to be - if we get it stood up and people
heed the call that Ambassador Holbrooke made and I concurred in -
thousands of international verifiers, acting under the authority of
the OSCE in Kosovo; hopefully not only verifying compliance but giving
confidence to the people there that they will live without this threat of
repression and marauding and wholesale attacks from the Serb military.
So with respect to your direct question, a representative from the Serb
side - I don't know how high - and a representative from NATO and the OSCE -
I don't know how high, but I would expect - I understand that Foreign
Minister Geremek is going to be going there - will be signing agreements to
lay the groundwork for this ground verification system.
QUESTION: Yesterday you were uncertain as to the question of how much the
verifiers would be able to defend themselves. Do you have more today?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say it this way - I re-looked at my transcript, and if
you'll permit me the opportunity to revise and extend my remarks as they
often do on Capitol Hill --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
(Laughter.)
MR. RUBIN: Let me say my understanding - and this is a moving target -
but my understanding is as follows. The verifiers themselves will be
unarmed, but they will have, backing them up, a force that we are trying to
put together to extract them in extremists. So that they will have the
ability to protect themselves through another force that will help remove
them if the situation gets dangerous to the extent that they want and the
decision is made to remove them. But as far as their carrying weapons
themselves, I believe they would be unarmed.
QUESTION: That's the way a Washington newspaper had it today in the
second lead - unarmed. And I don't recall you saying it, but obviously they
got to people to verify that. On the back-up force - here we go - we're
just moving - that's a dodging -- it's a moving bullet - will that force
have any Americans?
MR. RUBIN: I hope I can dodge that moving bullet.
QUESTION: Well, you remember 40 countries to draw from - not necessarily
all of them; not saying how many Americans. We're talking about the
verification force. Now, the back-up force - will that have Americans in
it?
MR. RUBIN: My understanding is that that exact question is being
addressed. But with respect to ground troops, the answer is no.
QUESTION: There won't be Americans in a force to extricate Americans?
MR. RUBIN: Correct - ground troops.
QUESTION: Okay. And you remember the other hanging curve - you know how
the Hill feels - who's going to go and charter these Americans? You said
yesterday you were sure it wouldn't be somebody telling them something they
shouldn't tell them. But do you have a better idea now? Because OSCE -- or
whatever it's called these days - is sort of a civilian operation, untried
in such matters; it's not NATO where the Americans are in charge.
Who might these Americans take their orders from - on the ground and the
verification forces?
MR. RUBIN: The question of who will lead the OSCE mission is one for the
OSCE to decide and announce, pursuant to its procedures in Vienna. There is
a strong possibility that it will be an American; but no final decisions
have been made.
QUESTION: On the rapid reaction force - for lack of a better word, if you
don't mind. I take it they will be based outside of Serbia - possibly
Hungary. I think you've gotten some commitments from a few countries --
MR. RUBIN: There are bodies of water there, too, nearby.
QUESTION: Will the Holbrooke-Berger Kosovo agreement help enhance his
chances of becoming UN Ambassador?
(Laughter.)
MR. RUBIN: I've been advised not to touch that question. Let me repeat
our position on this, and that is that Secretary Albright believes that
Ambassador Holbrooke is an extremely well-qualified individual who has
performed extremely well in a number of difficult diplomatic missions. I
think this recent exercise demonstrates that that conclusion was well-
founded.
With respect to any ongoing investigative matters or inquiries, Secretary
Albright firmly hopes that they're resolved as promptly as possible.
QUESTION: I understand whatever American briefing there will be today
will be on background. So let me try to get something on the record and
give you a nice, high, hanging curve ball here.
MR. RUBIN: Will it have a bullet lodged inside of it? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: What's at stake, so far as the US is concerned?
MR. RUBIN: Sorry?
QUESTION: What will be at stake on the Eastern Shore these next few days?
What's involved for the future of the Middle East?
