U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #130, 98-11-23
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1136
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, November 23, 1998
Briefer: James P. Rubin
ANNOUNCEMENT
1 Briefing on Middle East Peace Donors Conference here
tomorrow at 4 p.m.
TERRORISM
1 Congratulations go to Italy for its arrest of Ocalan: Clear
evidence links him to terrorist acts.
1 Secretary, Deputy Secretary have contacted Italian
officials about Ocalan.
1,2 Germany also has an arrest warrant for Ocalan.
1 PKK is a terrorist organization.
2,3 Main outcome desired is that justice be served.; US expects
Ocalan to be extradited.
IRAQ
3,4 UNSCOM has technical expertise needed to make judgments on
documents.
4 Iraq gave the UN Security Council a new letter today,
responding to Amb. Butler's letters.
4,5 UNSC imposition on Iraq's sovereignty result directly from
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
5,6 Burden of proof remains on Iraq because of its pattern or
deceit, evasion.
10 US is trying to assist in creation of an effective
opposition to Iraqi regimes.
10 US has worked with the UK on opposition, war crimes issues.
11 Assistant Secretary Indyk will likely meet with opposition
leaders in London tomorrow.
12 US wants to work with a broad-based opposition group.
12 Iran has a long list of complaints against Iraq; but US is
not working with Iran.
13 US is giving a greater push to developing evidentiary base
to war crimes issues.
AUSTRIA
6,7 US Embassy Vienna has received credible threat information
of possible terrorist activity.
RUSSIA
7 US is outraged and saddened by the tragic murder of a Duma
deputy.
7,8 President Yeltsin has been diagnosed with pneumonia, and is
receiving treatment.
8 US has serious concerns about missile, WMD exports to Iran.
8,16 Crime and corruption remains a serious US concern, subject
of bilateral cooperation.
GERMANY
8,9 Secretary and Defense Minister had a good meeting,
discussed NATO topics.
9 US sees no need to change NATO's nuclear weapons policy.
15 Former East German presented a petition to US Embassy
Berlin last week.
CONGRESS
10 Secretary has had a good relationship with Rep. Livingston,
and visited him recently.
IRAN
13 Bus carrying US tourists was attacked; passengers have left
Iran now.
13,14 Swiss ambassador responded immediately to the incident as
US protecting power.
COLOMBIA
15 DEA agent shot and killed this past weekend in Bogota;
Colombian government is investigating.
MEXICO
16 US continues to support peaceful negotiation to settle all
disputes.
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
16 US, Israeli delegations met here yesterday met on security
issues.
17 Have been some US meetings on added aid to Israel and
Palestinian Authority.
CUBA
17 US sees some merit in the idea of the bipartisan commission
on Cuba policy.
INDONESIA
17,18 US is disturbed by new violence in East Timor
recently. There are credible reports of civilian deaths.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #130
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1998, 12:50 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Welcome to Monday's State Department Briefing. On
the announcement front, we will be having a briefing tomorrow at 4:00 p.m.
on the donor's conference for the Palestinians to be held here in the
Department that we spoke about last week.
Before turning to your questions, let me just say with respect to the
question of Mr. Ocalan, we would like again today to congratulate Italy for
accepting its responsibilities by arresting Mr. Ocalan earlier this month.
As we have repeatedly stated since then, the United States wants to see
Ocalan brought to justice in a way that meets the domestic and international
legal requirements of the countries involved in this case. We are working
closely with Italy, Turkey and Germany to review the full range of
options that would achieve this goal.
Let's bear in mind that the PKK is a terrorist organization, and Ocalan
must be held accountable for his role in the PKK's terrorist activities. We
believe that there's clear evidence linking Ocalan to numerous specific
terrorists' acts. And as a country that remains seriously concerned about
the acts of violence perpetrated throughout the world by terrorists,
terrorism of any sort is unacceptable, and the international community must
be committed to seeing that justice is done.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary call the Italian Foreign Minister, and did
Deputy Secretary Talbot also contact with the Italian opposite?
MR. RUBIN: I think the answer to both questions is I believe is yes.
Secretary Albright has been in touch with Foreign Minister Dini about this
subject, and I know that Deputy Secretary Talbot was in the region. I just
don't know what specific meetings he held. But we are working closely
with Italy, Germany and Turkey to review the full range of options
with the goal, very simply and very clearly, that this terrorist, Ocalan,
needs to be brought to justice.
QUESTION: Why have you put Germany back into that equation? You took it
out last week and now you put it back. Why?
MR. RUBIN: I always -- I did not take it out. I emphasized last week that
the crimes that Mr. Ocalan is responsible for, (were) committed largely in
Turkey. But there is a warrant from Germany that's outstanding, and so he
is the leader of an organization that is responsible for crimes not
just in Turkey.
