U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #95, 99-07-22
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
559
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Thursday, July 22, 1999
Briefer: James P. Rubin
STATEMENT: ANGOLA
1 Statement on UNITA's killing of civilians issued after the briefing.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 Notice to the press about press accreditation for the Four Party
Talks in Geneva issued.
1 Secretary Albright will visit Kosovo on July 29.
CHINA (TAIWAN)
1 AIT Chairman Bush is meeting with Taiwanese officials. There is no
real change in AIT's contacts with the Taiwanese.
CHINA
2,3 US disturbed by China's decision to ban the Falun Gong meditation
sect.
3 No read-out yet on Assistant Secretary Roth's meetings in Beijing.
VIETNAM
2 Trade negotiations with Vietnam are continuing.
2,3 US will continue to raise human rights issues, but believes that
promoting free market principles can lead to improved civil rights.
HOLOCAUST
3 The Holocaust Commission will issue a statement on insurance claims
at the conclusion of their deliberations.
KOSOVO
4 Both NATO and the UN are moving as quickly as possible in difficult
circumstances.
4,5 UN is moving slowly on police, but its delay is understandable.
DEPARTMENT
5 State Department cannot comment on Linda Shenwick because she
hasn't signed a privacy waiver.
6 No read-out of Secretary Albright's meeting with Senator Helms.
IRAN, SYRIA, LIBYA
5 No information on new rules permitting the sale of food and
medicine to these countries.
INDIA-PAKISTAN
6 US believes the restoration of the Line of Control is vital for peace.
6 Secretary Albright will meet with Indian Foreign Minister Singh at
ASEAN.
MOZAMBIQUE
7 Embassy Maputo remains closed for security reasons.
CHAD
7,8 Embassy N'Djamena suspended operations after receiving a bomb
threat. The US will not identify the source of every threat it
receives.
NORTH KOREA-PAKISTAN
7,8 US concerned about missile proliferation throughout the world.
8 No new information on Dr. Perry's report.
ALBANIA
8,9 US has security concerns.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #95
THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1999, 12:00 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Welcome to the State Department briefing. It's a
mid-summer Thursday, and we're starting on time at noon.
Let me say we have a statement on UNITA killing civilians that we'll be
issuing after the briefing. We also have a notice about press accreditation
for the Four Party Talks in Geneva. Finally, let me say that Secretary of
State Albright will visit Kosovo on July 29 to assess the situation in the
province in the wake of the deployment of NATO forces, the KFOR and the UN
efforts there.
She will travel to Kosovo from Rome on the morning of July 29. While there,
she will meet with officials of KFOR and the UN mission there and with
representatives of the people of Kosovo. The Secretary will also visit the
KFOR sector under US command, better known as sector East. She will then
return on the evening of July 29 and meet up with the President to go to
Sarajevo on the 30th.
That is her current schedule at the end of the Asia trip. My able deputy,
Jim Foley, will be also telling some of your colleagues who are on the
aircraft that in the next couple of hours.
That's all I have.
QUESTION: Jamie, China-Taiwan. Is the US limiting contacts with the
Institute onTaiwan? I know Mr. Bush is there, but still there are reports
that's one of the several ways you're trying to signal Taiwan you don't
like what they've been saying and doing.
MR. RUBIN: Chairman Bush is in Taiwan, will be meeting with Taiwan
leaders tomorrow to discuss Cross-Strait relations. We await his meetings
to gain a better understanding of Taiwan's Cross-Strait policy.
Let me say I'm not aware of any change in terms of contacts of the
Institute there. I will say this. Obviously, at a time when the situation
is as fluid as it is, we're measuring each of our steps very carefully; not
that we don't in normal times, but it seems particularly important to
measure the impact and perceived impact of any step. The President
indicated that yesterday with respect to the trip of the technical
assistance team. That visit will be rescheduled for a mutually convenient
time in the future. But again, I'm not aware of any real change in our
unofficial posture.
On the contrary, the Chairman of the AIT is going there and meeting. That's
higher level than normal, but it's a regular process that he has such
meetings.
Any more on China? This may break the record for shortest briefing.
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to China's banning the meditation sect
Falun Gong?