MR. RUBIN: Secretary Albright firmly believes that the Middle East peace
process has been in crisis for far too long. It's been too long since the
agreements that were reached have not been implemented. It's been too long
since the people of Israel and the Palestinians have been able to enjoy the
fruits of peace. The process has been in - different metaphors have been
used - but clearly has been in deep, deep trouble for over a year
and a half now.
The future does not hold, necessarily, any greater hope if we do not get it
back on track. We're facing the prospect of the interim period envisaged by
the Oslo agreement ending in May, where different parties are making
different threats of what they're going to do. Clearly there are grave
dangers ahead if the peace process is not put back on track and begun to be
filled out -- not only with the elements that were supposed to have been
done by now, but we begin to address the far more complex issues of
the permanent peace, the so-called final status talks. If we don't address
those and the period runs out and we don't put the peace process back on
track, she believes - and I believe the Administration and the President
believe - that there a grave risks ahead.
QUESTION: Can I ask you, on the security - some of us have just heard the
Israeli Ambassador --
MR. RUBIN: Did I hit a single or a double on that hanging curve?
QUESTION: It's a double, a double. Don't take too big a lead-off.
MR. RUBIN: I thought it was a single at least.
QUESTION: I'll try to drive them home now. I won't refer to Israeli TV
reports because that's really not necessary. We all know that the CIA chief
has been out there -- there was reference to it when we were out there --
and the CIA has been trying for some time to help the sides on security.
The Israeli Ambassador today - he just now spoke of a document being
prepared with specifics on security. To the extent you can, can you tell us
- if you don't want to touch the CIA; I wish you would - tell us what the
Americans have been doing and how close are you to succeeding in bolstering
security, they say, for Arafat, as well? He runs a risk from extremists on
his side.
MR. RUBIN: Well, we have been saying for some time, as you know, Barry,
that the Hamas extremist terrorist threat is a threat to all the peoples of
the Middle East: to the Israelis who have been killed by these extremists;
to the Palestinians who they clearly oppose in every way - the Palestinian
Authority. So we have a common enemy -- that is, the United States and
the Palestinians and others who support peace; and that is Hamas,
who support terror.
With respect to the specifics, I can say that for some time now, the United
States has been trying to put together and stitch together a package of
measures in the security area that would build an infrastructure to fight
terrorism. And that is going to include all the elements that one needs to
fight terror, whether that be the question of weapons; the question of
explosives; the question of prisoners; the question of investigative leads.
There's a whole process and infrastructure of fighting terror that we have
embodied and spelled out in the ideas that we have been stitching
together.
So we have been working on that; we are trying to get agreement by both
sides to those ideas that would be implemented in parallel with the further
redeployments from the territory as envisaged by the Oslo Accord.
So this parallel process of security, infrastructure and further redeployment
is what constitutes the core of the American ideas that have been discussed
and detailed for many months now. We're hoping that we can make substantial
progress and, if possible, complete as many of the elements of the interim
arrangements as possible at this meeting - at the Wye River meeting.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Well, that's very comprehensive. You covered all these points
except one, I think.
MR. RUBIN: Have we moved to third base or are we still on second?
QUESTION: Yes, you can even lead-off a little bit, get off the base a
little, take a lead. But he was a Red Sox fan, so --
MR. RUBIN: I'm not a Red Sox fan.
QUESTION: How about that Cub and --
MR. RUBIN: I might confess to what I am soon, in the coming days, but --
QUESTION: After the Series is over?
(Laughter.)
The charter - by their count, by Israel's count, I think 29 of 33
provisions are anti-Israel and worse. You didn't mention --
MR. RUBIN: The charter?
QUESTION: The PLO Charter. Is that document in preparation to try to deal
with that problem as well as arms and Hamas and cells and incitements?
MR. RUBIN: No, I think you know our views on the PLO Charter question;
and that is, through a variety of steps in recent years that we believe a
large portion of the concern should have been resolved. If there are
additional concerns, we would like the two sides to deal with them
directly. And they'll have a good opportunity to do that at Wye.