It is true that most of the crimes Ocalan is accused of occurred in Turkey.
They have indicated they will request extradition. We believe a climate has
to be created in which Ocalan can be brought to justice. We know that
emotions are riding very high on all sides in a case as sensitive and
painful as this. The PKK is a terrorist organization, and like other
members of the international community, we are determined to do what we can
to encourage a climate in which he is brought to justice. We are talking
with all three governments concerned to see that he is brought to
justice in a way which meets international and Italian legal requirements.
QUESTION: Does it have anything to do with that Germany doesn't have
capital punishment as a penalty?
MR. RUBIN: Again, I don't want to get into each of the nuance positions
of other governments, and I welcome you talking to their representatives
about their positions. What I'm trying to communicate is our view, which is
that this is terrorist organization; that he is responsible for these
acts; that a climate has to be created, especially when we are dealing
with three countries all of whom are NATO allies -- Italy, Germany and
Turkey -- so that the end result is that justice is served.
QUESTION: Do you think Italy might ought to keep a little closer eye on
this man than just telling him to stay --
MR. RUBIN: Certainly we'd hate to see a situation evolve where the
problem is resolved and he wasn't available to be shipped to the appropriate
authority.
QUESTION: Since Italy is being so lax about treating this terrorist, are
you prepared to declare Italy as a terrorist-harboring state? That's number
one. Number two is, did the Ocalan issue come (up) today between Secretary
Albright and the Defense Minister of Germany?
MR. RUBIN: No and no.
QUESTION: Are you all no longer calling for extradition? The word
"extradition" has not appeared --
MR. RUBIN: Yes, we want him to be extradited; we don't expect him to be
tried in Italy.
QUESTION: Jamie, this case obviously brought to attention the situation
of the Kurds in Turkey. Both the Vatican and the Italian Prime Minister,
who are very close to this whole affair, obviously, made statements
stressing that recognition of the aspirations of the Kurdish people in
Turkey. What's the State Department's view of this? Are you prepared
to make a similar statement?
MR. RUBIN: Our position is the same, yes.
QUESTION: What is it?
MR. RUBIN: We'll be happy to get you that for the record so it's put down
in very precise terms.
QUESTION: Is there another option here? Could he be tried in a third or
fourth country along the formula of the proposal for Libya?
MR. RUBIN: Given the nature of this issue, given the close relationship
we have with each of the countries concerned, obviously a lot of thought is
going on -- in Rome and in Ankara, in Bonn, in the United States -- as to
how to meet the objective of bringing him to justice. But I've indicated
to you that given the location of his crimes what our view has been;
we're also realists and recognize that that may not be possible.
On the other hand, it's extremely important that everybody work together to
bring him to justice. For those who were looking for us to criticize the
Italians, let's bear in mind that the Italians did arrest him.
QUESTION: How would you describe the US role in this? Is it --
MR. RUBIN: He's not been let go. That's an incorrect description of the
situation.
QUESTION: The US role attempting to broker a compromise; is it broker
here?
MR. RUBIN: We're a good friend of all the parties and a leader in the
fight against terrorism.
QUESTION: Can I ask you about Iraq, please? There is this new stand-off
over documents. When the President addressed it earlier in the dispute, he
made some reference to needing some more facts, and there's been some
analysis drawn that the President was backing off a little bit because
documents --
MR. RUBIN: Those analysts have to stop analyzing.
QUESTION: I was one of them. The documents were one of his five criteria
a week earlier, which could bring the mighty power of the United States
down on them if they didn't fulfill their obligations. Anyhow, we're
several days into this now. Can you address this? And are you still
deferring to the UN to make all the proper judgments? I don't mean just
about where you inspect - a judgment as to whether Iraq is in compliance.
Is that now a consensus decision of the United Nations, where a lot of
people would have let Iraq get away with probably bloody murder?
MR. RUBIN: Well, let me address the last part of your question first. The
short answer to that is no, and it has never been our policy, and no one
has ever suggested it's our policy. On the contrary, we've made very clear
that in this case we have very important national interests at stake.
With respect to technical issues, however, there is a technical organization
called the UN Special Commission that was set up by the Security Council.
And as the country that has probably done more than any other to assist the
Special Commission in its work, through information, expertise and other
requests for assistance that they have made, we have great faith in their
technical expertise to make technical professional judgments as to what
information is being provided, why it's not being provided. They are in
the best position to know whether particular documents are available,
or the dog ate them during some interregnum period. "The dog ate my
homework" is not an excuse that's acceptable. But we need to be very
careful and make these judgments very carefully, because to the extent that
the judgments are made and understood to be professional, technical
judgments, it is more likely that we will get international support for a
firm posture towards Iraq. Simply having the United States state what its
view is on a professional technical matter prior to Ambassador Butler
having an opportunity to discuss very detailed, very specific things - for
example, today we had a new letter from the Iraqis to the President
of the Security Council, which happens to be Ambassador Burleigh
this month. It's a 20-page document that goes into a lengthy rebuttal of
the points that Ambassador Butler made in his letters.
