U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #38, 99-03-26
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
811
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Friday, March 26, 1999
Briefer: James P. Rubin
SERBIA (KOSOVO)
1-3 US Condemns Latest Instances of Serbian Repression
3 Refugees Flee Fighting in Kosovo/US Assistance to Refugees
5-6 NATO Countries Support of NATO Action in
Kosovo/Greece/Italy
6-7,9 Secretary Albright's Remarks to the Serbian People/Purpose
10 Senator Helm's on Supporting Opposition Groups to Overthrow
Milosevic
8 Secretary Albright's Contacts with Foreign Ministers
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
3-4 Update on Situation in Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia
BOSNIA
4,9-10 Reports of Serb MiG-29s Shot Down over Bosnia
10 Reports Pilots Captured
RUSSIA
4 Demonstrations in Front of US Embassy in Moscow
4 Russian Opposition to NATO Action in Kosovo
5 Secretary Albright's Conversation with Russian Foreign
Minister Ivanov
5 US-Russian Relations/Discussions on Range of Issues
5 UN Security Council Vote on Russian Resolution on Kosovo
7-8 Canceled Visit by Prime Minister Primakov to
US/Timing/Decision
GREECE/TURKEY
8 Concern Serbian Aggression in Kosovo Could Increase Tension
in the Wider Region
8 Secretary Albright's Conversation with Greek Foreign
Minister
UKRAINE
8-9 Foreign Minister's Travel to Belgrade
CHINA
10-11-12 US to Sponsor China Resolution at UN Commission on Human
Rights
11-12 White House Announces Visit of Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji
12 Secretary Albright's Conversation with Chinese Foreign
Minister
NORTH KOREA
12 Next Round of Missile Talks, March 29-30, in Pyongyang
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
12-13 European Union Statement on Peace Process
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #38
FRIDAY, MARCH 26, 1999, 1:45 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Greetings and welcome to the State Department briefing. Let me
start on the subject of Kosovo. The United States is extremely alarmed by
reports of an escalating pattern of Serbian attacks on Kosovar Albanian
civilians. For example, we have received reports that yesterday Serbian
forces executed 20 ethnic Albanians in the village of Goden. Also yesterday,
Serbian security forces reportedly attacked civilians in the Podujevo area,
and there are ominous indications that men of fighting age were separated
from their families.
The United States Government wants to send a clear message to those
responsible for the actions of the Yugoslav army and the Ministry of
Internal Affairs that the United States is using national technical means
to watch unfolding events in Kosovo. We will continue to work with the
prosecutor of the International Tribunal to assist her efforts to prosecute
anyone responsible for ordering and carrying out war crimes, crimes against
humanity or genocide in Kosovo.
The United States also reminds those responsible for the actions of the
Yugoslav Army and the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Kosovo that attacks
directed against the civilian population, the summary execution of detained
persons and wanton destruction or devastation not justified by military
necessity are war crimes under international law. War crimes, along with
genocide and crimes against humanity, that may be committed in Kosovo are
within the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia. Such crimes have no statute of limitations.
Commanding officers and political leaders can be held responsible for the
actions of their subordinates. This is spelled out in the statute of the
Tribunal adopted by the United Nations Security Council in May 1993.
QUESTION: Would the Administration consider holding Mr. Milosevic
responsible for the atrocities committed in the last Balkans war?
MR. RUBIN: As far as the Bosnia war is concerned, Barry, you've asked
this question before. The answer remains the same; and that is that it's up
to the Tribunal to follow the evidence where it leads. We would support
whatever decisions the Tribunal makes in that regard.
QUESTION: Joe Lockhart today was unable -- either by lack of knowledge or
lack of sure knowledge or whatever -- to specify any of the reported
atrocities. There's all sort of horror stories coming out, like teachers
having their throats slit in front of their students. I know the Secretary
herself used that phrase yesterday. I thought maybe some information has
come to the State Department.
MR. RUBIN: There are increasing reports of atrocities against Albanian
civilians in Kosovo. As I indicated, we are extremely alarmed by these
reports, and we are putting a great deal of resources and effort into
checking these out as quickly as we can and as thoroughly as we can. Any
and all evidence of atrocities will be turned over to the International
Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia.