QUESTION: Do you think that the May '99 deadline is still a realistic one
or even - at the same event, the Israeli Ambassador said that they would
like to work on these final status issues without a stopwatch. Is this
deadline a good deadline now?
MR. RUBIN: Well, it's there and that's a reality that everyone needs to
face. The expectation of the peoples of the region is that by next May, all
the issues between the Israelis and the Palestinians would have been
resolved in one form or another and that a permanent peace treaty or a
permanent peace arrangement would have been completed. That is what the May
4 deadline envisages.
We are concerned - deeply concerned - that in the absence of putting the
interim arrangements back on track, that there's no chance to meet the
expectations envisaged by that deadline. So the first answer to the
question is, we will never be able to meet that deadline if we don't put
the interim agreement back on track and get all the preliminary and interim
steps completed so that these final, very complex issues can be addressed.
So it's our view that that expiration for Oslo is a reality. It's not
something that can be wished away. But we do believe that if substantial
progress can be made on the final status issues and the interim arrangements
can be resolved, that deadline will not loom so dangerously in the months
preceding it.
But in the current circumstances, where there is no interim arrangement and
there is no serious negotiation on the permanent status, it does loom large
and it is there.
QUESTION: Is the Palestinian negotiator that I spoke with yesterday
mentioned that they are coming here with 90 percent of the interim
agreement left to be resolved. Do you think that's an accurate figure?
MR. RUBIN: Well, 90 percent strikes me as a bit high. Look, there is no
easy way to put a percentage on this. If an issue is largely resolved, but
there's one outstanding part of it, one can either say that it's 95 percent
completed or one can say that it's 0 percent completed. Depending on how
you calculate, you can come up with a very low percentage completed or you
can say that there are a few important issues in several areas that,
if we could resolve, would resolve all the issues.
So a lot of it depends on how you calculate it and depending on what
message you're trying to send in so calculating it. I suspect that both
sides have, often, some message they're trying to send when they calculate
it a certain way.
What I can tell you is that we made substantial and significant progress in
recent weeks towards completing all the interim arrangements. But we still
need to broaden the areas of agreement and broaden the understandings if
we're going to do so.
QUESTION: I know you're from a different podium, but what role will
President Clinton and Secretary Albright be playing this weekend? Does
Secretary Albright plan to be in most of the meetings?
MR. RUBIN: Let me do the best I can. I did speak to folks at the White
House, and my understanding is that the President will not only lead off
the event in Washington tomorrow, but will be in Wye River in the afternoon-
evening to continue the work. On Friday, he's on travel. Secretary Albright
will be at Wye continuously for the four days that it's scheduled to take
place. I would expect her to be regularly meeting with the parties,
regularly encouraging them to meet with each other. The two three-way
meetings that I observed - one in New York and one in Israel - were
meetings in which at various times she left the room and encouraged
the two leaders to meet alone and resolve problems in that way.
So the question of how much one deals with one or with the other or
together or leaves them to deal with each other is the fine art of
diplomacy. It depends on the circumstances; depends on the problem being
dealt with - how sensitive it is, what the other views of the other members
of the delegation are; whether we have a constructive idea that we think
can broaden the understanding or overcome a hurdle. So there's no way to
know in advance what percentage would be three-way, two-way or one-on-one
between the United States and one of the parties.
QUESTION: Why is it important to bring them to the United States, to
Maryland, to have these sorts of talks? Why couldn't they just do this back
at the Erez border crossing?
MR. RUBIN: Well, they haven't; I think that's the first reason. For a
year and a half, there hasn't been the kind of regular contact between the
two leaders that would yield the possibility of breakthroughs.
We believe that, as those of you who are familiar with similar kinds of
negotiations, that one of the secrets to success is for each leader to
understand the concerns and constraints that the other leader faces. That
is the kind of thing that can only be done face-to-face, and we think can
best be done on a continuous basis in the kind of isolated setting that we
hope to create in Wye, and that can be best done with the considerable
persuasive powers of the President and the Secretary.