We do think that Ambassador Butler and his technical experts should be the
ones that analyze the document, see how it compares and explains the issues
that he was seeking cooperation on. But let's be very clear - a clear path
has been set forth for Iraq to follow: Turn over the appropriate documents;
cooperate with UNSCOM inspectors; allow for follow-up interviews with key
individuals. We expect Iraq to cooperate across the spectrum of UNSCOM's
requirements.
Clearly the initial responses were insufficient. We've now received another
response, and Ambassador Butler and his team of experts - technical experts
- are going to be examining a 20-page document that just arrived in the
last few hours, to be able to assess whether this is another case of
shifting the blame, or whether there is any validity to the arguments that
are made. That is the proper, professional, judicious way for us to
approach this problem.
QUESTION: Can you respond to Iraq's argument -- Mr. Hamdun was making it
again today - that - it's sort of a two-part argument that Iraq's
sovereignty is being compromised and that a lot of these demands are really
mischievous. They're attempts by the United States and others to push them
around.
MR. RUBIN: Claims that the requirements of Security Council resolutions
are infringements on Iraq's sovereignty should be addressed to the
President of Iraq , who made a decision to invade another country, which
led the Security Council to establish very clear requirements and impose
those requirements. These are not voluntary requirements; these are
mandatory requirements. The sooner Iraq gets used to the fact that it is
not in the position of being able to pick and choose which of these
requirements it needs to follow, the sooner we can get on with compliance,
and get on with the comprehensive review, and some day, if relevant
resolutions are complied with, get on with lifting sanctions.
But these are mandatory, and to the extent they impose on Iraq's sovereignty,
it is a direct result of the decision by Iraq's leader to invade another
country, and the rules and requirements imposed on it.
With respect to your second question, if you could repeat it, please.
QUESTION: I suppose you could say it's the UN's decision to make the
commission, but Iraq sees a lot of these demands - or professes to see a
lot of these demands -- as mischievous, as basically just trying to push
them around a little bit.
MR. RUBIN: We have great respect professionally and politically, in the
sense of his public posture, his private posture for Ambassador Butler.
It's not an easy job to go day after day, head-to-head with the Iraqis in
trying to get them to cooperate, when they've shown a pattern of deceit
over the last six or seven years and tried to deny documents. I remember
the story that Ambassador Butler's predecessor used to tell; which was that
documents like these would be provided by Iraq only after UNSCOM showed
them to the Iraqis and then they would revise their "full and final
disclosures" and include them.
So if Iraq hadn't spent the last six or seven years denying access, denying
cooperation, refusing documents and engaged in a pattern of deceit, they
wouldn't find themselves in a situation where the burden of proof is on
them. But clearly, as a result of this pattern of behavior over the last
six or seven years, as a result of the Security Council's resolutions, the
burden of proof is on Iraq to turn over the information, to provide the
cooperation, and to provide the access that the UN needs to do its job.
That's where the burden lies, both because of their pattern of misbehavior,
and because this all began when Iraq violated all international laws by
invading Kuwait.
That's what we're talking about here - the cease-fire resolution, which
should have been complied with in a matter of weeks; but instead, to the
great detriment of the Iraqi people and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
Saddam Hussein still, six and seven years later, is playing games with
UNSCOM's desire to get to the bottom of this.
QUESTION: Has this pattern of deceit by the Iraqis, the pattern of
playing hide-and-seek, begun again? Are we in another cycle of deceit?
MR. RUBIN: Well, cooperation is, as I indicated, something that is
required across the board. There are a whole spectrum of requirements that
UNSCOM needs to have, including access to facilities; they need to have
cooperation in interviewing people; they need to have documentation; and
they need to have a climate in which Iraq understands that unless
it discloses what it did with its weapons of mass destruction and
how many it had, that it can't get itself out from under the sanctions
regime.
Rather than forcing UNSCOM to find reasons why a particular document is
necessary, it would be a lot easier and a lot better for the Iraqi people
if the Iraqi regime didn't look for excuses but instead disclosed all the
information it has. When they say they've done that, all we can say back is
that for six long years whenever they said they did that, ooops, another
document was found and they amended their "full and final disclosure."
So the boy has cried wolf too many times on the fact that they've provided
all the documents; and therefore, the burden of proof is very clearly on
them.
QUESTION: Could this hold up the comprehensive review?
MR. RUBIN: Absolutely. Without a pattern of cooperation with UNSCOM, that
is what is needed in order to begin the review. The review is not about
cooperation, as Iraq seems to want it to be. The review is about compliance
- judging compliance.
