Visit the Hellenic Biomedical Scientists of the Diaspora Homepage Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923)
HR-Net - Hellenic Resources Network Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Thursday, 14 November 2024
 
News
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  Announcements
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Hosted
  Mirrored
  Interesting Nodes
Documents
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  Constitutions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Other
Services
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts
  Tools
  F.A.Q.
 

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #62, 99-05-11

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>


978

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Tuesday, May 11, 1999

Briefer: James P. Rubin

SERBIA (Kosovo)
1-2	NATO Accidental Bombing of Chinese Embassy in Belgrade/Effect on
	 Diplomacy 
3,4-5	Investigation into NATO Accidental Bombing
1-2	Update on NATO Air Campaign
2,10-11	Status of Diplomatic Efforts at UN/Status of Resolution
5-7,10	Deputy Secretary Talbott's Meetings in Moscow/Travel Itinerary
7-8	Secretary Albright's Address to Serb People
8	Territorial Integrity and Withdrawal of Serb Forces from Kosovo
11,13-14	Status of Efforts to Prevent Shipping of Oil

CHINA 1-2 NATO Accidental Bombing of Chinese Embassy in Belgrade/Effect on Diplomacy 3,4-5 Investigation into NATO Accidental Bombing 3,4,8-9 Reaction of PRC to Accidental Bombing/Four Points Raised by PRC 4-5 Situation/Demonstrations in China 4,12,16 Update on US Ambassador Sasser and Embassy Staff 5,7,12-13 Contacts Between Secretary Albright and Chinese Foreign Minister 13 PRC Suspension of Various Exchanges with US

ISRAEL 14 Ruling Delaying Closure Order of Palestinian Offices in Orient House

MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS 15 US View of UN Resolution 181

UNITED NATIONS Status of Nomination of Richard Holbrooke as US Ambassador to UN

IRAN Iranian President's Travel to Syria, Saudi Arabia and Qatar


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #62

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1999, 1:40 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. RUBIN: Welcome to the State Department briefing. We have two notices we're going to put out with regard to a press opportunity with Under Secretary of State Eizenstat and German Minister of the Chancellery Hombach tomorrow in the afternoon. That information will be provided to you after the briefing. I have no opening comments. Let's go directly to your questions.

QUESTION: We have a notice there's another 6:00 p.m. event. We thank you. It will be sparsely attended, probably. One of the major newspapers today led the paper with the notion that the attack on the Chinese Embassy is going to have an impact - in fact, a negative impact - on US diplomacy to end the war. Nobody quoted by name, but officials are saying that. Not in an attempt to catch up, but it's something, in a long discourse yesterday, we didn't really get into. Is this embassy bombing having any restraining effect on US efforts to find a diplomatic solution?

MR. RUBIN: Well, even our nation's finest newspapers occasionally don't get nuances quite right. We do not believe that this will have any significant effect on the conduct of our military operation or the pace of the diplomatic track, each of which is determined by separate factors. NATO is determined to continue and pursue and intensify its air campaign. In that regard, over the past 24 hours, NATO has struck hard at Serbian forces in Kosovo, particularly around the Junik and Podujevo areas. NATO successfully struck tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, command posts and troops; in particular, the 125th and the 211th armored brigade. NATO's increasingly effective targeting of Serb forces in Kosovo is obliging the Serbs to spend more and more time hiding from air strikes and less and less in offensive operations.

NATO also struck relay stations, air fields, petroleum storage and production facilities, military bases and air fields throughout Serbia. These attacks will reduce even further the morale of Serb forces in Kosovo.

I mention all that to make the point that it is NATO's air campaign that will determine the pace of the diplomacy, because the diplomacy ultimately has one question that needs to be answered: will President Milosevic finally see the writing on the wall that every day he gets weaker and weaker? And he can come up with all sorts of dramatic gestures that are not so dramatic when you look at them. All sorts of attempts to hoodwink the world, but the reality is he's getting weaker every day, his forces are getting weaker, his military machine is increasingly broken, and we are going to break it. With respect to the diplomacy therefore-the diplomacy's pace will be determined by when President Milosevic agrees to NATO's five conditions. If he were to do that tomorrow, the pace of diplomacy would quicken greatly. If he does not do that tomorrow, we will go on to the next day and the day after that. If President Milosevic does finally do what would be the right thing for his people and for the world, I believe we would be able to move very quickly diplomatically to arrange for the implementation of NATO's five conditions. So, I do not believe, as tragic as it was, that the accident that occurred when NATO struck the Chinese Embassy in Beijing has any effect whatsoever on the pace of the diplomacy or the military campaign.

