U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #132, 98-12-02

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Wednesday, December 2, 1998

Briefer: James P. Rubin

ANNOUNCEMENTS
1		Anthony Lake to return to Horn of Africa to work on
		  Eritrea-Ethiopia border dispute.
1		US pleased at human rights improvement in Nigeria since
		  change of leadership.
1		Secretary Albright to travel to Brussels and Paris next
		  week.
NORTH KOREA
1		US view missile program as a serious regional threat.
2		Dr. Perry to consult in Seoul, Tokyo, Beijing; he will not
		  meet DPRK officials.
CHILE
2-5,12		Values of accountability and justice must be balanced with
		  respect for democratic transitions.
2,5,6,13	US has not yet worked out details on conducting Pinochet
		  document review process.
3,6		US judges each case on its own merits.
11,13,14	Document review does not, a priori, guarantee release of
		  those documents.
IRAN
7		US is aware of complaint about US interception of an
		  aircraft.
PANAMA
8		US was unable to come to accord on establishing a
		  counter-narcotics center.
8		US is examining other options to maintain ability to
		  interdict illegal narcotics trafficking in region.
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
8-9		US will be in close touch with Palestinian Authority over
		  details about President Clinton's visit.
IRAQ
9		Secretary Albright to brief US senators this afternoon.
CUBA
9		"Grinch" Castro, who stole Christmas many years ago, has
		  finally given it back.
10-11		Cuba still not a haven for religious freedom.
VENEZUELA
15		Decision of next president not for US to speculate upon.
CHINA
15		US views recent detentions of political activists as a
		  serious step in the wrong direction.
16		US has conveyed its view that sharp limits on freedom of
		  expression are deeply disturbing.
SERBIA
17		US is pleased about arrest of General Radislav Krstic,
		  believes he will receive fair treatment.
16		Details of sealed indictment on General Krstic's arrest
		  should come from Hague Tribunal.
CHINA (TAIWAN)
18		US provides defensive support under Taiwan Relations Act
		  and 1982 Joint Communique with PRC.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #132

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1998, 12:45 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. RUBIN: Welcome to the State Department briefing here on this Wednesday. We have several announcements we will be posting -- one regarding the trip of former National Security Advisor, Anthony Lake, returning to the Horn of Africa this week to continue our efforts to help find a peaceful solution to the dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia.

We also have a statement expressing our pleasure at the report of the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Nigeria with respect to significant improvements in respect for human rights by the government of Nigeria since the change in leadership.

We have a statement on NATO's detention of a war criminal in the US military sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We also have a statement on the Secretary's trip next week to NATO and Brussels on the 7th and 8th and 9th and 10th. She will be leaving on the 7th, in Brussels on the 8th, and in Paris on the 9th and the 10th.

Finally, we have a statement of the Monitoring Group with respect to Lebanon that considered 15 complaints of violation and the results of the Monitoring Group's work. Those are our statements for the day. With that, let me turn to your questions.

QUESTION: There are reports that North Korea may be preparing to launch another rocket. Do you have anything on that?

MR. RUBIN: This story doesn't strike us as exactly a new issue. The United States does view the North Korean missile program as a serious threat to the region, and we continue to press North Korea to cease all development, testing and export of missiles and missile technology. As we have made clear to North Korea, any further missile test would have serious consequences for any improvement in our relations with North Korea. We continue to consult very closely with our Japanese and South Korean allies on North Korean issues.

With respect to any particular development, obviously we monitor the situation very closely. But I could not comment on this specific intelligence aspect of that story.

QUESTION: The indication has been out there for weeks and weeks. Is there some sort of new indication or is it just --

MR. RUBIN: I'm trying to be as helpful as I can. What I said when I started my answer was this is not a new issue for us, but I can't comment on the specifics of any intelligence report.

QUESTION: Jamie, is there going to be any attempt when Dr. Perry is out in the region next week for him to meet with North Korean officials in any venue?

MR. RUBIN: No, Dr. Perry's visit -- I think we put some information out there yesterday. It didn't include that, and it's my understanding that he will consult allies in Seoul and Tokyo to receive a full assessment of the situation from the South Korean and Japanese Governments perspectives; then he will receive a similarly full briefing from the Chinese Government. He will not travel to Pyongyang and they will not meet with North Korean officials.

QUESTION: But Administration officials have met with North Korean officials in Beijing before, so I thought, well, since he's there maybe -

MR. RUBIN: They will not meet North Korean officials.

QUESTION: On Pinochet -- do you believe -- I mean, with your strong statements about accountability and justice and all of that - do you believe that if Pinochet went back to Chile that it would be possible and that, in fact, he would be put on trial?