We can't even begin to get to the point where we're judging compliance
until we have the kind of cooperation that allows us to begin the
process.
QUESTION: One of the issues the Iraqis keep bringing up is that of
relevance. They say the documents are irrelevant. Isn't it uncooperative to
start with for the Iraqis to challenge the relevancy of documents demanded
by UNSCOM?
MR. RUBIN: Well, look, that seems like the least of our problems. They
are going to say a lot of things. The question is what they do, as much as
it is what they say. If they call something irrelevant but then decide to
provide it, that's what's relevant to us.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -provided on those grounds.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - judge of relevance.
MR. RUBIN: Absolutely. UNSCOM doesn't ask for, in our opinion, things
that are irrelevant. Whether they're findable, whether they've been
destroyed is another technical question, which I'm not capable of
answering. But clearly, they're relevant if UNSCOM needs them to make its
judgments.
QUESTION: Can I change the subject? What is the latest with regard to the
terrorist threat against the embassy in Vienna? Any new developments over
the weekend?
MR. RUBIN: We normally are not in a position to provide much detail on
matters like this for obvious security reasons. We can say that the US
Embassy in Vienna received credible information concerning the possibility
of a terrorist attack against US-affiliated facilities in Austria.
Austrian authorities have been informed and are taking serious measures to
maximize the security of those facilities and provide for the public
safety. But it's not possible for me to be any more specific than
that.
QUESTION: Had there been any request prior to the bombing in Nairobi and
in Kenya - any request in terms of increasing security in the embassy in
Vienna?
MR. RUBIN: I would have to get someone who's in a position to talk about
the specific status of our embassy security precautions. But let me say
broadly: We do our best to update those issues as quickly as we can, given
obvious funding constraints.
QUESTION: One more - are there any considerations to move the embassy in
Vienna out of the residential neighborhood that it is situated in?
MR. RUBIN: I haven't heard that; but again, I'd have to get you someone
who's working directly on embassy security matters there to be able to give
you a definitive answer.
QUESTION: Can someone come in, then, and tell us all if it's up to date
in all the security measures? Remember after the recent problems, it was
discovered or made public that some embassies --
MR. RUBIN: Right, but I'm not sure that's directly relevant to this
specific threat, which could have occurred --
QUESTION: It involves, of course, any place in the country.
MR. RUBIN: Whether or not there have been updates, threats can be made.
The updates are designed to meet threats that have been made.
QUESTION: Can we go to Russia? Jamie, can you tell us how news of the
gunning down of -- Starovoitova was received at the State Department?
MR. RUBIN: We are outraged and saddened by the murder of State Duma
Deputy and renown political activist Galina Starovoitova -- please forgive
me for that; we will amend the transcript.
Ms. Starovoitova was known and respected in the United States as a champion
of democratic freedoms and human rights in Russia. Ms. Starovoitova was a
courageous representative of Russia's democratic movement. Her death is a
tragic commentary on criminality and its impact on the development of a
pluralistic society in Russia.
We applaud the resolve of the Russian Government to pursue the investigation
of her murder with all possible resources, and we extend our condolences to
Ms. Starovoitova's family.
QUESTION: On the president's illness today?
MR. RUBIN: On the President's illness, let me simply say that, according
to the Kremlin's press service, President Yeltsin has been diagnosed with
pneumonia and has been hospitalized in Moscow. His spokesman reported that
his work schedule would remain unaffected. As you know, a meeting took
place with the Chinese President at 11:00 a.m. today, local time.
QUESTION: Last week, Jamie, there was an article concerning Mr. Robert
Gallucci, the proliferation ambassador - I'm not sure what his title is.
But Mr. Gallucci was in Russia, spoke with his counterpart in Russia about
missile exports from Russia and technology exports to Iraq and Iran. Mr.
Gallucci's summation of that visit to the Russians was that they just
didn't listen; they weren't interested. Is that the way the State
Department would characterize it?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I don't want to respond directly to the quotes you made,
but let me give you our view as to the situation.
Clearly, we have very serious concerns about this issue. Making sure that
every country is doing all it can to prevent Iran and other countries of
concern from developing weapons of mass destruction, or their delivery
systems, is a matter of the highest possible priority for this Administration.
The level of cooperation with Russia ebbs and flows, and we are determined
to keep it in the strongest possible type of cooperation, through this
regular channel that Gallucci conducts. We're going to keep working on it,
but I wouldn't want to characterize any particular meeting and any
particular level of response.
QUESTION: Can I follow up by asking, is there a continued arms and
technology flow from Russia to Iran presently?
MR. RUBIN: We remain seriously concerned about that issue.
QUESTION: Jamie, several times the State Department described the Kurdish
-- (inaudible) -- TV as a voice of terrorists in this podium. And several
times, the US Government denied visa requests of this voice of terrorists
employees. But last week, one of the officials from -- (inaudible) -- TV,
named Mr. Tabak, he was in New York and he was in Washington, D.C. Did you
change your policy, or is something wrong?