QUESTION: Historically, China, while opposing various initiatives like the inspection scheme in Iraq -- in fact, the Persian Gulf War -- did not use its veto to stop, basically, what the US and others had decided to do. Now in this case, you're looking at ultimately - I don't think it's the core of your diplomacy - but you are looking for some UN resolution ultimately embracing, endorsing the approach that you and the Russians are trying to work out along with the allies. Has this - is there a feeling here that the Chinese are so angered by that accident that they will actively try to stop such a resolution? Are you concerned about that?

MR. RUBIN: First let me say, let the record reflect that I meant the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade - I gather I said Beijing. Mistakes were made in that regard.

QUESTION: Wait a minute. While we're making corrections, that photo op is today, not tomorrow. (Laughter.)

MR. RUBIN: Other than that, the announcement is exactly right. So what was the question? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, I'll shorten it. You know, your diplomacy has, as one of its elements, a UN resolution. Do you anticipate that will be harder to at least get the Chinese to stay neutral on and not use their veto on?

MR. RUBIN: I think in all of our businesses, occasionally we focus on procedure more so than substance. The issue in the diplomacy is the substance. The issue is whether President Milosevic will finally say yes to the five conditions that NATO and the rest of the world are supportive of. If he does so, and arrangements are worked out substantively for a force with NATO at its core, for a rapid and precise timetable for his withdrawal, for the return of the refugees, for a framework for a discussion of the political arrangements and the end to the violence, that's the substance. That is the key question. If that happens, we believe we will be able to find a way procedurally to move quickly and we do not believe that at the end of the day, if a diplomatic resolution is found where President Milosevic has agreed to NATO's conditions, that at the end of the day the Chinese will stand in the way of that. It would be contrary to their long- standing claim to resolve this question peacefully.

QUESTION: Jamie, as you know, the Chinese have stated four demands that they want the United States to fulfill - among them is the punishment for those responsible for the attack on their embassy. It's a sentiment that's been repeated by several former diplomats in this country. Should high- level US officials be held accountable for what is called faulty intelligence?

MR. RUBIN: Let me say that both the President and the Secretary have publicly offered their condolences and apologies on behalf of the United States. That is one of the issues that Foreign Minister Tang raised in his discussion with Ambassador Sasser. In addition, they have both written their counterparts to express this apology -- the Secretary's letter we made public yesterday.

With respect to the question of an investigation and what follows from that, we are investigating this matter thoroughly to discover how this mistake could have occurred and to ensure that this doesn't recur. And Secretary Cohen and other Pentagon officials have made public some of the information about what is known about at this time. Secretary Cohen also stated that as far as responsibility is concerned, we are in the preliminary stages of our investigation and we will consider appropriate action after the investigation and we're not going to make any statements that would be premature at this time.

QUESTION: Jamie, does the State Department feel that it was adequately consulted and brought into the loop - perhaps the expertise of many diplomats in this building - as to what is where in Belgrade? Does it feel that the Pentagon and the CIA made full use of the resources in this building?

MR. RUBIN: That's cleverly formulated. Let me say that everybody involved has expressed their apology and everybody involved knows that a tragic mistake occurred. Mistakes do occur; it is not a perfect world, and we will continue to work with the Pentagon and other agencies to provide our assistance and our help throughout the pursuit of this policy on Kosovo and we will try to help more rather than less.

QUESTION: How does the United States feel about the way the Chinese have handled this - specifically their refusal to recognize initially that any apologies had been made? And secondly, their threat effectively to thwart US objectives through the UN Security Council? Is there any irritation, frustration of this behavior?

MR. RUBIN: We certainly were troubled by the security situation at the embassy in Beijing and at several of our consulates. In that regard, let me say that the intensity of demonstrations was substantially lower on Tuesday. They remain peaceful as Chinese authorities stepped up their level of protection and control. There were no protests reported at our missions in Shanghai, Shenyang or Chengdu. There were roughly half a dozen demonstrations at our embassy in Beijing, with crowds ranging from 15 to 150 people. Ambassador Sasser and about a dozen embassy staff remain in the embassy, as the security situation has still not yet returned fully to normal. Embassy staff and others are not able to move freely in and out of the embassy campaign.

We continue to look to the Chinese authorities to maintain order and to ensure the security of officials, US personnel, other American citizens and American property, as is their responsibility. The embassy and the other missions will remain closed for normal operations on Wednesday.