MR. RUBIN: That's a good question for which I am not going to have an answer, because the answer is unknowable at this point. But let me take this opportunity to make a few points that have not gone across as effectively as perhaps they might have.

In particular, we received some letters of concern from relevant groups about the Secretary's position on this. There are two important values at stake here. One value is the value of accountability and justice; another value is the value of promoting and respecting democracies. These are both important values. This is the reason why this is such a complex issue. We have not taken a position in favor of one position or another. We have explained our concern about these values being achieved.

With respect to what will happen in Chile, in a hypothetical case, I can't answer it. What I can point to is the increasing indications that there are those in Chile who would like to see accountability in Chile. That is all we know at this point. There are no guarantees in that regard.

Secondly, with respect to the documents, we have indicated that we will review documents to determine whether they should be released, and we have not said what that review will entail. The details for implementing this are still being worked out. It is a substantial undertaking that will require a comprehensive and thorough review of a large number of documents. We don't know how long this process will take. We will try to complete it as quickly as possible. But what we want to make clear is that this is a review as to whether documents can be released consistent with these stipulations I stated yesterday.

QUESTION: You raise a lot of questions there. So now you're saying that there's no -

MR. RUBIN: No, I'm not saying anything new; I'm just clarifying misunderstandings that may have come across.

QUESTION: So there is no commitment to release documents?

MR. RUBIN: There's a commitment to review relevant documents to see -- which may shed light on abuses. That is a significant undertaking. It is all I said yesterday, and perhaps some misinterpreted it.

QUESTION: Human rights advocates, obviously, are concerned that this will take forever. I understand that you say you'll do it as quickly as possible, but there's no way to put any time frame on that?

MR. RUBIN: No.

QUESTION: Also, some critics are saying that there is a double standard here -- that the United States has one standard for its friends and one standard for its enemies.

MR. RUBIN: That is utter nonsense, and people who say that usually have their own reasons for saying it. We judge each case on the merits. If you look down the list of countries and you look down the list of complicated legal issues, they all have their own exigencies and own complications. In the minds of some, everything is black and white. In the minds of some, foreign policy is a simple matter of plugging in the facts and coming up with a pre-ordained answer. In the minds of this Administration -- and I hope future and past Administrations -- we try to weigh the considerations that are affected by each case, weigh each case on the merits and we don't have a knee-jerk response as some do.

QUESTION: Well, your remarks and the Secretary's remarks on Pinochet are being read by a lot of Chileans as endorsing his return to Chile.

MR. RUBIN: I think in response to your first question, I tried to deal with that. I think people should not read more into our remarks than what we say.

Again, there are two relevant values. One is the important value of accountability and justice in cases like Pinochet, where we have condemned in the strongest possible terms the abuses that have occurred during his reign. On the other hand, there's another value which is also important to the United States -- and one would hope important to all the commentators who have an opinion on this -- and that is the value of a country's transition to democracy. There are many countries that have transitioned to democracy, many of which have had human rights abuses far worse than Chile, and ways have been found to deal with it.

There are many different situations. Each situation is different and all I am trying to communicate is that we are weighing these two values. We don't want to interfere in the legal process that is going on. Others may draw conclusions from that, but they wouldn't be justified in doing so.

QUESTION: When you say you "weigh," you're suggesting that the two are in conflict. And the point is that US policy for the longest time was that the two work together beautifully -- that accountability for human rights violations enhances progress toward democracy. This would be like saying Germany is trying to dig out from World War II so let's not try German war criminals.

MR. RUBIN: I don't think that analogy is even close.

QUESTION: I know (inaudible) but Chile isn't the first country that's tried to turn the corner to democracy.

MR. RUBIN: Right. El Salvador, South Africa, Bosnia -- many different ways have been chosen.

QUESTION: Right. But it is often - and I thought almost uniformly -- the US position that to make human rights violators accountable complements the turn to democracy.

MR. RUBIN: Absolutely.

QUESTION: But the way the State Department's been talking about a balancing act, it sounds like, if you come down one side it's going to hurt the other process.

MR. RUBIN: No, that's not what I said.

QUESTION: That's what's troubling.

MR. RUBIN: I've been very clear. We're not saying that these two values are necessarily in conflict. We are saying these are the two values- accountability and justice - that are extremely important to the United States on the one hand; on the other hand, respect for a country that has become a democracy -- extremely important to the United States. That's why for some this is a very simple knee-jerk issue because they choose one or the other. For us, they are both important and in the meantime there is a legal case and a legal process going on that we don't want to interfere with.