MR. RUBIN: I'll get you one of our press management officers to answer
that press management question.
QUESTION: What did Secretary Albright tell the German Defense Minister
about the first use of nuclear weapons today?
MR. RUBIN: Well, Secretary Albright and the Defense Minister of Germany
had a very good meeting. They discussed a whole number of subjects of
mutual interest, including Kosovo; including the NATO summit next year;
including the importance of developing the alliance in a successful
way.
We are aware that some in Germany want to bring up the issue of "no first
use." Let me say that in our view, nuclear weapons have played a key role
in ending the Cold War and they remain a key element in ensuring the
coupling of the security of North America and Europe. The current strategic
concept makes clear that nuclear weapons fulfill an essential role by
ensuring uncertainty about the nature of the allies' response to military
aggression. We -- and Secretary Albright made this clear -- do not see any
need to change NATO's nuclear policy, or to start a debate on this subject
now. She did make clear to the Defense Minister, as she has to others, that
Chancellor Schroeder has affirmed publicly that there will be continuity in
German foreign security policy. We would think that continuity would be
particularly important when it comes to the fundamental tenants of
alliance nuclear policy.
QUESTION: I can't imagine who the aggressor would be today that the US
would use nuclear weapons against. There's no more Soviet Union -- even if
the Soviet Union was potentially aggressive --
MR. RUBIN: Well, one of the beauties of the NATO alliance is that it's
designed to be there a long time -- long enough when people like you might
even be able to imagine such a concern. We believe that this uncertainty is
helpful now and well into the future. It's an alliance we expect to
be around a long time.
QUESTION: It seems outdated.
QUESTION: Did the minister today - or any official of the new Russian
Government -- have they formally raised --
MR. RUBIN: German or Russian?
QUESTION: German, I'm saying German.
QUESTION: You said Russian.
QUESTION: Okay, I meant German.
(Laughter.)
I feel like I'm on background right now. Has any official of the new German
Government raised this desire with any official of this government?
MR. RUBIN: I am sure that some official of the German Government has
raised with some official of the US Government this issue. We're aware of
the issue. I don't care to get into who said it to whom on which day.
QUESTION: Has it been raised to a senior level or is it just sort of --
MR. RUBIN: It's sufficient that the two ministers today had an opportunity
to talk about it.
QUESTION: Can you say who brought it up in the meeting today?
MR. RUBIN: We don't normally do that.
QUESTION: Jamie, you're going to have a donor's briefing - as I was
walking in, I heard you offer that. Do you have a new number just for the
moment on RSVPs? There was about four Arab countries, about a dozen - that
was a week ago, though.
MR. RUBIN: I think it was more than that, but we'll get you some numbers
during the course of the day; and there will be a briefing tomorrow.
QUESTION: Jamie, two questions -- can you tell us the purpose of
Albright's trip up to the Hill to meet with Congressman Livingston this
afternoon; and if you have any reaction to the meeting between Great
Britain and the Iraqi opposition groups, and if the US will participate in
the next meeting?
MR. RUBIN: On the first question, I think anyone could imagine why a
Secretary of State, who is very concerned about getting adequate resources
for foreign policy, would want to take the opportunity to meet early on
with the new expected-to-be Speaker of the House. She's had a very good
relationship with Representative Livingston when he was Chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, and I think she wants to make sure that she has
an equally good relationship with him if and when he becomes Speaker
of the House in the coming weeks.
With respect to the meeting in London, traditionally embassy officers from
the United States have worked closely or attended meetings of this kind. I
think it's fair to say that we are trying to do our best to assist in the
creation of an effective and viable alternative to Saddam Hussein's
regime.
Secretary Albright will be announcing very soon an appointment of a
coordinator for the Iraqi opposition here in the State Department. We are
going to be in contact -- and have already been in contact -- with many of
the relevant groups to try to see what we can do to encourage them to be as
effective and coordinated as possible. In addition, we are going to be
spending considerable sums on an effort to identify evidence that would be
relevant if an international tribunal were created on the subject of Iraqi
war crimes. So those are three pieces of the puzzle -- a bureaucratic piece
of getting a coordinator named; working with the opposition to try to
identify ways in which they can work better together -- talking to
them - we've been doing a lot of that and will continue to do a lot
of that; and thirdly, focusing a bit significantly on the war crimes
issue.
QUESTION: Are there any meetings on the horizon that you know of ,
comparable to Indyk's meeting the other day with an Iraqi --
MR. RUBIN: I'll try to get you some; I don't have any off the top of my
head.
QUESTION: Some are based in London, but the US is part of this.
MR. RUBIN: Sure.
QUESTION: Is Indyk going to meet with these groups in London tomorrow?