Although the Chinese official media have published assurances that foreigners in China are safe, there have been a small number of incidents involving harassment of foreigners. Our travel warning issued on May 9, therefore, remains in effect. Meanwhile, Chinese official media have now reported statements by the President and the Secretary of State offering apologies and condolences for the accidental bombing of the embassy in Belgrade.

With respect to the security situation, I think Secretary Albright was troubled on Saturday night. That is why she took the unusual step - in addition to wanting to express her apology - she took the unusual step of going to the embassy and delivering the letter directly. I'm not going to speculate on what the motivations of the Chinese officials and their interaction with their official media were for the delay between the time when apologies were expressed and the time when apologies were reported; other than to say that they have now been reported and we were troubled, again, by the security situation. But let's remember what's going on here is there is a tragic error was made and people were killed and that is a genuine problem that we've been trying to address.

QUESTION: With all due respect, that wasn't quite the question I asked.

MR. RUBIN: You asked me about the publication of the apologies.

QUESTION: No, no, no. My question is, how does the United States feel about what appears to be a concerted Chinese campaign to embarrass the United States to the maximum extent and to possibly exploit this incident to make diplomatic gains. But other than security aspects --

MR. RUBIN: All right. But you asked about the apology going on the television, and what -

QUESTION: No. The Chinese spokesman came on and said they didn't even recognize - came on CNN and other television stations saying they didn't even recognize the fact that an apology had been made.

MR. RUBIN: Well, that spokesman ought to - or that representative ought to look more carefully at the documents that were provided to the Foreign Minister of China.

QUESTION: So what is the feeling about how the Chinese have handled this?

MR. RUBIN: Again, I'm not going to speculate on the reasons why the apology wasn't published for a day. As far as how the Chinese have handled it, they've stated quite openly that they were supporting the demonstrations. We think those demonstrations got out of control. We were troubled by that. That's how I feel about it. That's how the Secretary feels about it.

QUESTION: Just following up on Andrea's question. I guess Secretary Cohen yesterday announced that the Defense Department would work with the State Department in mapping out locations of embassies around the world. I just wonder, is this something that was normally done already, and when an embassy moves locations, which agency in the Administration - who's responsibility would it be to notify that that location has been made?

MR. RUBIN: What I would explain to you is that there's no simple, global database of the location of embassies. It depends on what the purpose or what the information is. Clearly a mistake was made, in terms of targeting purposes, where the Chinese embassy was thought to be located. I think we've been as frank and open as we could possibly be about that, and we, here in the State Department, want to be as helpful as we can to the Pentagon and others who may be interested in ascertaining that information for whatever purpose - whether for the purpose of targeting or some other purpose. But at this time, what I can tell you is that Secretary Albright made clear to Secretary Cohen and others that she wanted to be helpful in providing more rather than less information and we're going to do that.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary try to reach the Chinese Foreign Minister in the last few days on the phone?

MR. RUBIN: I know she tried initially a couple of times. She then delivered the letter. I don't think she's tried again. I think that they know we're ready to talk to them when they're ready.

QUESTION: Early on you said you didn't think that the mistake in the bombing of the Chinese Embassy would have a significant impact - effect on the military operation or the pace of your diplomatic track. Could you explain that - the pace of a diplomatic track when it appears the diplomatic track relied on Russia through the G-8 to the Security Council - you have both Russia and China who are on the Security Council - I don't see how you can say that the pace of the diplomatic track wasn't affected when both of those countries are calling for a pause in the bombing before they proceed with diplomacy. Is there some other diplomatic track you're working on?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I would obviously disagree with most of what you just said, but let me answer your question. We told you last week that I thought - and I was very clear - that the next key moment in the diplomacy was Deputy Secretary Talbott's trip to Moscow in which we were going to elaborate on the five points and make - begin to spell out what is a precise and rapid time table for the withdrawal of forces; how would one compose an international security force with NATO at its core -- and that that was the next step in the diplomacy. I mentioned that to you prior to the incident on Friday night. That remains what Deputy Secretary Talbott is doing and he will be meeting with Foreign Minister Ivanov and Mr. Chernomyrdin tomorrow to pursue precisely that objective. Based on his initial contacts, he has a sense that they are prepared to discuss these issues in detail with him. Therefore, that work will go on on schedule. It is no surprise to us, and I would expect it wouldn't be surprise to any of you, that the Russian position and the Chinese position, which has been the same from the beginning - calling for a halt to the bombing. There's nothing that's changed.

QUESTION: If I could follow up - perhaps, but I don't - would you argue that this incident has crystallized their - their statements, their feelings -- if I can use that word - and that it has brought them together in their opposition to the NATO air campaign?

MR. RUBIN: Diplomats don't have feelings, first of all.