But in explaining our views on this case generally, by explaining that we have two important values here, we are not saying they are in conflict and we are not saying we prefer one value over another.

QUESTION: Jamie, who's doing the review?

MR. RUBIN: The inter-agency - there are multiple agencies that will be involved in this.

QUESTION: What do you say to those who say that it's even more than just the United States treating its friends one way and its enemies another, but the fact that the United States is concerned that amongst those unclassified documents are papers which point the finger at not only US complicity, but quite frankly would get former US officials -- not only cause them embarrassment but essentially would implicate them as well?

MR. RUBIN: I think that this Administration, both under Secretary Albright's tenure and the previous tenure, has shown great openness to provide unclassified -- or declassify documents in a variety of cases in an unprecedently open way, and that is one of the factors that we will weigh. Other factors are law enforcement factors and national security factors. People who say that are again jerking their knee before the outcome has been decided.

We have said we will review these documents; and we have said there are a lot of documents. Before someone jumps to a conclusion about documents they could not know about, because they are classified, they should wait and allow the process to unfold.

QUESTION: Was there any conflict within this building, for instance, whether you talk to people who are in human rights or in legal, or is everyone of like mind?

MR. RUBIN: No, but that doesn't mean-it's not breaking down in the lines you would think. It's not a simple question of the regional bureaus being concerned about the relations with the relevant countries and the human rights bureau being concerned about another aspect of things.

Frankly, this issue, given that it is Europe, given that is Latin America, given that its human rights and given that is democracy, has caused a lot of different bureaus across the State Department to weigh in one form or another. The legal adviser's office - I've sat in on some of these discussions and although it might be real simple for some of those on the outside, I've been quite impressed with the complications that this kind of issue causes.

QUESTION: You've made much of the fact that Chile's a democracy, and you think that that needs to be respected. But in fact, Pinochet is granted amnesty in Chile under a law that the military dictatorship that he ran basically forced on its people. So it's not like in South Africa, where the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was the product of a consensus of society. This -

MR. RUBIN: Again, you're trying to take one standard and apply it to every country. There is no one standard. Each country's circumstances are different. One of the standards that we do accept is democracy; that is an elected government. Then the rule of law comes into play; respect for human rights come into play. It's simply a fact that Chile is a democracy, and we believe that respect ought to be given to democratic states as they wrestle with these kinds of problems.

We didn't say that that respect overshadows any other value, but simply pointed out that that ought to be respected, as I think many people understand. Some don't, but some do.

QUESTION: But Italy is a democracy, and why did you sort of very publicly recommend that Italy extradite Ocalan?

MR. RUBIN: Again, you're trying to compare apples and oranges. And I know it's a - how should I say it -- a temptation that seems unavoidable to you and others. But we're in the apples and apples business and the oranges and oranges business. Those are not the same cases. We're talking about an ongoing terrorist operation, where the PKK is a terrorist organization, as defined by our laws, for killing innocent women and children.

In the case of Pinochet, we're talking about things that happened some time ago and how one can have accountability for the actions that took place during his regime. Those are very different exigencies.

QUESTION: Well, Jamie, virtually all of the abuses occurred between 1973 and 1978 in Chile. And some would say it's a leap to suggest that, finally, after 20 years, there would be some accountability. The accountability would have occurred much sooner, it would seem to me, if any were to take place at all. Now, what is your response to skeptics who suggest that nothing is going to happen in Chile?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I mean, we're aware of the history of Chile. As I indicated, we are encouraged by signs of a desire in Chile to have accountability, but we can't know that answer at this time. But the point you made is one we understand quite well.

QUESTION: Could I try on another matter?

MR. RUBIN: That would give me great pleasure.

(Laughter).

QUESTION: Can you discuss your national security concerns of this case? Is it setting a precedent for extradition requests for American officials? Where are you now?

MR. RUBIN: The national security concerns that I have discussed relate to the declassification of documents, not anything else. To the extent that we will take national security concerns into account with respect to the documents, it will be the traditional concerns about secrecy and peoples' names that are used or whatever particular questions that we normally don't discuss in public. That's the national security concern.

Beyond that, there is new law being made in the world, and we are always very cognizant of that law. When the international criminal court came forward, we had very deep concerns about that. I think we expressed them quite clearly, and those remain a matter of concern. But one doesn't necessarily reflect on the other.

Our basic view is that this is an issue for the Spanish courts and the British legal system. They are dealing with it; they are wrestling with it. We commented because it had become such a matter of international and public interest for obvious reasons. So we explained, very carefully formulated our view of these two values. With respect to the documents, there are other national security concerns that come into play.