We do know the Serbian authorities moved to close down Koha Ditore, the
largest Albanian language newspaper. A security guard at the newspaper was
shot and killed. Journalists were reportedly detained, and the newspaper's
publisher has gone into hiding. We condemn this in the strongest possible
terms - this latest assault on the independent media in Kosovo.
QUESTION: Are there any reports suggesting the Albanians, like the KLA,
perhaps, are also committing atrocities in this heated environment?
MR. RUBIN: We don't have any such reports.
QUESTION: You made a strong point about how the United States is using
national technical means to keep an eye on this. Is the United States in a
position to perhaps provide the public with some visuals that could
underscore your concern and your evidence?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say, the purpose of this statement is very simple: that
the people responsible for these kinds of atrocities, if, indeed, they are
going on, need to understand that our resources will be made available to
the Tribunal for prosecution. It may not mean that we are in a position to
provide that information immediately, but because there is no statute of
limitations on war crimes or crimes against humanity or genocide, and given
the resources of our national technical means, what these people need
to know is that we are going to use our resources. We're going to make them
available, and they may prove significant in any prosecution that might
result.
QUESTION: Is there anything the United States or NATO is prepared to do
to stop it, other than just watch it on spy satellites?
MR. RUBIN: I would categorically reject the premise of your question.
Right now, the United States Government and its NATO allies are engaged in
military operations directed at those Serbian forces that are conducting
these kind of operations. That is doing a lot more than standing by and
offering information.
QUESTION: All indications are that there have been no attacks on the
tanks or forces in Kosovo; that all the attacks are still directed at large,
hard targets, air defenses and so forth. Why aren't you going after the
Serb forces in Kosovo?
MR. RUBIN: Your indications are incorrect.
QUESTION: From your knowledge of Yugoslavia and the way the system works,
do you think that these attacks - if, in fact, they're being carried out -
could be done without the knowledge and direct support of Milosevic?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to speculate on the chain of command. Clearly,
the decision to conduct an offensive in Kosovo is one that is taken from
the top. We have no question about that. With respect to any particular
atrocity or any particular crackdown or any particular arrest, I'm not in a
position to speculate.
QUESTION: Jamie, does the State Department have any current figures on
the numbers of refugees which have been leaving Kosovo - where they're
going? And how concerned are you that these large numbers of refugees will
potentially destabilize neighboring countries?
MR. RUBIN: We are concerned. Let me say, according to the High Commissioner
for Refugees, people continue to flee the fighting in Kosovo. There are no
reports of large movements. The Macedonian border remains open, and an
estimated 16,000 to 20,000 Kosovo refugees are now in Macedonia. The vast
majority of these entered since the escalation of the Serbian offensive
against the Kosovar population.
UNHCR reports that approximately 400 refugees have crossed the border into
Albania via unauthorized border crossings as of last night. In other areas
in the region, UNHCR reports that approximately 1,300 have crossed into
Bulgaria and Turkey. Some draft-age Serbs may have crossed into Bosnia. As
of today, UNHCR reports total number of displaced as follows: within Kosovo,
260,000; Montenegro, 25,000; Serbia, 30,000; Albania, 19,000; Macedonia, 16,
000 to 20,000; Bosnia, 12,000.
The State Department, working with AID and the Office of Foreign Disaster
Assistance, continue to redirect relief supplies and support staff to the
region to support the influx of new Kosovar refugees. For example, the
International Medical Corps redirected funds to preposition five mobile
health clinics in Macedonia and six mobile clinics in Albania. UNCHR and
NGOs are also currently expanding their operations in Macedonia, Albania
and other countries in the region.
In Kosovo, our reports are that while local NGOs, such as the Mother
Theresa Society, have attempted to make some deliveries of aid to displaced
persons. The vast majority of aid distribution has been shut down as a
result of the Serbian military and police to action. So that is the
humanitarian situation.
QUESTION: Could you address the second part of the question about the US
Government's concern about the destabilization of around from Yugoslavia's -
MR. RUBIN: Well, I know yesterday this issue came up in the context of
the disturbance at the US Embassy in Macedonia. I think that situation has
stabilized. We have authorized departure for American personnel; that is a
voluntary departure. It is our judgment that that is the appropriate
response. The safety and welfare of all Americans in Macedonia is of
paramount interest to us.