QUESTION: Right. (Laughter.)

MR. RUBIN: That was a joke. The - we do not believe that the pace of our work with Russia or the substance of our work with Russia is going to be changed. And we believe that Russia can play a constructive role in its diplomacy, working with us in elaborating those points - those conditions - and then seeing whether President Milosevic, who is the ultimate person who needs to answer the question - this is about whether President Milosevic will wake up, see the writing on the wall, and accept NATO's five points. The diplomacy can't work any faster than him finally answering that question yes.

With respect to Russia, who had been our primary interlocutor on this subject, the pace remains the same. So that is why I made those comments and I stand by them.

QUESTION: Can you give us any more information on Mr. Talbott's visit in Moscow - what exactly is going on? Who is he talking - you said a couple of people he's talking with - how's it going?

MR. RUBIN: He just arrived earlier today. Basically the meetings are scheduled to take place tomorrow and throughout the day with Foreign Minister Ivanov; with a working group; there will be a plenary session and then actual working groups will work on elaborating the points that I described to you, among others. He will also be talking about the UN role and the role of the G-8, which has to continue working on this. And again, to get back to the previous set of questions, we had a schedule for the political directors of the G-8 to begin to talk to each other about elaborating these conditions because their role is important and that remains on schedule.

So, Deputy Secretary Talbott hasn't had the important meetings yet as of today; those are going to occur tomorrow. I just spoke to him a few minutes ago and he expected to have a full day in Moscow running through the points that I mentioned and then flying to Helsinki later in the day.

QUESTION: Has anything changed since Chernomyrdin is, in effect, coming back empty-handed from China?

MR. RUBIN: Again, we do believe that China, as a permanent member of the Security Council, when the time comes, will judge the situation as to whether to support, oppose or abstain - I think he said going to China, that's why - you said China -

QUESTION: Chernomyrdin's return from China empty-handed.

MR. RUBIN: From China - so we don't believe that China will, at the end of the day, stand in the way of an agreement that could be struck by Russia based on NATO's five conditions. And so the fact that the Chinese didn't help him elaborate on the five points isn't a surprise to us, nor is it a surprise to us that he and the Russian Government and the Chinese Government when meeting expressed their view that NATO bombing should halt. That's been their view all along.

QUESTION: Jamie, you said that Secretary Albright would like to talk to Foreign Minister Tang. President Clinton -- through the White House, it's been expressed that he also would like to speak to President Jiang. Why do you think China's leaders aren't taking our phone call or at least not welcoming the initiative? Why was the hotline set up between President Jiang and Clinton in 1997 if we can't use it at a time like this?

MR. RUBIN: Well I don't think the hotline was tried, so I think that is not on point. But on your basic question, you'll have to ask them. We're clearly indicating our willingness to talk to them on the phone; letters have been sent. They've chosen, obviously, that they are not ready to speak to the Secretary or President Jiang -- not ready to speak to President Clinton. That is their decision. A hotline or a telephone has to have two people on both sides of the phone.

QUESTION: Jamie, can we go back to Talbott going to Helsinki - does he then go - can you describe the meetings there? And then does he go back to Moscow or does he go to Brussels?

MR. RUBIN: He'll be meeting with - is it President or Prime Minister - President Ahtisaari of Finland and after that his schedule has not firmed up.

QUESTION: Jamie, I understand the Secretary recorded another address to the Serbian people today. I wanted to check if this was the first one she did in English? Why she did it in English? And what - it's the second one in English. Okay, there's that answer. But what's - what was the timing, the message that she hoped to convey?

MR. RUBIN: Well, we'll be making available to you a copy of her remarks. She has - this is the second one in English. She made the point that it's a tragedy for the people of Serbia - that their leaders have not told them what is going on in Kosovo, because it might help them to understand the reasons why NATO has conducted the military campaign that it has conducted. And when the Serbian spokesmen use absurd arguments that people are paid to walk around in circles - that people are paid to become refuges. This allegation by Mr. Matic is a despicable

allegation. And it's not just the raving of an isolated lunatic. Unfortunately, it's all too typical of the propaganda they receive. It wasn't actors that were killed in Kosovo. It wasn't actors that were raped in Kosovo. And it wasn't pretend villages that the Serbs destroyed. They were real villages. So, Secretary Albright will try to bring home some facts to them, because we believe the more the Serbs understand the facts about what's going on in Kosovo, the greater the chance they will understand the need for President Milosevic to agree to a settlement. She also indicated in her remarks that the agreement that we are offering the people of Serbia is a fair agreement that will support the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia, but will have an international security force in which both Serbs and ethnic Albanians can live in peace with one another. She will also - this one is especially for you, Charlie - will indicate that Yugoslavia should withdraw all their forces from Kosovo.