So this is our view of the best chance to overcome the remaining differences,
to overcome the remaining hurdles and to put the peace process back on
track.
QUESTION: As you envisage it, will we all stay at this effort until
there's an agreement or come Sunday is it over?
MR. RUBIN: At this point, all I want to say is that it's scheduled for
four days; that Secretary Albright has decided to clear her schedule for
those four days; and that the two leaders, as I understand it, have
committed to those four days. But beyond that, I don't want to speculate
before it starts.
QUESTION: There will be negotiations on Saturday?
MR. RUBIN: I don't believe the Israeli delegation will be in a position
to work on Saturday.
QUESTION: Has Secretary Albright spoken to the new Israeli Foreign
Minister, Mr. Sharon? And also, has she ever dealt with him before this in
any other capacity?
MR. RUBIN: He was at a meeting that she and the Prime Minister had in
Israel just a few days ago. She has come into contact with him on previous
trips to the region; and I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't know each
other in some form or another in the foreign policy biz prior to now. But
she did speak to him yesterday; it was a call that was very cordial, very
friendly. They both indicated they look forward to working with each other;
that they recognize that each of them was going to pursue their national
interest, but they thought it was very important that they work together to
see if peace can be achieved.
QUESTION: About national interest?
MR. RUBIN: Sorry?
QUESTION: Using national interest as a bridge, have you noticed that a
bunch of rock-ribbed Republicans - there may be others - Kissinger,
Scowcroft, former Senator Baker - Howard Baker, John Warner, all think it's
about time to look at Cuba again?
MR. RUBIN: Is everyone through with the Middle East? One more, yes.
QUESTION: Having read Mr. Netanyahu's statements after the attack on the
two Israelis in entirety, do you believe that there's any chance of there
being an agreement signed at all?
MR. RUBIN: Do I believe there's any chance?
QUESTION: Having read Mr. Netanyahu's statement.
MR. RUBIN: We believe that the work that we've done through Secretary
Albright's trip and Ambassador Ross' tireless efforts on the ground and in
the air and on the phone, we are in a better position now than we were ever
before to get an agreement. Whether we will do so is an open question and
will be determined by the political will of the leaders to overcome the
remaining hurdles.
QUESTION: Jamie, in the security area --
MR. RUBIN: Is this on a different point?
QUESTION: No, it's on the Middle East. Go ahead.
QUESTION: How do you interpret the Prime Minister's comment yesterday;
how do you take that?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think one has to look at the context. Clearly, an
Israeli was killed, murdered and another was seriously injured. That is the
kind of insecurity that we don't accept and that needs to be dealt
with.
Whether that means one can or can't have an agreement, I think will only be
determined by the negotiations in Wye.
QUESTION: On security, the earlier CIA agreement that was made, which
Netanyahu rejected, did that include any references to the subject of
torture? Both sides used torture of prisoners in order to prevent terror,
you might say. There are 25 Americans in prison; most of them have been
tortured by the Israelis. There are four Americans in Palestinian prisons;
most of them have probably been tortured. Has the President or CIA raised
the possibility that an advance on the peace could be made by both
Netanyahu and Arafat declaring an end to torture - no more torture?
MR. RUBIN: I am not in a position to comment on an alleged CIA document.
With respect to our position on torture in these cases, I think it's well
established in our human rights report, which I'd be happy to get you a
copy.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - for the White House, because it was to the
President that the letter was addressed. But Kissinger, Scowcroft, Baker,
John Warner, et cetera, all suggesting that the review of US policy in Cuba
is long overdue. I think they're questioning that Cuba poses a menace to
American security. Do you want to deal with that?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we've seen some reports about this proposal; we haven't
seen the details. We have a clear and long-standing policy of promoting a
peaceful democratic transition in Cuba that enjoys bipartisan support. To
that end, we always welcome the views of former senior US officials and
members of Congress on the subject of Cuba, and would welcome any future
views. But with respect to any details of such a proposal, we haven't seen
it yet.