MR. RUBIN: Let me get you an answer to what his travel schedule
is.
QUESTION: He's already met them.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - Iranian groups.
MR. RUBIN: Assistant Secretary Indyk will likely meet with Iraqi
opposition representatives tomorrow in London. How's that for a fast
response?
QUESTION: Will you have a read-out of that meeting, please?
MR. RUBIN: We'll do our best to give you a read-out here in Washington
from that meeting in London.
QUESTION: Is that his only meeting?
MR. RUBIN: We're degrading into - let's try one at a time. Let's try one
at a time, because I'm getting a lot of questions at the same time. It's
hard to hear you.
QUESTION: Will Indyk be going on anywhere else, or is he coming
back?
MR. RUBIN: He's in Paris for bilateral consultations and London; he'll
arrive tonight. I don't think it's a trip all over the world on this
subject, if that's what you're implying or asking.
QUESTION: But Paris was part of this trip?
QUESTION: On other subjects?
MR. RUBIN: Paris was part of general, bilateral consultations on Iraq and
other matters.
QUESTION: Some of these exiles in London are saying that Indyk is going
to announce a US decision to re-launch the INC as the main opposition
group. I don't know quite what that means, but is there anything --
MR. RUBIN: Somehow I suspect that might have come from INC sources.
(Laughter.)
But let me say that I don't know that; I'm just guessing. There was a
preference spelled out in the congressional legislation for the INC to be
deemed that. We think the best way to go right now is to get the executive
committee of the INC to meet with us, and to talk about their goals, their
needs, and to try to ascertain what assistance we can be. But we want to
work with a broad-based group, and we regard the congressional preference
as not mandatory but a preference.
QUESTION: So who are the Iraqi opposition that officials will be meeting
with?
MR. RUBIN: A broad-based group; the many different groups.
QUESTION: The INC is really 15 groups, and there are only 16 meeting in
London; is that right or - is there only one other group and you want to
bring this into the INC? Is that the idea?
MR. RUBIN: What I'm doing is not agreeing to somebody else's characterization
of our policy. Our policy is to try to develop an effective, viable
alternative to the Iraqi regime. In so doing we're contacting a lot of
groups - more than just those that are part of the INC - many different
groups: being in touch with them and trying to develop the most effective
coordinated grouping that we can.
Until we've made that decision, some particular desire for a particular
moniker is not going to change our desire to have the best possible
alternative and to have the best possible coordination between the groups.
If and when we've made a decision that we would want to characterize one as
the main opposition group, we will tell you.
QUESTION: How would the Clinton Administration feel about Iranian
involvement in this effort to topple Saddam?
MR. RUBIN: It' s funny you should ask that. Let me say that Iran
obviously has a long
brief against Saddam Hussein that is understandable to anybody, including
the use of chemical weapons, the invasion and attack that occurred during
the Iran-Iraq War, and the brutality of the regime against the Shia in the
south.
So it's certainly understandable that Iran would be in contact with
assisting various groups in Iraq or others who are opposed to the regime of
Saddam Hussein. We don't intend to stand in the way of that, and we don't
have a problem with that. But to the extent that we are working with
countries in the region on a program to try to create the most effective
and viable alternative, we are not -- in any way, shape or form -- working
with Iran in that context.
QUESTION: Do you have any sense yet how this project, call it that, is
sitting with the Arab countries?
MR. RUBIN: I would leave it to them to characterize their own views.
Simply to say that we recognize that countries in the region have special
concerns, and we are going to be consulting with them to address those
concerns as we go forward.
QUESTION: You talked about an effort to get evidence for an international
criminal tribunal, should it ever become appropriate for Saddam Hussein's
war crimes. Is this a new effort? Is this an additional push to an old
effort; and do you have any specifics in terms of a dollar amount?
You said you'd spend a lot of money on it.
MR. RUBIN: Well, there's two pots of money that people need to get clear.
One is $97 million, which is draw-down authority; that's not money, that's
authority to use existing equipment or other supplies. The second pot of
money is $8 million that was authorized and appropriated, to use in
developing this effective opposition, and in developing and working with
INDICT and other groups to try to create an evidentiary base for what we
believe to have been war crimes committed by the Iraqi regime.
At various times, depending on how that money has come along and depending
on circumstances, we try to give that a greater push. I think it's fair to
say we're giving a greater push to the idea of developing the strongest
possible evidentiary base, again, in the case of war crimes, that the Iraqi
regime committed.
QUESTION: Can you tell me how much you've spent so far?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I don't have a dollar figure on that. I know that
another congressional preference was specified of, I believe, $2 million
for the INDICT; but again, that's a congressional preference and we don't
regard it as mandatory.
QUESTION: Is Indyk also traveling to the region after his meetings in
Europe?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of that.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on these Americans who were attacked?