QUESTION: Let me just ask, was the timing in any way in response to the Yugoslav announcement of partial withdrawal -

MR. RUBIN: No, I think we're trying to develop a schedule that we've been operating under, and I don't think this was put on the schedule because of that partial withdrawal.

QUESTION: Do you have any evidence that people are hearing these messages that she is sending? And do you have any sense of what is the most common way that they are getting this message?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I think it's primarily through the radio. All AM bands in Serbia can receive this message, and increasingly FM as well. So, people are hearing it. Again, it's hard to know exactly how many people. But by anecdotal evidence, and occasionally reporters on the ground talking to people who have said they've heard it, it's clear that it's being heard. We've seen a lot of different evidence that it's being heard, but it's something that given the long, long years of Serbian propaganda that spewed forth from Serbian television and Serbian radio, it will take some time before any effort, no matter how well organized, can break through.

QUESTION: Can you clarify, if you can, how you can mesh the call for retaining the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia with the withdrawal of all troops, presumably some of which were there before March '98, and presumably some of which are involved in maintaining the borders of Yugoslavia? How does that work?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, the simple point here is that in light of the atrocities the Serb forces have committed, in light of the rape, in light of the murder, in light of the burning of villages, in light of the terrible, terrible forced expulsions and deportations, we believe the presence of those Serb forces will make it not possible for the Kosovar refugees to go home. So, therefore, we believe one must have an international security force to provide the secure environment for those refugees, deportees, to go home. It is not an act of sovereignty -- affecting the Serb sovereignty, unless they choose to make it that. In other words, the Serbs in Bosnia, agreement was struck to allow an international security force with NATO at its core deploy in Bosnia, and nobody challenged the territorial integrity of Bosnia. Believe me, the Serb forces and the Serb people in Belgrade don't have to worry about NATO doing what is consistent with international law, and we will deploy in order to get the refugees back. It's something that is not inconsistent with respecting, in principle, their sovereignty and territorial integrity. Obviously, this is a country that has lost some of its rights in light of the wars they've started in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, and now the terrible, terrible atrocities that have been committed in Kosovo. So, the international community is going to step in. It's going to provide security for the people of Kosovo. It's going to administer the territory pending political arrangement. But what we're saying to them is we don't go in supporting independence. We go in supporting the territorial integrity of Serbia.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. I spoke to Mr. Yu, the spokesman of the Chinese Embassy here in Washington yesterday. And he was still very, very angry about the bombing of his embassy. He outlined four points that I think come from the Foreign Minister, and I just wanted to ask if -- one, open an official apology to the government, people, and relatives; two, complete a thorough investigation of NATO bombing attack; three, promptly publicized detail results of investigation; four, severely punish those responsible for the attack. Is that the message that the State Department is getting? And is this doable? Some people at Defense yesterday said that that was doable - these four points. What's your reaction?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I had this discussion earlier with one of your colleagues about those precise same four points, and let me say that it is the same four points. The Chinese spokesman is accurately describing the points that the Chinese Foreign Minister passed on to our ambassador in Beijing. And my answer to the question of how to proceed is the same as I gave before - which is that right now we're doing a full investigation, and we will provide China the results of that investigation, and the rest of the issues are premature.

QUESTION: Is the punishment -- number four - part about punishing those responsible - is that doable?

MR. RUBIN: Well, again, in response to discussions with one of your colleagues just a few moments ago, I described our position on that and I said that it would be premature to address that question until there has been a full investigation.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- other Kosovo humans who yesterday - are you going to use Greek air fields, too? And also, are you planning to ask permission from the Yugoslav authorities?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I'm sorry you weren't here yesterday to hear the discussion elaborated on. The question of air drops is, at this point, an option. We are very concerned about the 700,000 people inside of Kosovo, and we've been looking at all options to help address their needs. Air drops are an option that is being explored along with a number of other means to reach these people. There has been no specific timeline set for air drops. The specific modalities, arrangements for such an operation are still under discussion, but the concept here is that this is a private organization that will conduct the air drops. And for us, the question is whether we should be supportive and what the upsides and downsides of that are, so it will be up to them to describe any issues related to discussions with Belgrade.

QUESTION: Who is going to compensate the Chinese for the damage of their embassy? NATO or the US government?

MR. RUBIN: I think as one of your colleagues and a second of your colleagues and I just discussed this extensively over the last half an hour, I indicated to you that we are examining this question of how this could have happened. We're doing an investigation, and what follows from the results of that investigation is premature for us to discuss.