QUESTION: Did you, after discussing this issue here yesterday, get some flack from officials here or in other agencies saying, don't be implying that we're going to declassify documents?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I get flack after every one of my briefings. (Laughter). I wouldn't be in a position to describe to you the specific flack I get on any specific issue on any given day, because that would involve internal government deliberations. But let me assure you that nary a day passes where somebody in the government isn't concerned about something I said.

QUESTION: I ask this as an innocent bystander seeking clarification, because there does seem to be a shift in emphasis today away from declassification.

MR. RUBIN: Yes, that's a fair point. I think that is more a reflection of reading the accounts of what I said yesterday than it is flack from other agencies who would be very hard pressed to give me flack, I'm sure.

QUESTION: You said at the beginning you received some letters of concern about the Secretary -

MR. RUBIN: The human rights -- Amnesty International is one.

QUESTION: Can we try another subject? There are reports, perhaps you've seen -- maybe it's the Pentagon's place to respond - but Iran saying a US plane intercepted an Iranian aircraft. This was at the United Nations.

MR. RUBIN: We're aware of the Iranian complaint. The Persian Gulf is a very small region in which the air forces of several nations operate routinely. Their governments do not always interpret the international understandings concerning international waters and air space in the same way. That is a general view that we've held on this type of an issue. But with respect to the specifics of the incident, it would be the Department of Defense that would be in a position to provide details.

QUESTION: On another one?

QUESTION: On the topic of US military basing in Panama -- especially the joint drug interdictory activities - it's been reported today that in six months from yesterday the Panamanians will close Howard Air Base, at least the US will be out of there. And also in Steven Lee Myers' article, Jamie, it says that the reason is that the Panamanians and the US couldn't make a deal on base usage - and I believe that they also wanted money for it -- but the US won't be able to use that base for anything. Is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: My understanding is we were unable to conclude an agreement to establish the MCC -- the Multinational Counter-Narcotics Center -- at Howard Air Force Base after the departure of US forces.

With respect to building new bases in Latin America or to replace the bases in Panama, which was part of the account, we are not planning to do so. When we announced the end of the MCC talks, we said we were examining other options to maintain our ability to interdict the trafficking in illegal narcotics throughout the region. These options would mostly involved access agreements to existing civilian or host country military airports. We have no plans to build any military bases in the region.

With respect to why the MCC negotiations failed, I think we spoke to that at the time -- we just couldn't get the arrangements that we wanted.

QUESTION: Are there other options, other than Panama, that you can talk about? And secondly, is the Panamanian negotiation dead?

MR. RUBIN: I believe it would be fair to conclude that negotiation is no longer living. With respect to the end of those talks, we are examining other options to maintain our ability to interdict the traffic in illegal narcotics through the region; but I'm not in a position to describe any specific options to you.

QUESTION: Jamie, in another area, it's like a 10 or 11-day gap between Arafat's visit and the President's trip. Are you aware of any - the President spoke of any bumps in the road, or some people think they're more than bumps. Is there a State Department road-clearing crew going out there, or any effort going to be made on site to sort get over some of these problems or ease them before the President gets there?

MR. RUBIN: Secretary Albright had a lengthy set of discussions with Chairman Arafat after the Chairman met with President Clinton. Our people have been in close with the Palestinians about this. My understanding is that Chairman Arafat has created a committee to deal with all aspects of the visit and all that goes with that visit, and we're obviously working closely with him.

With respect to any advance visits or advance trips of American officials, I don't have any itineraries to offer you, but surely we will be in close touch with them. But with respect to a particular special envoy's visit or the Secretary, I don't have anything for you.

QUESTION: Even without an itinerary, you can't say whether someone is going?

MR. RUBIN: I am sure someone will be there.

QUESTION: So we don't have to ask every day.

MR. RUBIN: As soon as anyone from the State Department is involved in advanced discussions with the Palestinians on any nuances or details of that trip, I will try to get that to you. I would expect the White House would have its own process for advancing a presidential trip.

QUESTION: While we're at it, because this keeps coming up - and maybe I should know - but when is this anti-incitement operation supposed to begin?

MR. RUBIN: It has; they've met.

QUESTION: It has? Somebody is monitoring --

MR. RUBIN: Yes, the committee has met, yes, with one of our former spokesmen as a member of that committee.

QUESTION: Can you give us an update on Iraq? I understand that Albright and Berger and Cohen and Shelton are going up to the Hill this afternoon to brief members of the Senate on the situation.

MR. RUBIN: Yes, and let me explain, sometimes that creates a little more excitement than is merited. Last week the House of Representatives had a briefing by a lower-level group of officials on our Iraq policy and the most recent episode and the way in which Saddam Hussein reversed course and has now allowed the inspectors back in hopefully to do their work in full.