MR. RUBIN: We have had some reports about that, obviously. By the way, on
Iraq, the United States is supportive of the dialogue that's been going on
in London; and a representative of the US Embassy in London did attend
the meeting that took place there.
With respect to Iran, let me say that we have seen reports regarding a bus
carrying 13 American tourists that was attacked. We understand the group is
now back in the US. Accounts of the attack report that windows in the bus
were broken by people wielding iron bars. Some of the tourists reportedly
suffered minor injuries due to flying glass. We would especially like to
thank the Swiss Ambassador to Iran and his embassy for providing support
throughout this incident. He responded to this incident immediately upon
notification, returning to Tehran from outside the capital to remain with
the Americans until their departure.
As our protecting power, the Swiss Embassy acted with great concern and
compassion and we would like to thank them for their efforts.
We do call upon the government of Iran to adhere to the rule of law and
protect visitors to their country. But of course we also continue to
support President Khatemi's call for dialogue of civilizations and people-
to-people exchanges such as this. We put very careful language into our
travel warnings to various parts of the world and I believe, if I recall
correctly, some of the language pointed out the possibility of incidents
like this.
QUESTION: Do you know how this happened? I mean, did the bus have a big
American flag on it?
MR. RUBIN: We understand that a group called the Fedayeen Islam has
claimed responsibility. We have no information to verify this claim; but we
could categorically reject any claim that the tourist group was comprised
of US officials or CIA agents. So obviously, somebody was making up reasons
for doing what they did.
QUESTION: Have the Iranian authorities done anything (about) this?
MR. RUBIN: I have no additional information on this.
QUESTION: Does this incident, coupled with the murder of the Iranian
opposition lady yesterday, do you think this indicates a struggle for power
or backlash against overtures towards the United States?
MR. RUBIN: I don't see what the killing of an Iranian who is in Iran has
to do with the United States, no. Backlash against the United States
because they are killing an internal person?
QUESTION: Okay, does it show a backlash against any kind of --
MR. RUBIN: Openness to the world?
QUESTION: Openness to the world, right.
MR. RUBIN: I am not in a position to comment every day on the ups and
downs in Iran. Clearly there are ups and downs, and clearly there different
views are being expressed and there is a lot happening there. But to make a
flat judgment which way it is going, which your question suggests
would be possible, is not something we can do on a daily basis.
QUESTION: Is this Islamic group in Iran that claims responsibility --
have they been hostile toward Americans in the past? Do we know anything
about them, or do you know anything about them for that matter?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have anymore on them other than they're called
Volunteers for Martyrdom for Islam.
QUESTION: Do you have any new information on the assassination of the
anti-narcotics agent of the United States in Colombia?
MR. RUBIN: Well, you will judge whether it's new, but I do have some
information. DEA Agent Frank Marino was shot and killed this weekend in
Bogota while off duty. There is no indication that his murder was connected
to his official duties. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family in
this difficult time, and we are pleased that the Government of Colombia is
conducting an investigation into the matter.
QUESTION: I have another one in Mexico. Finally after two years in
Chiapas, the Zapatistas are on the table to negotiate a peace. Do you have
any comment on that?
MR. RUBIN: Our approach to the conflict in Chiapas continues to be
support for a peaceful negotiated settlement to all disputes. The meetings
on Friday and Sunday between Zapatista representatives and members of
Cocopa* after an absence of such dialogue for nearly two years are
certainly an encouraging step.
We hope that such contacts can be maintained and the Mexican Government and
Zapatistas can find an appropriate formula to allow them to resume direct
contacts on the settlement of the conflicts in Chiapas.
QUESTION: Another subject - will the State Department or can you confirm
the report of The Washington Post from yesterday that the US Government is
in possession of the East German Stasi files?
MR. RUBIN: I think the short answer is that this is an intelligence issue,
but let me give you the long answer.
Former East German opposition leaders did present a petition to the US
Embassy in Berlin on November 9. An electronic copy of the petition has
been received by the Department of State. A text is being forwarded to the
White House for review.
The German Democratic Republic State Security Service was an intelligence
and police agency. We do not comment on intelligence matters. With respect
to their position and what they're seeking you'd have to contact them, as I
suspect you will or have.
QUESTION: What is the Department's view of the disagreement between the
Vice President's office and the CIA over corruption in the camp of former
Prime Minister of --
MR. RUBIN: Well, I saw the Vice President quoted on the record; I didn't
see any CIA officials quoted on the record. So it doesn't constitute a
disagreement between the agencies. You can usually find someone in every
agency to say anything; that's one of the great things about having your
job.
But with respect to our view on the specific subject, let me just say that
I can't comment on any particular intelligence document or any particular
intelligence matter. But we have been deeply concerned about crime and
corruption that has emerged in the last several years.