I think that was a demonstration by a predominantly ethnic Serb crowd that
got out of hand. We believe that Ambassador Hill has reported today the
situation has quieted down substantially there as of now.
QUESTION: Can you tell us what you know about the shooting down of the
Migs in Bosnia --where they might have been headed and what they might have
been armed with?
QUESTION: Can we continue on demonstrations? Can you give us a rundown
about other places, other embassies where there have been demonstrations?
To what extent any fences or outer walls --
MR. RUBIN: I know there was a demonstration in front of the Moscow
Embassy today, but it was peaceful. I'm not aware of any other particular
demonstrations.
As far as your question is concerned, my information is that two Serb Mig-
29s were shot down over Bosnia. It was an act of desperation to move
against SFOR in Bosnia according to the information from the Pentagon that
I have, and the planes were shot down.
QUESTION: How were they shot down? Was it a shoulder fired or -
MR. RUBIN: They were shot down by aircraft. That's all I know.
QUESTION: Jamie, does this have any implications for the Dayton peace
accords?
MR. RUBIN: No, I think the fact that they were unable, even through this
act of desperation, to interfere with the SFOR operations is a sign that
the Bosnia peace process continues, although tensions are obviously
higher.
QUESTION: Is the fallout from the initial days of air strikes greater or
more worrisome than you had expected? I mean, not just the refugees but the
attacks on not only the American embassies, but other embassies as well,
and particularly the extent to which Russia seems to be going to disengage
itself from the United States and the West. Apparently, there's some talk
in Moscow about Russia paying off its soviet-era debt to Yugoslavia.
They've halted, once again, consideration of START II, cooperation on Y2K,
the kicked out the NATO reps in Moscow.
MR. RUBIN: You didn't mention all the other stuff I mentioned yesterday;
let me do that. Let me say that we expected Russian opposition. They've
been very clear with us that they oppose the use of air power in Kosovo.
They did, however, recognize the value of threatening the use of force in
the hopes of convincing President Milosevic to make a peace agreement. We
don't believe you can go about threatening without being prepared to carry
it out; that is our view.
Secretary Albright had a lengthy conversation with Foreign Minister Ivanov
yesterday afternoon. I think she felt it was a good conversation; that both
she and he understood the importance of US-Russian relations. Clearly, the
Russian Government has signaled they do not want to see an isolation as the
result of their differences with us on Kosovo. Foreign Minister also made
clear they're not going to pursue transfers of arms in his press conference.
You mentioned things that aren't happening; I've mentioned a few that are,
which is that the CFE talks are continuing, the IMF officials are going to
go to Moscow to work on economic matters, the Russian officials worked with
us here on the non-proliferation mattes with respect to Iran, on the highly
enriched uranium discussions, where we signed an agreement. So clearly,
it's going to be a mixed bag. There will be some things they work with us
on.
With respect to NATO, the decision was obviously made to ask the officials
from the NATO Information Office to depart. Let's remember, those were
public information officials. Discussions continue at various levels with
the Russians. START II is something that's been on and off the agenda for a
long, long time. At the end of the day, we cannot let this disagreement
with Russia that's a difference of principle interfere with our decision
about what was the right course of events in Kosovo, what was the right
choice.
We couldn't stand by and watch the offensive that was being conducted that
was likely to escalate without taking any action simply because the
Russians didn't agree. I think that view is very clearly expressed by the
Security Council today, when 12 members of the Security Council refused to
go along with the Russian position on this. So I think most of the world
understands that the crisis in Kosovo is a serious one that justifies
action. But we and the Russians will try to move on and get beyond this
disagreement, as we pursue the greater interests we have with Russia.
QUESTION: What's going on with the Italians and the Greeks? And how is
that the Administration officials are able to say that all of NATO is one
big happy family when there's comments coming out of both those capitals
saying that they want the bombings stopped, or at least they want the
Contact Group to meet again to talk?
MR. RUBIN: First of all, "one big happy family" hasn't come out of my
mouth. But let me say this, NATO is an alliance of democracies. In a
democracy, you're going to have dissident voices; that is the nature of
democracy. People are going to speak out; they're going to have different
nuances.