That also entailed discussion of what the President had said about working with the Iraqi opposition -- much of which we have talked to you about since then. The Senate is now back in town and a higher level group of officials will be meeting with a fairly large contingent of senators. Secretary Albright will be there; I believe Secretary Cohen will be there and Mr. Berger. They will be consulting, as part of a regular process, with the Hill on our Iraq policy and what we think is very important is to make sure that on a regular basis on a policy of this importance that the Senators not only get a chance to ask questions but also get a chance to express their views as to this issue.

QUESTION: Have you appointed a coordinator yet?

MR. RUBIN: I have no new information for you on that.

QUESTION: Have you noticed that the Cubans are allowing Christmas to make a big comeback?

MR. RUBIN: I did notice that that grinch named Castro who stole Christmas so many years ago has finally returned Christmas to the people of Cuba, and for that one can only be thankful. Let me add that the extent to which the Cuban Government permits the church to operate is something that I think everyone sees the importance of. We are confident that the Cubans, who are a predominantly Christian nation, never lost the spirit of Christmas. Unfortunately, it took this grinch named Mr. Castro nearly 30 years to recognize that and to give back what he tried to take away permanently.

We hope that Castro will honor this religious holiday and give the Cuban people the gifts they all deserve: democracy, respect for human rights, and economic freedom.

QUESTION: And since the Pope was in Cuba, have the religious rights been maintained by the Castro regime in the eyes of the US?

MR. RUBIN: I think it's up to the church to talk more about what they have been able to do and not been able to do; but I think it would be hardly fair to call Cuba a country that provides full religious liberty.

QUESTION: There have been several of these small gestures in recent months. You don't see any pattern of liberalization in Cuba? You don't see Castro inching away from policies you all have such trouble with?

MR. RUBIN: We said at the time of the Pope's visit that we hoped that greater space would be given for the Catholic Church to operate; and to the extent that it is having greater space, that is a good thing, including the return of Christmas to the people of Cuba. But I don't think its fair, as I pointed out earlier, the number of Catholic priests that are in Cuba has not returned to the level that it was prior to Castro's rule; and there is still a distance to go for Castro to be leading a country that would be declared a haven for religious freedom.

QUESTION: You won't even acknowledge that he's taking steps in the right direction?

MR. RUBIN: I think I just did, yes.

QUESTION: Well, not exactly.

MR. RUBIN: We hoped, and to the extent that greater space would be given to the Catholic Church and to the extent that returning Christmas to the people of Cuba is giving them greater religious freedom. Certainly that's welcome; and I welcomed that.

QUESTION: That's present tense and future tense? Cuba has had much more tolerance of religion - and by the way, it isn't a Christian country; it doesn't have a state religion. I know you're saying most of the people there are Christian.

MR. RUBIN: Predominantly Christian nation. That's a very carefully phrased term that I am sure the lawyers could defend.

QUESTION: As far as I know - and I haven't been there - may be people who are there can say, but I think there's been considerable improvement in tolerance. I don't know that people of various faiths don't have an opportunity to practice their faith, which isn't uniform throughout the world, you know.

MR. RUBIN: I don't understand the question.

QUESTION: The point is, as Sid said, we're trying to ask whether the State Department will acknowledge - I know how you all feel about Castro, he's very special to you all - but whether you will acknowledge that there has been some marked improvement in religious freedom in Cuba over the last several years, prior to this Christmas business?

MR. RUBIN: Well, let me say that at the time of the Pope's visit, we welcomed that, and we said that we were pleased that the people of Cuba were going to have an opportunity to pursue their religion through the visit of the Pope. We said - and since have said - that they are still not at a point where we would be considering them a haven for religious freedom.

Having now stolen Christmas from the people of Cuba for 30 years, it has now been returned. We welcome the return of Christmas to the people of Cuba -- the Christmas that was stolen from them for 30 years.

QUESTION: I apologize; I'd like to return to Pinochet if possible, and I apologize again if I'm asking you to elaborate on something in which you feel you've already addressed it. But if you could please, Jamie -

MR. RUBIN: Having said that -

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Could you - are you acknowledging the fact that from yesterday until today, you have now shifted emphasis back from what might have been interpreted as giving people hope that documents -- that the release of classified documents might happen sometime soon?

MR. RUBIN: No. What I'm doing is pointing out that yesterday from this podium - I think you were here, if you weren't I'm sure you can check the transcript - I said that we were going to review documents - relevant documents pertaining to -- that may shed light on human rights abuses. Today, I am saying that we are going to review documents - relevant documents - that may pertain to human rights abuses. In the middle, a lot of commentators said a lot of things.