QUESTION: On the issue of security, do you think the US, this Administration
could make a current case that Cuba is a threat to American security?
MR. RUBIN: I believe this has a Pentagon component, with respect to a
specific report that has been drafted. I'd rather get that report and
respond accordingly.
QUESTION: Kissinger and his friends specifically requested the creation
of a bipartisan national commission to review Cuba - much along the lines
of the commission that Kissinger created --
MR. RUBIN: For El Salvador.
QUESTION: -- or Kissinger headed in Central America in 1983. Do you have
any response to that proposal?
MR. RUBIN: Right. We have seen the reports, as you have, of what they're
proposing. But until we get a specific detailed recommendation, we're not
in a position to respond. But as I said, we always welcome the views of
former senior US officials and members of Congress on Cuba.
QUESTION: This report that Spanish banks have been investing more in Cuba
--
MR. RUBIN: What?
QUESTION: A bank from Spain --
MR. RUBIN: I don't have any information on that; I'll have to get it for
you.
QUESTION: You don't have anything?
MR. RUBIN: Right.
QUESTION: Can you go back to Kosovo for a minute? Did you give troop
figures? I know it's early, but the clock is ticking. Remember those
figures before Holbrooke convinced Milosevic to take the pledge? Have there
been any substantial withdrawals that you can - police or troops that you
can --
MR. RUBIN: I did report on some of the observations of the observers who
went in there. But with respect to the specific numbers of troops, let me
be clear - we are trying to get us back to the pre-crisis period. That is
what the Security Council resolution envisages and requires; not to a
situation where there are zero troops, as some newspapers, editorials
suggested today, which I thought was distinctly unfair to those of us
who've worked very hard to explain our position carefully over many, many
months.
The question of how many there are now and how many there should be is
something that we're watching very, very closely but shouldn't mask the
larger problem. Even if there was compliance very quickly with that alleged
number and we concluded that they were back to pre-crisis levels, it can
change overnight with simple, quick deployment. So our policy is designed
to get at a larger problem, which is not just the number there today,
tomorrow and the next day, but to be sure they're not going to come back if
they leave.
That is what the aerial verification system and the on-site verification
system is designed to deal with - not just the question of compliance in
the near term, but long-term compliance so that the people of Kosovo don't
face the prospect of an unexpected, sudden return of the troops and police
that were responsible for these murders and attacks against civilians.
QUESTION: So that is the US position - and we got into a mini-wrangle
yesterday because I think you were speaking of garrisoning the troops being
acceptable. I thought that they could pop right out of those warehouses and
go around beating up civilians again and worse. So it sounds like you
really want the vast body of Serbian troops out of Kosovo?
MR. RUBIN: Okay, as best as I can describe it in this forum, what we want
is those troops that were not there before the crisis to not be there
again. We want those that were there to be in garrison so that they are not
posing the kind of immediate chilling effect on the people of Kosovo. But
how one counts what was there and what should be in garrison is a very
tricky issue, which will be less and less important if the on-site
verification team confirms that there are no troops or police running
around harming civilians or intimidating civilians.
As I indicated before you came in, the Serb police, according to our
monitors, are generally departing the countryside -- that means either
returning to their garrisons or returning to where they came from - and
there's some significant signs of returning life; that 80 percent of the
checkpoints are gone that the police and the military had set up. So it's a
complex picture, but it's one that can best be resolved for the people of
Kosovo through an extensive, on-site, on-the-ground and in-the-air
verification system.
QUESTION: The 80 percent - was that the one highway or was that
throughout?
MR. RUBIN: On the road from Orahovac to Malisevo -- that one highway,
correct.
QUESTION: If I could follow on this particular matter, if the Serbs are
pulling out their police and the KLA are standing down - which they claim
to be - who's going to keep order until there can be a verification force
in country? And that's going to take a while, isn't it?