What I'm saying is that in the concrete policy channels of Brussels and in
our bilateral discussions, both the Greeks and the Italians have been
supportive of continuing the course that NATO has chosen. That doesn't mean
that their officials won't express concerns. They may express them one way
or another.
What matters to us is that the unity in the North Atlantic Council that
Secretary General Solana needs to work with in order to keep the bombing
and military operation running continues, even while some officials in
Greece at some time may say certain things while others say other things. I
would note that the Defense Minister pointed out that he does support the
military operation. The Italians yesterday started off the day expressing
concern that the offensive had stopped by the Serbs and, therefore, the
bombing should stop. Well, as you can tell from the questioning we've had
today, that's clearly not the case. And I think by the end of the day the
Italians made clear they intended to fulfill their responsibilities.
So in an alliance of democracies, I would expect there to be occasional
voices where the nuance and the emphasis is on a different syllable - but
when it comes to the decisions that have to be made in the decision-making
councils, those have proceeded without any real adjustment.
QUESTION: Turning to the Kosovar Albanians, now that NATO is involved
what guarantees does the US have that at the conclusion of all of this, the
Kosovar Albanians won't change their mind and say that they'll settle for
nothing short of independence?
MR. RUBIN: Clearly, the conduct of the war by the Serb authorities makes
its harder for the Kosovar Albanians to not take the position that you have
described. On the other hand, we have worked very closely with them in
recent weeks. Secretary Albright has been in regular touch with some of the
leaders; Senator Dole has been in regular touch with them on our behalf;
and other officials are now talking to them.
I think right now they're concerned more about the offensive operations in
Kosovo than what would happen after three years if there were a peace
process. But clearly, the resentment will build with these offensive
operations.
Our view remains the same - we think the right course is the peace plan.
The Kosovar Albanians have signed the peace plan and we've received no
indication that they intend to walk away from that signature.
QUESTION: Jamie, can I ask you what was Secretary Albright's purpose, the
President's as well, in making those telecasts or whatever they are to
Serbia?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think you've received a copy of the statement that she
made, and I think the purpose speaks for itself. I think what it is is an
attempt to make clear to the people of Serbia, who don't receive a lot of
independent information, that the United States does not have any quarrel
with the people of Serbia. We have a quarrel with the policies of its
leadership.
Some of you have asked how this information got out, so let me pass that
on. These remarks were sent out live via a USIA satellite in both digital
and analog formats. A number of broadcasters in the region were informed of
the transmission, as were Serbian media outlets. Individual owners of
satellite dishes in Serbia and elsewhere were able to pull down the signal.
The Secretary's remarks were video streamed and disseminated via the
Internet to individuals and media outlets in Serbia and the region.
The message is currently being repeated on the USIA satellite, as
well as on Voice of America and Radio Free Europe broadcasts. Although we
don't have exact numbers - and we won't be able to have exact numbers - we
are confident that the message by the Secretary in Serbo-Croatian will be
reached by a significant population in Yugoslavia and the surrounding
areas.
We hope that they, who have only received the kind of propaganda coming off
Serbian television, will now understand the motivations of NATO actions in -
-
QUESTION: Is the US trying to - is the Secretary trying to incite or
encourage the people of Serbia to get rid of their leader?
MR. RUBIN: That is not what the message contains; there's no suggestion
of that.
QUESTION: Well, we read the words; and the words tell the Serbs that he,
not NATO, is responsible for the bombs falling on them.
MR. RUBIN: Right, and remember what they're hearing from him. They're
hearing from him that only the West is out to do x, y and z, and they're
receiving propaganda. We're trying to counter that propaganda.
QUESTION: Clarify something on the canceled Clinton-Primakov summit.
President Clinton on Tuesday morning stated that he was looking forward to
substantial talks with Primakov. Saying that, he obviously must have
assumed that the Russians would view it as a fait accompli if the bombings
would start. At exactly the same time between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.,
the Vice President called Primakov to effectively tell him that the air war
in the Balkans would commence most likely during Primakov's stay in
Washington, effectively dis-inviting him. How does this fit together?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I wouldn't see it that way at all. I think we made very
clear that the decision not to come was Primakov's decision. We didn't have
a problem with Primakov coming here unless he had a problem with it. The
extent of our candor and openness with the Russians was such that we let
him know that we couldn't assure him that the bombing wouldn't take place
when he was here. So he had to make a decision. But we would have been fine
and happy and satisfied if the Prime Minister came here and continued
the work we were doing, which is what the President was pointing out.