So what I am saying is the same thing -- is that to review them doesn't a priori declare the extent or the nature of any release of documents. All I've said yesterday was we were going to review the documents. Today, I am saying we're going to review the documents. In between, a lot of people said a lot of things, so I felt the need to repeat the word "review" so that people wouldn't misinterpret what decisions have been made.

QUESTION: Okay, and just following up -- the matter of extraditing Pinochet, if I could ask you to please state the US position as to whether or not, he - the US has any feeling as to whether or not he should be extradited out to either Spain or - I guess it would just be Spain?

MR. RUBIN: The question of the extradition of Pinochet is a matter for the courts to rule on in Europe. The Home Secretary is now weighing this question after the law lords made their decisions in Great Britain.

We are not taking a position on what the Home Secretary should decide. We do have a view on the values at stake in this question. We have a very strong support and great respect for the values of accountability and justice in cases like Pinochet, where there have been grave human rights abuses.

We also have a view about the value that should be given respect of a democratic country - in this case, Chile - going through its democratic transition. Those values, we think, are relevant; we think everyone should take them into account. But we have no view as to the merits of the case.

QUESTION: Has the United States ever expressed any kind of regret over supporting Pinochet?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I will have to check the records of the State Department and provide a lot of work for our historian in answering your question, but we will be happy to do so.

QUESTION: Yes, there was one official who expressed regret in the early Carter Administration and was reprimanded.

MR. RUBIN: Well, you've been given a preview of the answer of that, but we will check the record.

QUESTION: Still on Pinochet.

MR. RUBIN: This is called Torture the Spokesman Day.

QUESTION: I hate to nit-pick, Jamie, but perhaps -

MR. RUBIN: No you don't.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Perhaps what you're characterizing as a misinterpretation - and I just looked back at your words here - you said, we will declassify and make public as much information as possible. We asked you, why? And you said the reason and motivations is because of public interest in this case. Wouldn't you agree that gives maybe a wrong impression but the distinct impression that -

MR. RUBIN: Yes, but being the good reporter that you are Mr. Balman from United Press International, I think you understand the importance of context. When you review your notes, you will see that the lead-off to this whole discussion was a statement by the spokesman, read on behalf of the government, talking about a review - a review of these documents. That is what we are doing, reviewing it.

In the course of responding to a whole series of inquiries that you had, for which I had little answers, you and all of your colleagues asked a number of questions about that, and I was explaining hypothetically what the reasons would be if they were to be released. I was not saying that documents would be released, and I would urge you to take a look at what the lead-in to the whole exchange was, which is the United States will review these documents. That's what I was talking about. Then you asked me: How will you decide whether which will be released, how quickly will it be, how will you make the decisions, who will do the reviews? I was speculating with you about a review, not an a priori decision to release them.

That may happen, but we need to be very clear about what we are committing ourselves to do because we fully expect you all to question us repeatedly over the coming weeks and months about the status of this review. If you go into it assuming that 10,000 documents are going to be released, as some have already speculated, that would be incorrect.

QUESTION: What does "make public" mean?

MR. RUBIN: Declassify.

QUESTION: Well, you could declassify it and not make it public.

MR. RUBIN: Well, I'm not sure - well, with respect to your question, declassify means -- we've done document releases before. There are those who might have interest in it, and we've released them. I mean, you've received declassified -

QUESTION: Then make public means release.

MR. RUBIN: Right, if that happens. It's a review to see whether, consistent with national security and law enforcement requirements, which is what I said yesterday, that relevant documents pertaining to human rights abuses would be released. That is what we're doing -- reviewing as to whether documents can be released. We're not reviewing in advance, telling you that all of these documents are going to be released because that would be impossible. What we've committed to do is to spend an enormous amount of government time and effort to review these documents with a decision as to how each document will be decided to become during the review.

QUESTION: But it's a security issue -

MR. RUBIN: Law enforcement and national security.

QUESTION: And it's not whether the Administration - excuse me - whether previous Administrations pursued wrong-headed policies that would help determine whether the public gets to know what the US position on Pinochet has been.

MR. RUBIN: Look -

QUESTION: No, I'd like you to say it as a statement. Is the only criteria -

MR. RUBIN: The criteria is national security and law enforcement, the same criteria I spelled out yesterday.

QUESTION: Is there a possibility, at the end of all of this, nothing will be released -- none of these documents will be released?