QUESTION: Today's New York Times quoted the NATO allies is planning to open two fronts against Yugoslavia - one is Hungary and the other one is in Turkey. And they claim that if it's true, they are planning to base some F- 16s and some fighters in their western air bases in Turkey. Can you confirm this?

MR. RUBIN: Well, let me say one of the reasons why we believe President Milosevic keeps throwing out these new ideas - whether it be a phony half- withdrawal, whether it be the release of the three Americans, whether it be an interview with this organization, or an interview with that organization, or meeting with Mr. Thaqi or someone else is precisely because our air campaign is having its desired effect. It is really successfully taking a part, piece by piece, this military machine. And the reason why it's increasingly effective is because it's operating seven days a week. It's operating 24 hours a day, and it's able to operate from 360 degrees. And that is extremely important. Our allies have said that Hungary and Turkey, as NATO members, are participating fully in Operation Allied Force - this includes provision for a possible basing of military assets on their territory. I'm not in a position to discuss operational details. But because of the contributions and basing rights and over-flight rights, we are in a position to strike at Serbia 24 hours a day, seven days a week from, as I said, 360 degrees. This 360 degrees is so important because it makes the task of an already crippled Serbian air defense even more difficult, and it makes it increasingly difficult for the Serbs to conduct offensive operations.

QUESTION: New subject - (inaudible) -- Turkish Government?

MR. RUBIN: We're in regular and extensive contact at the military and the political level of the Turkish government.

QUESTION: A minor detail, but could you elaborate perhaps on why Mr. Talbott is going to see President Ahtisaari in Finland? Is this a Kosovo- related trip? And what -

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it is. President Ahtisaari is a very respected former UN official who has extensive experience in the Balkans. He is someone who has indicated a willingness to be an advisor to us as we proceed and to play a role if that becomes necessary. So, President Ahtisaari has a long history, a very distinguished history in working on the Balkan issues, and in addition, Finland is going to be the next rotating president of the European Union.

QUESTION: Does anyone envisage President Ahtisaari going on any missions anywhere?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I wouldn't want to rule that out. He said he's prepared to play a role as appropriate, and we want to discuss with him, as we discussed with others, various ways in which to achieve our diplomatic objective. Let me say that President Ahtisaari has met with President Chirac, with Chancellor Schroeder. He's been in touch with Kofi Annan in recent days, and so he's someone who we have a lot of respect for, and we want to stay in close touch with and seek his advice on this subject.

QUESTION: Could you go back briefly to the Security Council question - I may be mistaken, but was it not your strategy - was it a matter of timing -- you wanted to go to the Security Council to get a resolution prior to Milosevic accepting a settlement so that you could then illustrate to him that all the Security Council - Russia and China - favored your goals, and that he was completely isolated. Now it appears you're switching the timing around and saying that Milosevic - your goal was actually to have Milosevic accept them all and then have it embodied in a Security Council resolution.

MR. RUBIN: Well it may appear that way to you but that isn't what we said. What we've said is that it's an open question, and we've said this ever since the meeting in Bonn; ever since the meeting in Oslo, as to whether Russia would be prepared to move ahead of where Belgrade was. So to suggest that we had adopted one position and then switched positions would be a fundamental misreading of what Secretary Albright and I have said on this subject. We want to pursue the substance - we want to get agreement amongst the G-8, including Russia, but particularly Russia since, as you know, Italy, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada are all members of NATO. So the G-8 is NATO members plus Japan and Russia. So the Russia role is very important and we've always stated quite clearly before Friday's events and today that it's an open question as to whether Russia would be prepared to do that. I think when journalists have asked that question to Foreign Minister Ivanov he's signaled that they wouldn't be prepared to do that. So I would disagree with your assessment of where we were and therefore would disagree with your claim there was an apparent shift.

QUESTION: You mentioned, in regard to Hungary and Turkey, that they have agreed to take some air assets. Are those combat aircraft or just tankers and such?

MR. RUBIN: I think I indicated I wouldn't be able to discuss operational details. That would constitute an operational detail. I will check with my Pentagon colleagues to see if we can get you more information.

QUESTION: Jamie, does the State Department have any view - any reaction to what the Israeli Supreme Court did on -

QUESTION: Two more.

MR. RUBIN: Yes. Two more -

QUESTION: Can you bring us up to date on the status of the effort on the oil embargo or where that stands -

MR. RUBIN: Yes. My understanding is there is a whole list of countries that have now agreed to prevent their nationals from shipping oil to Serbia. I can get you that list after the briefing -- and that NATO is proceeding on a two-track approach beginning first with a voluntary system to work with countries that are prepared to be visited and searched as they enter into Yugoslav waters and that they are still consulting on the second track of that approach which would involve more than a voluntary regime.