We have seen some progress on the issue. Gradually Russia is beginning to
pass much needed legislation, including a civil code and a criminal code,
to form the basis of a rule-of-law society. There is now greater recognition
at the political level of the negative consequences which unchecked crime
and corruption can have.
President Yeltsin acknowledged the threat posed by corruption in a March
1997 speech. During the May 1998 summit held in Birmingham, Yeltsin
committed to hosting a ministerial conference on organized crime in Moscow;
and recently, Russia has assumed multilateral and bilateral international
obligations which incorporate several anti-corruption issues and principles.
We have opened a dialogue with Russia on a variety of ethics and anti-
corruption issues and initiatives. We are providing technical assistance
under the Freedom Support Act to further transparency, establish norms of
good governments, reform procurement practices and strengthen civil
society. Russia still has a lot of work to do to get crime and corruption
under control.
In short, we in the State Department - and I'm sure everywhere in the
government - have a very clear-eyed view of the corruption and crime
problem in Russia. But whether any specific evidence or information was
used to the satisfaction of any particular analyst or not, I wouldn't be
able to comment.
QUESTION: Have you heard reports, Jamie, on this particular subject, of
employees of a vital state agency in Russia coming out in public in
disguise, and complaining that their bosses were criminals; that their
bosses were members of organized crime? This happened last week and was
reported. Did you pick up on that?
MR. RUBIN: I haven't seen anything on that; I'll have to get it for you.
It would make a nice picture.
QUESTION: The Israeli Finance Minister, Yaacov Neeman, either was or is
in Washington this past weekend. Did he have any meetings here; and where
are we on additional aid to Israel for redeployment?
MR. RUBIN: Delegations from the US and Israel did meet to conduct
preliminary discussions on Israel's request for US financial support here
at the Department yesterday. The US delegation was led by Under Secretary
Eizenstat and Assistant Secretary Indyk; the Israeli delegation, by their
Finance Minister, the Director General of the Ministry of Defense and
Ambassador Shoval.
During the meeting, the Israeli side presented details of their security
requirements, including strengthening of Israel's strategic security needs
and enhancement of Israel's security and counter-terrorism efforts. The US
side agreed to study the information provided by the Israeli side. A
bilateral working group was formed, and we hope to develop expeditiously
proposals that will meet Israel's security requirements.
We indicated our intention to initiate consultations with Congress on an
enhanced - that is, bigger - US economic package and support to the
Palestinians to bolster Palestinian economic development, and to strengthen
the prospects for successful implementation of the Wye agreements.
With respect to the figures being thrown out there, I'm not able to confirm
any figures at this point.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that? What is the thinking here at the
Department about appropriating money to be invested in the West Bank - in
new roads in the West Bank that will ultimately serve settlers?
MR. RUBIN: We're evaluating their request for assistance, and we'll be
looking at it specifically. I don't have any more for you on that.
QUESTION: Secretary Albright tomorrow will meet some Congress people - I
would assume it to be on the idea of the bipartisan commission on Cuba
policy. Does this imply there's been any movement on that? What will she
tell them on that?
MR. RUBIN: You certainly wouldn't want me to tell you something before we
told Members of Congress something. That would not be a good idea. But as
far as our current view on it, I've said to you before that we see some
merit in the idea, provided the mandate and the membership and the terms
were discussed. But I would doubt that the meeting would be limited to a
discussion of that particular idea.
QUESTION: Can you tell us who she's meeting with?
MR. RUBIN: I'll get you a specific list during the course of the
day.
QUESTION: Did the consultations with Congress you referred to regarding
the aid question - did you say that was on Israel's request or on the
Palestinians' request?
MR. RUBIN: Israel's request and the Palestinians' request - both we're
going to be consulting with Congress on.
QUESTION: Can I put to you a question about Indonesia? There have been in
the last days some reports about the possible new massacre by Indonesian
troops in East Timor; and because of that, the Portuguese Government has
suspended contacts with the Indonesians and the supervision of the United
Nations. Do you have any additional information about that? Are you
concerned about that?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. We understand there has been an increase in violence in
East Timor in recent weeks. Three Indonesian soldiers were killed and as
many as 13 were taken hostage during an attack on an Indonesian outpost
November 9. ICRC representatives in East Timor report that large numbers
of civilians have taken refuge in churches and fled villages as the
Indonesian military swept the area in an attempt to free hostages and track
down rebels.
There have been credible reports of civilian deaths in the military sweep,
but we do not have confirmed numbers. The Indonesian state news agency
reported that the military operation has been stopped. We have not been
able to confirm that.
We are disturbed at reports of renewed violence in East Timor. We call on
all sides to refrain from violence and to take all measures necessary to
assure that civilians are not mistreated or denied access to necessities.
QUESTION: Thanks.
(The briefing concluded at 1:45 P.M.)
|