Meanwhile, as part of the closeness of the relationship, the Vice President
was talking directly to the Prime Minister, letting him know that if this
was a problem for him that in the interest of candor and advance consultation
and transparency that he ought to know that the air campaign could begin
while he was in Washington.
QUESTION: Do I understand you correctly that there never was any
understanding before Primakov came that during his stay there would be no
commencing of bombings?
MR. RUBIN: The schedule was set many days in advance. The Holbrooke
mission did not fail until that phone call. Secretary Albright had been
informing Ivanov daily about the work of Ambassador Holbrooke; and it
wasn't until Ambassador Holbrooke was instructed to leave Belgrade that the
trigger for air strikes began. So prior to that time it was an open
question as to when that would happen. As a result of Ambassador Holbrooke
being unable to move President Milosevic we consulted, in the interest of
transparency and the close relationship we have, with Russia and they made
their decision.
QUESTION: Yes, I want to get back to Greece. Both the President and
Secretary Albright used an argument during their messages that there is a
possibility of a confrontation between Greece and Turkey from Kosovo
situation. This provoked some statements from Greek officials even the
Prime Minister, the President of the republic. How do you explain
that?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, we are not suggesting that Greece and Turkey are going to
attack each other; that is not the point. What we are suggesting is as the
pressures demonstrated by this conflict in Kosovo could spread, that
pressure will build on Greece and Turkey in the event of the war spreading.
So given the concern we have about Greece and Turkey, the close relationship
we have with Greece and Turkey, we are concerned about any situation
that could increase pressures on them of many different kinds. But
we don't have any specific desire to suggest that Greece or Turkey are
going to go to war with each other.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary have any contacts with Greek officials there
in the last 24 hours?
MR. RUBIN: Two days ago, she spoke to the Greek Foreign Minister.
QUESTION: Jamie, can you give us a sense as to who the Secretary has
spoken to in the last day?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, I can. She did speak to Foreign Minister Ivanov yesterday
evening. She spoke to the Hungarian Foreign Minister today; she spoke to
the Portuguese Foreign Minister; she spoke to Secretary General Solana. She
spoke to the Ukrainian Foreign Minister yesterday and the Chinese Foreign
Minister yesterday.
QUESTION: I there a role for Ukraine in all of this?
QUESTION: I was actually just going to ask a Ukrainian question. I
believe it was the Ukrainian Parliament who is now speaking about the fact
that maybe they need to reconsider their decision to draw down in terms of
their nuclear weapons, the renunciation of nuclear weapons?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we're aware that the RADA is having a debate, just as
others are having debate. During the conversation with the Ukrainian
Foreign Minister, he made clear the domestic pressure that was on his
government, the concern that existed there, and indicated that he intended
to go to Belgrade.
The Secretary sought to discourage him from that, thinking that there
wasn't likely to be any different message to the Ukrainian Foreign Minister
than there was to Ambassador Holbrooke or any other of the many interlocutors
that have discussed this matter with President Milosevic. But we do
understand that they are going. We do recognize that there are domestic
pressures in Ukraine. I think the sense she got from the call was that they
weren't really worried about any decision to not continue their non-
nuclear status.
QUESTION: Did she say something like, would you mind conveying our
standing message, which is that he has to do x, y and z?
MR. RUBIN: I think she made clear to him, as the President did in a
letter to the Prime Minister, President of Ukraine, that what we're looking
for is for the offensive operations to stop and Milosevic to embrace the
peace process.
QUESTION: I want to go back to a line of questioning that Barry was
following. That is, when these messages - particularly the message that
Albright delivered today - to the Serbian people went out, did you consider
that, in fact, her words might be taken by some people in Serbia as an
encouragement to try to rise up against Milosevic?