MR. RUBIN: I do. During a national broadcast on July 22, China Central
Television announced an official ban on the Falun Gong movement. The
television read a circular issued by the Ministries of Civil Affairs and
Public Security which declared Falun Gong an illegal organization and
banned further public gatherings. The Chinese media apparently will be
repeating that announcement regularly.
While take no position as a government on the teachings or practices of
this movement, we do urge China to adhere to its obligations under the
international human rights instruments to permit Falun Gong practitioners
to engage in peaceful expression of their views and in peaceful assembly.
We note that the participants in the Falun Gong demonstrations have been
peaceful and that many of them are middle-aged women.
We are disturbed by reports of the ban and of some heavy-handed tactics
being used to prevent Chinese citizens from exercising internationally
protected fundamental rights and freedoms, particularly the freedom of
expression, association, and assembly, and thought, conscience and
religion.
QUESTION: Jamie, you may have answered this a day or so ago - is the US
close to normalizing trade relations with Vietnam?
MR. RUBIN: Yesterday, in response to one of your colleagues questions, I
indicated that we are engaged in discussions right now. There are a few
remaining issues. There are some optimists, but it's not over until it's
over in a subject like a trade negotiation.
QUESTION: Can I ask --
MR. RUBIN: Stay on Vietnam and we'll go over there. Are you still on
Vietnam?
QUESTION: Yes. You know, Senator Smith's objections of - he was trounced
in trying to stop normal relations with Taiwan - that they have a lousy
human rights record --
MR. RUBIN: You're on Taiwan now, or Vietnam?
QUESTION: Excuse me, on Vietnam.
MR. RUBIN: Or Colombia or -
QUESTION: No, I was trying to save you time. On Vietnam, that they have a
rotten human rights record and their record in theft of intellectual
property ain't too great either. Will any - when there is an agreement, or
as you negotiate an agreement, is the US doing something about those two
issues, or will it be a strict make-a-buck-deal - a business deal; will it
not deal with human rights?
MR. RUBIN: Again, we don't consider those issues in quite the dramatic
way that you stated them. We think that it is important to open markets not
just to make a buck, but also to promote the free market principles and
practices which, throughout the world, as I'm sure you know, have led to
improved practices on issues of concern to citizens. We've found around the
world that the freer the markets, the freer the lives of the people
involved. So it's not simply a matter of making a buck.
With respect to human rights, we have raised a number of cases. We had a
visit there last week of human rights officials from the United States
which raised a number of issues with them. We will continue to do
that.
QUESTION: Jamie, I wonder if you have communicated your feelings about
the sect to the Chinese Government?
MR. RUBIN: I would expect that our diplomats would be in touch with them.
I would also expect they would have had an opportunity now to see our views
in the last 17 seconds. But I would expect we would, as a matter of course,
let them know of our concern about this matter.
QUESTION: Has Assistant Secretary Roth had meetings today in Beijing; and
do you have any read-out on that?
MR. RUBIN: I do not have a read-out on his meetings. What I would expect
him to do is take his read-out and bring that to the Secretary for her
meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Tang on Sunday, I believe.
QUESTION: On Sunday?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Does - and maybe the answer is simply no - does the US have a
position on how - it's called the multiplier - the insurance claims that
the Holocaust Commission is grappling with, with some difficulty, today,
under Mr. Eagleburger. Is that something - I realize that the regulators
representing the US are not federal, they're state. But still, I wonder if
the US Government had a position.
MR. RUBIN: I understand there is going to be a statement released, when
the deliberations conclude, by the Chairman of the International Commission.
I wouldn't want to preview our views. They will take input from the State
and Treasury Departments, but I think it would be better for them to put
out their statement before one got into that.
QUESTION: Jamie, back on Kosovo, how do you respond to some comments made
by a UN official in The New York Times today that it's not the UN that's
dragging its feet, it's NATO --in terms of slowness in deploying soldiers
to the province?
MR. RUBIN: Well, let me say, first of all, that I think both the UN and
NATO are doing an extraordinary job in a very difficult circumstance of
deploying people and resources to Kosovo under extremely challenging
circumstances.