MR. RUBIN: You always ask me hypothetical questions about what can happen in the future. I don't know the answer to that question. The review was just decided upon yesterday. I communicated that to you, and I hope that you understand that we haven't made decisions on each of the documents because it's going to be a lengthy enterprise. It will require significant work, significant resources of the US Government. It needs to be done carefully, and it's being done in the interests of public interest of this case. But no a priori decision was made. I said we would review it yesterday. I'm saying we'll review it today.

QUESTION: But it's entirely possible that after the review nothing would be released?

MR. RUBIN: You can draw your own conclusions as to what a review will entail about documents that have not even been assembled yet. All I can tell you is that we're going to review it; that we made a decision - an affirmative decision - to spend government time, government effort, the work of important figures in the Administration, lawyers, et cetera, to review the documents. And consistent with law enforcement and national security, our goal is to be able to assist the public interest in this case.

QUESTION: So, it's not possible that nothing would be released?

MR. RUBIN: I mean, you can continue to quibble with me, but you're not going to get anywhere. There's no more room for discussion of this. I mean, I'm happy to entertain the questions, but I will just repeat myself. I think we've spent 45 minutes on this subject, and it's not merited by the other people in the room who have other questions, and let's turn to them.

QUESTION: Venezuela, the elections on Sunday, it looks very much like the man that the US denied a visa to -

MR. RUBIN: But I would be happy to come back to the subject after others have had their chance to ask questions. Please continue.

QUESTION: -- Colonel Chavez will be elected, perhaps, by a landslide. He has reiterated that he would be protective about foreign investment, foreign citizens. He's met lengthily with the US Ambassador. Is there any change of attitude on the part of the State Department, the US Government?

MR. RUBIN: It's up to the people of Venezuela to elect their next president. Our interest is that the process be fair and transparent. We have close and warm ties with Venezuela, and we expect that relationship to continue. We also expect the new Venezuelan leadership to continue Venezuela's democratic and constitutional traditions.

QUESTION: You will recognize his government if he's elected?

MR. RUBIN: Absolutely. We believe that they are - it is up to the people of Venezuela to elect their next President, not the United States.

QUESTION: Will he be able to get a visa?

MR. RUBIN: Well, it's a hypothetical question at this point. It is true that in 1997, Mr. Chavez applied for and was denied a tourist visa because of his leadership of the February 1992 coup attempt. That is the past, and the future we'll deal with at that time. But again, following the last subject, we could speculate endlessly on what day he would ask for his visa, what particular grounds would be used to address the question, and whether we know in advance what the answer to that question would be -- but maybe we won't.

QUESTION: Jamie, in China, just in the last couple of days, a large number of dissidents have released a letter calling on the government to release Wang Youcai, Qin Yongmin, and Xu Wenli. I was wondering whether you have a statement on that situation, and then I have a couple of follow-up questions to that.

MR. RUBIN: We understand that on November 30, Public Security Bureau officials formally detained Xu Wenli and Qin Yongmin. We also have hear a report that Hangzhou dissident Wang Youcai was arrested on November 30th for violating the terms of his house arrest. Officials searched Xu's apartment and removed - as I said yesterday - a computer, fax machine and documents relating to the "China Democratic Party."

The three have all been centrally involved in recent efforts by political activists in China to register a political party. We view these detentions for peacefully exercising fundamental freedoms guaranteed by international human rights instruments as a serious step in the wrong direction.

Yesterday we conveyed our strong views to officials in the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing and urged Chinese authorities to release Xu immediately. We also specifically asked for information on the charges against Xu. We were unaware of the other two's detention at the time we raised Xu's case.

Today, we received confirmation from Chinese authorities that Xu is being detained on suspicion of "having conducted activities damaging to China's national security." We do not have information from Chinese authorities about Qin or Wang, both of whom were reportedly also arrested on November 30. According to press reports, Qin was told by authorities that he was being detained for plotting to overthrow state power. Wang, according to reports, was detained for violating the terms of his house arrest.

We are deeply disturbed by the recent number of detentions of dissidents that demonstrate sharp limits on freedom of expression and association still exist and that opposition to the Communist Party will not be tolerated. The detentions of prominent political activists on November 30 are particularly troubling to us. We have communicated our views to the Chinese authorities, underscoring the importance that the international community places on freedoms of association, expression and assembly. We will continue to do so both in Washington and Beijing. We will be urging Chinese authorities to release the three, as well as others held for the peaceful expression of their political views.

QUESTION: When the US asked for release, if you happen to know, did they also add that the US wouldn't look favorably on forcing someone to leave his homeland as a condition of release?