MR. RUBIN: No. Let's be very clear. The Serb authorities control the
propaganda machine. One of the sad facts of this whole conflict in Serbia
and in former Yugoslavia has been the extent to which these propaganda
machines have misled the public both about the activities of their
adversaries or their other members of ethnic communities and the extent to
which the international community's proposals are peace proposals or
something else.
So we are aware that the Serbian authorities are using their propaganda
machine to argue that the attacks by NATO are attacks on the Serbian
people. We thought it was important to use this modern technology to try to
penetrate that propaganda machine as best as possible. We have no illusions
of how difficult that is to do, and I didn't claim great coverage for such
a broadcast, but we do think it's worth trying.
QUESTION: Jamie, there are reports that some of the worst actors in the
Bosnian conflict are popping up in Kosovo - Seselj and some of the other
paramilitary thugs that were so brutal during that conflict. Since you all
are watching things rather closely there and you have picked out some
specific atrocities, are you seeing an increase in paramilitary activity by
people such as Seselj?
MR. RUBIN: I have no information on specific individuals.
QUESTION: Jamie, can we go back to Bosnia for a minute and the Migs? I
know this is always dangerous -- quoting back to you. You said it was an
act of desperation. And as far as the Dayton peace accords go, they didn't
make it so it shows it's working. Isn't this the most serious violation
that has occurred in Bosnia, with Migs flying in there.
MR. RUBIN: Well, clearly, it's a serious issue when Serbian planes are
flying into Bosnia. But they were shot down and it was an act of desperation,
and that's that.
QUESTION: What do you mean by an act of desperation? Doesn't it also show
the Serbs are --
MR. RUBIN: They're unable to interfere with the military operations being
conducted in Serbia and Kosovo, and so they were lashing out in an act of
desperation and they were shot down.
QUESTION: But doesn't it show some intent on the part of the Serbs to
violate the Dayton peace accords, and what does that say?
MR. RUBIN: We have no doubt that the authorities in Belgrade have not
been urging the Serb officials in Bosnia to act inconsistent with the
Dayton accords. They've been doing that all along. We don't believe the
message coming in from Belgrade is, live up to the Dayton peace accords
with every comma and period. On the contrary, Milosevic has sought to
manipulate political activity in Bosnia to try to undermine the accords.
But the fact that the growing numbers of people in Bosnia are seeing the
benefits of peace has made it very difficult for him to do so.
QUESTION: Jamie, what of the two pilots that were captured - the two
Yugoslav pilots? What happens next with them? And also, do you have any
message for the Serbs, should any Allied pilots be captured by them?
MR. RUBIN: We hold the Serbs responsible for the safety of all Americans,
including American journalists in Serbia. With respect to any activity like
that, obviously we would expect them to live up to the laws of war.
QUESTION: And what about the two Yugoslav --
MR. RUBIN: I have no information on that.
QUESTION: Going back, sort of picking up on Carole, I believe yesterday
Senator Helms introduced legislation calling for the US should support
opposition groups which would lead to the overthrow of Milosevic. Does the
US support that legislation?
MR. RUBIN: We, as a general rule, don't want to see every particular
policy or nuance of policy legislated into law. We look to have maximum
flexibility for the Executive Branch in its pursuit of foreign policy. But
let me say this, the idea of funding democratic programs in Serbia is
something we're very supportive of; we do spend considerable sums on it
ourselves.
QUESTION: On China, a Chinese Embassy spokesman just said on CNN recently
that China had learned that the United States was going to support an anti-
China resolution in Geneva on human rights. I wondered if that were in fact
true.
MR. RUBIN: Let me address the question as follows. The United States will
introduce a resolution on China's human rights practices at the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights, which is currently meeting in Geneva.
The decision to go forward with the resolution at the Commission this year
is based on the fact that the government of China's human rights record has
deteriorated sharply over the past year.
Since the end of last year, authorities have initiated a crackdown against
organized political opposition. Dozens of political activists have been
detained for peaceful political activities, and three leaders of the China
democracy party have been given harsh sentences in closed trials that
clearly violated due process.
As noted in our human rights report, authorities also have tightened
regulations on publishers and newspapers, increased monitoring of the
Internet, continued to restrict religious practice and intensified controls
over Tibet. These developments are a source of deep concern to the United
States. They constitute a reversal of the comparatively more tolerant
attitude toward political expression and association which Chinese
authorities had begun to exhibit.