With respect to that particular suggestion, I don't think that holds much
water. The fact that NATO has deployed so quickly and so effectively in
Macedonia and Albania on the humanitarian side to deal with that when the
crisis began, and I think the fact that the bulk of NATO's deployment is
already there in a very short, short time, demonstrates that NATO is
capable of acting quickly and effectively, as one would expect from a
military organization. The UN is not a military organization. They don't
have reserves and issues like police and civilian administrators; they
have to start from scratch each time. That's something we've tried
to assist them in developing a better base of support. The UN is establishing
its mission from scratch in a difficult environment, where refugees are
returning much more quickly than anyone expected. The land is devastated by
what Milosevic has done.
We do think the UN is moving rapidly. We do think the UN also can move more
quickly to create a fully functioning interim civil administration at all
levels. We also want the UN to deploy as rapidly as possible international
civilian police, who will take interim responsibility for law and order in
the province. There are examples of difficulties of bureaucracy where
Americans have offered 100 or so police that the UN is not ready to accept
because they have to go through certain procedures, so this is what
happens at the start up of a mission of this magnitude.
I think that everyone should probably try to be a little bit more realistic
and not feel so sensitive when someone states the facts. The fact is that
NATO is a military organization and is able to move very quickly because it
has a logistical capability precisely for that purpose. The UN is going to
undertake a very difficult mission, an unprecedented mission in many ways,
and so is getting up to speed more slowly. That's a fact, and people should
perhaps not be so sensitive about stating facts.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up? On the civilian police force - because
this official I guess was pointing out that the US had only given a couple
of hundred names, when it had said that it would commit 450 officers and
100 trainers. How many --
MR. RUBIN: Well, we've made a - this is again an attempt to do phony bean
counting. We've offered 100 police now, and the UN has indicated they're
not ready to use those police until September. That's an example of the
bureaucracy moving slowly. But it's understandable. It's a difficult
process, and the UN is not a military organization.
When we say something like that, it's not a criticism; it's a statement of
our desire to work with them to try to move more expeditiously. The fact
that we haven't given 450 police names - they're not ready to accept 100.
So this is an attempt to somehow compare NATO's deployment of forces with
the UN's deployment. These are apples and oranges. NATO is a military
organization; the UN is not operating in this context as a military
organization, nor in any context, really. So it's apples and oranges.
Military organizations can move quickly - move very effectively. Their
forces are on standby, they have the logistical training. The UN does not
have that. So it's perfectly understandable that things move more slowly.
But I think all of us - the UN, NATO, the international community -- want
both the NATO forces and the UN administration to be as effective as
possible, as quickly as possible. I don't think there's a real issue here.
It's mid-July and people don't have much to write about, so I think it's
being blown out of proportion.
QUESTION: Assistant Secretary Larkin has written a letter to Senator
Grassley -- a letter on the Linda Shenwick matter - describing a job offer
made to Ms. Shenwick at a Department of Energy lab in Manhattan earlier
this year. Do you happen to know what the Secretary's involvement was in
this matter, and specifically in the job offer?
MR. RUBIN: As you know - because I think you've asked me questions on
this matter in the past - I'm restricted by Ms. Shenwick's refusal to allow
our discussion of this matter, because she wants - and her lawyers have
made a decision - that they prefer not to waive our ability to speak on
this and allow us to speak. They've made a decision not to do that.
The lawyers worked very carefully on the letters Assistant Secretary Larkin
sends so that they don't go beyond what is the subject of an independent
counsel's activities. They have not spent hours and hours preparing an
answer for that particular question without crossing the line into going
beyond what Ms. Shenwick's lawyers will let us do.
QUESTION: Something that wouldn't be a problem with respect to the
Privacy Act - would you be able to simply describe Ambassador Albright's
with Ms. Shenwick when they were both working at the US mission?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. I can certainly say that I observed firsthand that
Ambassador Albright treats all her employees fairly. She had a pretty
normal relationship with all of her employees. She followed all the rules
and regulations. She was not, as some have suggested, engaged in some
persecution of Ms. Shenwick. It's just not true; it's simply incorrect.
It's in the hands of an independent investigator - counsel - who's going to
make a judgment, and that's where we think it belongs.
QUESTION: New subject - Reuters is reporting that the US plans to issue
rules that will allow the sale of food and medicine and medical equipment
to Iran, Sudan and Libya. Can you confirm that? Do you have any information?