MR. RUBIN: I think at a minimum, one starts by trying to get them released, and I will check what each demarche - actually, I won't be able to check on what each demarche on every dissident in China says. I know that our position is to urge to get them released. Whatever arrangements are often made, as in past cases, depend on the circumstances of the case. But we don't advocate them being asked to leave their homeland. That would be ridiculous.

QUESTION: No, no, I say, that's the way - China's trying to obviously destroy and hasn't succeeded, the human rights movement.

MR. RUBIN: We want them released; we want them to be able to conduct the rights envisaged by international human rights instruments.

QUESTION: Do you want to link the Perry visit in any way to this? It's a pretty high-powered group, a lot of State Department people. Will they talk exclusively about North Korea? Might they mention to the Chinese something about the human rights --

MR. RUBIN: I think Ambassador Sasser is a high-level American official. I am confident that he will be addressing this at a high level with the Chinese authorities. Dr. Perry's visit is focused on North Korea.

QUESTION: How significant do you think the arrest is today by NATO troops of the Serbian general? Is he a biggie?

MR. RUBIN: Well, it's up to the international tribunal to describe in detail what his indictment was for. We have indicated that he has been charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the laws and customs of war.

With respect to the exact charges, it's really up to the tribunal. We try to leave them a great deal of latitude in addressing questions like this for them to describe how he fits in the pantheon of evil that they have indicted for war crimes in Bosnia.

QUESTION: This is a man who is suspected of being involved in the massacres at Srbenica.

MR. RUBIN: Right. For now, we would prefer to let the international tribunal on former Yugoslavia describe in detail what the sealed indictment was based on and for. It's their sealed indictment and so therefore we'd prefer to have them do so.

We have no doubt that this person was involved in some horrendous crimes, or he wouldn't have been under a sealed indictment. But the exact quantity and quality of those crimes should first be described by the international tribunal.

QUESTION: Can you say you're pleased at his --

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I have a statement that would - if that's all you want me to say, I'd be happy to say that.

We are pleased that SFOR forces detained a Bosnian Serb military officer who has been charged by the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. He is being flown to The Hague and will be taken into custody. This action was taken in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions and the general framework for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

This was not an action against the Serb people of Bosnia or the Republika Srpska Army; it was an action to bring to justice - and we are very pleased that this person is being brought to justice under the rule of law - those indicted for war crimes. We believe the person detained will receive fair treatment under the statute and rules of procedure and evidence in The Hague.

All persons indicted for war crimes, including Rodovan Karadzic and General Ratko Mladic, belong in The Hague in the custody of the international tribunal.

QUESTION: Jamie, since your government does not recognize the Greek- Turkish borders in the Aegean as a contested area, as I was told specifically by White House and State Department officials, I'm asking, do you recognize the land borders between Greece and Turkey (inaudible) --

MR. RUBIN: That is at a level of obscurity that boggles my mind and I will only offer to get you a question answered for the record.

QUESTION: Do you know when Ambassadors Richard Holbrooke and Tom Miller will be visiting Ankara and Athens?

MR. RUBIN: I will get you someone to respond to your questions on their whereabouts and future plans.

QUESTION: Can you comment on these reports that the United States is now actively considering selling destroyers to Taiwan?

MR. RUBIN: Yes and no. With respect to this report, we have heard about these reports. The Administration remains firmly committed to fulfilling the security and arms transfer provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act.

We will continue to assist Taiwan in meeting its legitimate defense needs in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act and the 1982 joint communique with the PRC. Consistent with our obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act, we regularly consult with Taiwan on its defense requirements. It would be premature to comment further about AEGIS or any other specific systems at this time. The Taiwan authorities are currently addressing their own capabilities and needs.

QUESTION: On Taiwan, the Taiwanese, I think it was about two weeks ago, Jamie, said that they would be very interested in looking into a regional missile defense system with reference to what the Congress had mandated, et cetera. After that, the Chinese just growled, the PRC just growled. What's the US reaction?

MR. RUBIN: It's not a growl.

QUESTION: It's not a growl?

MR. RUBIN: We, under the Taiwan Relations Act and relevant laws, consult with Taiwan broadly about its defense needs. I can give you some specific answers to the missile defense question after the briefing.

QUESTION: There was something, I believe, in today's paper about a letter that had been written by a key suspect in the East Africa bombings. In that letter there was information about two suspects - one who's being held in Germany. We're wondering whether or not you know about his status and negotiations over his status and when we might see him flown to New York. And there is another suspect in London -- the United States is said to have asked Britain for his extradition. Is there anything that you can share with us about this?

MR. RUBIN: No this would be a matter for the Justice Department.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:45 P.M.)

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article