The Chinese Government has accepted international human rights obligations
by signing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In its
dialogues with the United States, the European Union and others, China has
stated its intention to fulfill its obligation under these conventions and
other instruments of international human rights law.
The UN Commission for Human Rights, the world's preeminent international
forum on human rights is, therefore, the appropriate venue to discuss
violations of internationally recognized human rights. The resolution in
Geneva that we will pursue represents one part of our strategy of
purposeful, principled engagement with China that serves the interests of
both countries.
In separate development, the White House has announced that Chinese Premier
Zhu Rongji will come to the United States for an official visit on April 6
through 14. We look forward to useful, productive talks with Premier Zhu on
the wide range of issues and interests on our bilateral agenda, including
non-proliferation, trade, human rights and global issues.
We believe that a policy of engagement, rather than seeking to isolate
China, offers the best means to advance our national interest. As the
President said last week, the evidence is that the Chinese would like a
constructive relationship with us, and that the best course for America
over the long run is for us to establish a positive but eyes-wide-open
relationship to work with the Chinese where it's in our interest to do so,
and to frankly and forthrightly state our differences where they exist.
QUESTION: Jamie, what exactly is this resolution going to say? Will it
condemn China's practices over the course of the last year? Will it just
remind China that it has signed a covenant? What are the words you're going
to use?
MR. RUBIN: I think it's premature for me to get into the specific
wording. We're beginning to consult with other members of the Human Rights
Commission. Clearly it will detail the human rights abuses that we have
laid out and, obviously, urge those abuses to be reversed.
QUESTION: Do you have other sponsors? Have you consulted -
MR. RUBIN: At this time, I'm announcing America's intention to go
forward. We are in consultation with other countries.
QUESTION: Do you know when it will be?
MR. RUBIN: We have several weeks before this would begin in late
April.
QUESTION: You have no indications that Premier Zhu is going to cancel his
trip?
MR. RUBIN: No, I don't. Secretary Albright informed the Chinese Foreign
Minister of our intention in her phone call with him yesterday. She made
clear the reasons for this decision and the fact that we consider this part
of our principled policy of engagement and that we have to be frank where
areas of disagreement are. We expect Premier Zhu to be here.
QUESTION: Whom was she talking to? I didn't hear.
MR. RUBIN: The Foreign Minister of China.
QUESTION: The US and North Korea resume missile talks Monday in
Pyongyang. So do you have any statements of these talks? What is your
expectations?
MR. RUBIN: The US and North Korea will meet for another round of missile
talks next week, March 29 and 30, in Pyongyang. These talks will be a
follow-up to our last round. At the last round, the two sides discussed our
concerns about North Korea's destabilizing Taepo Dong I launch last August,
as well as other missile proliferation issues.
We continue to have serious concerns about North Korea's development,
testing and export of missiles and missile technology. We will use the
talks to press these concerns and to seek tight constraints on North
Korea's missile activities. We previously held talks with the North Koreans
in April '96, June '97 and October 1998.
Obviously, North Korea's missile proliferation activities are of great
concern to the United States and will be addressed in full at these
negotiations.
QUESTION: The Europeans on a Palestinian state -- is that something the
US wishes hadn't happened or what?
MR. RUBIN: We have seen the European Union's statement. Clearly, there
are views that the United States and the European Union do not share.
To the extent that the EU statement emphasizes the importance of negotiations
to resolve permanent status issues, that is very important. Our views are
clear: We believe Oslo is based on the principle that all permanent status
issues can only be resolved through negotiations. We are, thus, opposed to
a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. We will encourage
accelerated permanent status negotiations. These discussions should not be
open-ended but rather should be completed within a target period or a
time frame. Both parties should refrain from unilateral actions on
the ground or statements that prejudge or predetermine the outcome of
permanent status negotiations.
QUESTION: I guess the trigger there, thinking of, is the end of the five-
year period?
MR. RUBIN: We don't agree with that part, to the extent that it calls for
action outside of the negotiations.
QUESTION: That's the point. Old bets aren't off because you passed May 4
or whatever.
MR. RUBIN: That's not our view.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:20 P.M.)
|