MR. RUBIN: I don't think there's a order problem there. There was a
murdering of civilians and marauding problem, not an order problem.
In the absence of Serb police threatening the people of Kosovo and Serb
military forces shelling towns, the people there have been perfectly
capable of living peacefully among themselves. They don't have a lot of
classic order problems. What they need is the climate and the environment
to encourage them to leave the hills where they've been camping out for
fear of attacks by the Serb military or police, and coming back to their
homes where there was not an order problem.
QUESTION: So there's no need for order at present until the multinational
force comes; is that correct?
MR. RUBIN: It seems like you're seeking to parse me into a position where
I'm in favor of disorder. I am not in favor of disorder; the US Government
is in favor of order. But with respect to the near-term danger, we are
trying to deal with the intimidation, marauding and murder conducted by
Serb police and Serb military -- to get them out of the towns; to get them
out of the countryside; to stop scaring the civilians. Then over time, with
the interim arrangement negotiated, we would hope to create a Kosovar
police force, as I indicated yesterday, and other security arrangements
for the long term.
QUESTION: So if I could follow with another question on Kosovo - now, the
United States has done a magnificent job in providing diplomatic services
to solve their situation and --
MR. RUBIN: Let's just stop there if you want.
QUESTION: Okay, well, the US military has done a magnificent job of being
present already; however, why -
MR. RUBIN: Keep going --
QUESTION: Why, Jamie, does the United States have to put more people on
the ground and more dollars into Kosovo as we've done in Bosnia; why?
MR. RUBIN: Well, it's interesting you would ask that question. I believe
you were one of the regular questioners asking us why we weren't doing
anything about Kosovo over the recent weeks and months. But putting that
personal point aside, let me say this -- Secretary Albright and the
President have made very clear that what happens in Kosovo matters to the
United States; and it matters for two reasons.
First of all, it matters on humanitarian terms. We faced a situation where
hundreds of thousands of people faced starvation or being exposed to winter
climate and possible death this winter in the heart of Europe. In the 20th
Century, as we head to the 21st Century, if we can take reasonable steps
that are not imposing undue burden on our forces or the resources of the
United States, that's something we should consider doing. It's doubly true
if you take into account the second factor; that is, there was a risk that
the instability in Kosovo could spread to neighboring countries, could
infect the investment we have in Bosnia and could therefore put in
jeopardy the stability of Southeastern Europe, which is important to
the United States. What we've learned in these cases is that having
given diplomacy a reasonable chance, having given exhortation a reasonable
chance and gathering together the support of the European allies, that it
was time to act. And we still may act if President Milosevic doesn't do
what he needs to do in the next few days.
QUESTION: Can we move to Asia for a few minutes?
MR. RUBIN: Please.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say on the resumption of dialogue
between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait in Shanghai?
MR. RUBIN: I do. We certainly welcome this positive development. We've
encouraged both Taiwan and the People's Republic of China to resume cross-
Strait talks, and welcome efforts by the two sides aimed at restoring a
meaningful, substantive dialogue. We believe that this kind of dialogue and
these kind of exchanges help promote peace and stability in the region,
which is a matter of significant interest to the United States.
Obviously, the future is a question for the Chinese people on both sides of
the Taiwan Strait to resolve. What our interest is, most clearly, is that
we have an abiding interest in that any resolution of that question be done
peacefully.
QUESTION: Many analysts say that the talks are the result of pressure
from the United States on both sides of the Strait. Do you have any comment
on that?
MR. RUBIN: All I can say is it's something we've been encouraging for
some time - both sides to engage in this kind of dialogue.
QUESTION: When you say "substantive and meaningful dialogue," what is it
that you are getting at? What does the United States want the two sides to
actually achieve?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say that the goals are quite clear - is that the long
term issues be resolved peacefully; that in the meantime that concerns each
side has about behavior or actions of the others can be discussed, talked
through and avoided if at all possible.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:30 P.M.)
|