QUESTION: Could you give us an update on how Ambassador Sasser is doing?

MR. RUBIN: Yes. He is still in the embassy. He's there with a dozen people or so. The ability to move in and out freely is not yet available. Clearly the situation has calmed down. We do expect additional protests tomorrow. He is still there, working with a core staff of about a dozen people, but the situation has calmed substantially outside the embassy. As I indicated to you, the numbers of protesters today were quite small compared to over the weekend - we're talking about 15 people at certain times.

QUESTION: Why would it be impossible for him to leave since the numbers are so small?

MR. RUBIN: Well, it is the collective judgment of the Ambassador and his diplomatic security and others that it is preferable to wait until there is completely free access in and out for him to leave. I know he indicated a willingness to go to a ceremony today at which the remains of the Chinese individuals who were killed were returning to China - I guess that ceremony would be tomorrow - and they declined that offer. So it's not as if he can't leave, but it's the view - the collective view is that until there's complete access in and out that he will stay there with his core staff.

QUESTION: How can you say you expect demonstrations tomorrow - is that a hunch or have you heard word from the government that spontaneous demonstrations would happen? I mean, it's totally government engineered - I mean, you say you expect them - they have time frames apparently - this bus load of demonstrators has from 11 to 11:30 and the next one has 11:30 to 2:00. Have they given you tomorrow's schedule already? Is that why you expect them tomorrow? Or is it just the feeling you get from looking out of what isn't really a cell that the Ambassador is in; sort of a kind of a place he wants to stay for the foreseeable future?

MR. RUBIN: Wow.

QUESTION: Isn't he a prisoner in his own embassy? And how do you know there are going to be demonstrations tomorrow?

MR. RUBIN: It is from our contacts with the Chinese authorities. They told us to expect demonstrations. Whether that is a result of their orchestration or their intelligence information, is something between them and the protesters.

QUESTION: I just wanted to clarify an answer that you gave a little bit earlier - you said that Secretary Albright initially tried to call by phone and then she gave the letter and as far as you know she hasn't tried since then?

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

QUESTION: And you said that the Chinese know that you're willing to talk to them when they're ready - does that imply that you're waiting for the Chinese to let you know when they're ready or will Secretary Albright continue to try to call them?

MR. RUBIN: These things have to be handled properly and I think maybe we would be in a position to feel confident that if she tried again, that there might be a response and that she would have the discussion. But exactly the sequencing of that would be something we would work out diplomatically.

QUESTION: She may try again?

MR. RUBIN: She might, yes.

QUESTION: At what level are the Chinese communicating to us? Which contacts are affected by their displeasure over the embassy bombing? And have they had anything to say about the next round of WTO talks?

MR. RUBIN: With respect to our contacts, I know Under Secretary Pickering has been in touch with the ambassador here; I know the foreign minister has been in touch with our ambassador there, so that's a fairly good description of the level of our contacts.

The Chinese have now informed us of the suspension of certain military exchanges and have announced their intent to suspend various dialogues and exchanges relating to human rights, non-proliferation, and security issues. It is not clear at this point what other visits or discussions could be affected by China's temporary suspension or postponement of these exchanges.

QUESTION: This suspension means that Einhorn and John Holum are not going to China? Is that -

MR. RUBIN: As I told you, that was -

QUESTION: It was on hold yesterday -

MR. RUBIN: That was something where the dates weren't really nailed down at this point.

QUESTION: I understand.

MR. RUBIN: So what we're mostly dealing with is situations in the near term - this month, where the dates have been nailed down. We'll have to see how that develops.

QUESTION: To get back to that oil embargo - can you give us an update on the level of oil supplies reaching the Port in Bar? And the nationality of ships bringing it in - is this Russian also arriving in the same - (inaudible) - as before?

MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware there are any Russian tankers going into the Port of Bar. As I indicated to you in the past, the Russian petroleum that went in, other than those that may have been on a long term contractual basis, were through the humanitarian shipment that was admitted by Hungary. Let's bear in mind that all the countries around Serbia now have agreed to not allow oil to be shipped to Serbia. So that is making it very difficult for Serbia to get oil. That doesn't mean there isn't what we call - what's that name for the little traffic - they have that funny name for - there's a name for small groups of people who go in - anyway -

QUESTION: Smugglers. (Laughter.)

MR. RUBIN: No, no. There's a name for it that we use in Iraq. I've forgotten it and now I've told you that I forgot it. We'll go with that. That doesn't mean that there aren't small amounts of oil getting through in small groups. But as far as organized traffic getting in through the countries -

QUESTION: Through the port?

MR. RUBIN: As far as the port is concerned, I'm not aware of a Russian entry and I will have to get some data and see whether I can provide that data to you with respect to entry into the port in Bar.

QUESTION: Jamie, at the NATO summit there was an awful lot of lofty rhetoric about the hypocrisy of sending pilots in bombing runs of refineries and then not enforcing an oil embargo. The President of the United States even talked about hoping it didn't come to violence with Russia and others. Why has there been this rather dramatic climb down from that position? Does it have anything to do with the events of the weekend?

MR. RUBIN: Your editorial commentary something I fully disagree with. But with respect to the substance of your question, let me say that at the time that this visit and search regime was begun, there were substantial traffic heading for Bar, and had occurred, and we had given you some rough numbers about that. There hadn't been an agreement with all the countries around Serbia to voluntarily commit to not allow their territory to be used for oil and petroleum products to get in. So, the nature of the problem has been greatly reduced precisely as a result of the concern that we expressed about allowing petroleum to get it. It doesn't mean the problem is resolved. It's not resolved. But it's substantially improved.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the - does the State Department have any reaction to the Israeli supreme court's tactical decision to delay Netanyahu to closing down Orient House?

MR. RUBIN: We note the ruling by Israel's supreme court to delay the closure order against Palestinian offices in Orient House by at least one week. It appears that a confrontation is being avoided, and we welcome that. This remains a very sensitive issue and it is important that both sides continue their efforts to resolve it peacefully.

QUESTION: Should I ask about 181, or let it go another day?

MR. RUBIN: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Hey. Well, you know about 181, right? Arafat embraces it, so do the Europeans in the context of Jerusalem not belonging to anybody - and that the Europeans and others should leave Palestinians there if they feel like it? Because it's an international city under a 1947 resolution.

MR. RUBIN: The United States --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- is the only government besides Israel that deposes that judgment?

MR. RUBIN: Well, that I'll have to check for you. But as far as our view of the resolution, the US view is that the objective of the negotiating process is the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, including land for peace, and all other agreements under the Oslo Process. I'm not going to comment on the views of others. Our view, and I think America has played the leading and crucial role in brokering and assisting and mediating the Middle East peace process -- is that UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and land for peace, form the basis of the peace process.

QUESTION: Your basis - so far as resolutions - are they the only resolutions that - you needn't answer this if you don't feel like it, or - I mean, if you're not in a position to - but are they the only resolutions that should have a bearing on the negotiations?

MR. RUBIN: The US view is that the objective of the negotiating process is implementation of UN Resolutions 242 and 338, including land for peace and all other agreements. If we had other views and other additional views, I would provide them to you.

QUESTION: That's an answer.

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: The other day, the office of Senator Jesse Helms stated that it would be insane for his committee to proceed with the admission of Ambassador Holbrooke as the new US representative of the UN. Do you know whether this is your stand today?

MR. RUBIN: What I know is that Secretary Albright strongly believes that our country would be well served by having Ambassador Holbrooke in New York confirmed by the Senate and that would advance our national interest, and it would improve our ability to pursue our national interest in New York. That's why she so strongly supported his nomination, and has done all that she can to try to move it along. It is now obviously in the Senate's hands.

QUESTION: The Middle East?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUESTION: President Khatami is going to Saudi Arabia and Qatar. I was wondering if you had any comment on that?

MR. RUBINI: Well, he's done a lot of traveling in the last year, and our policy on Iran has tended to focus on what substance occurs at the meetings with us, than the fact of meetings. And he's entitled to travel.

QUESTION: It's not at all disconcerting that your close ally, Saudi Arabia and Iran, are inching closer and closer together?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I don't know whether they would agree with your characterization. I do know that a NATO member, Italy, recently played host to Mr. Hot*.

QUESTION: Is the fact that Mr. Sasser and those who are at the embassy with him - are they able to get supplies? Can they get things in and out of there? And does he feel like he's safe?

MR. RUBIN: I think he feels safe in the embassy and, I think, although he hasn't had all the creature comforts we all deserve, that he's able to get necessary supplies.

QUESTION: Thank you.


U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
Back to Top
Copyright © 1995-2023 HR-Net (Hellenic Resources Network). An HRI Project.
All Rights Reserved.

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.01b run on Wednesday, 12 May 1999 - 0:39:37 UTC