MR. RUBIN: I know that several weeks ago we announced a new policy to
ensure that we had a uniform policy on humanitarian sales of food and
medicine. If the regulations are being promulgated, that would come out of
another agency. But I'll check that for you.
QUESTION: Jamie, on India, according to reports behind the white flag led
by Pakistan, there is some shelling still going on by the militants. They
are using white flag as a cover up to lay landmines, and they are still in
bunkers. So how do you say now?
MR. RUBIN: We've seen reports that some of the infiltrators on the Indian
side of the line of control have not withdrawn. We think it's vital for
peace that the line of control be restored. India has said it intends to
clear the infiltrators on its side of the line and will continue military
operations until all are removed.
We trust that the Indian Government will continue to exercise the kind of
restraint in pursuing this operation that they have throughout the Kargil
crisis. Indian and Pakistani officials and military officers have
successfully ended most of the fighting around Kargil through talks. We
hope that this remaining issue can be settled quickly.
QUESTION: The Secretary of State while she is in Singapore will be
meeting with Mr. Jaswant Singh? Any plans for a meeting by her or any US
officials with any high-level Pakistani officials?
MR. RUBIN: Well, as you may or may not know, Pakistan is not an observer
at ASEAN. So Secretary Albright is taking the opportunity to meet with the
Indian Foreign Minister because he is at that meeting. I'm not aware of any
special plans he has beyond that.
QUESTION: And also there was an amendment - I'm sorry --
MR. RUBIN: Why don't we get it all three out and then we can move
on.
QUESTION: There was a UN amendment the day before yesterday defeated by
the House. Congressman Pallone called on the Administration that this
amendment is not good for India and several countries who have voted in the
past less than 25 percent of the time in the UN that they should be
punished and this amendment. Was that amendment supported by the State
Department, or how do you feel now that it's been defeated?
MR. RUBIN: I'll have to check with Assistant Secretary Larkin on what our
position was and the specific language on that amendment. I think we tend -
well, let me just leave it at that.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the meeting between the Secretary and
Senator Helms yesterday?
MR. RUBIN: I do not. It wouldn't be normal for us to brief on such a
meeting, since that's domestic relations. But it happens, it happens; just
not this time.
QUESTION: Does the US Embassy in Mozambique remain closed today?
MR. RUBIN: Mozambique or Madagascar?
QUESTION: One of those M countries.
MR. RUBIN: Yes - Colombia or Cambodia. The US Embassy in Maputo remains
closed today for security concerns. We do not discuss specific details. We
will be evaluating daily the posture.
In this regard, let me tell you that we did receive information about 8:20
a.m., local time, that the US Embassy in Chad received a telephonic bomb
threat. Embassy personnel were evacuated from the building during a rain
storm. A thorough search of the interior of the building, as well as
outdoor areas was conducted. The search was completed at 10:30 a.m. Nothing
was found.
While the search was being conducted, post management decided to suspend
operations for the day as a prudent security measure. We expect the embassy
to reopen tomorrow. That is in the nature of my commitment to you to give
you information while I have it each day on these matters - when I have it,
rather.
QUESTION: Those times are local times there?
MR. RUBIN: Local.
QUESTION: When did the Maputo embassy close?
MR. RUBIN: I think the first day was earlier in the week that we closed
it. I'll have to check that for you -- July 19.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Jamie, one more. Are you worried about Pakistan and North
Korea's missile technology collaboration and their working together?
MR. RUBIN: We are worried about missile proliferation, broadly speaking.
I wouldn't specify that particular issue was related to that ship. Let me
just say that we have been concerned about transfers of missiles and
missile technology to Pakistan, to Iran, to other countries of concern for
some time, and we will be vigilant in ensuring that we do what we can to
prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery
technologies.
QUESTION: Briefly, back on the sect front, on a scale of, say, zero to 20
- where zero was US not very bothered about at all, and 20 was very
bothered -- how would you rate US feelings about the treatment to the
sect?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we said the word disturbed, so you'll have to -
QUESTION: So it's a 10 or -
MR. RUBIN: Well, you'll have to make that judgment.
QUESTION: Jamie, back to the Embassy in Chad. You said it was a telephone
bomb threat. Do you have any reason to link it to Usama bin Laden or
anybody else?
MR. RUBIN: Well, you know I don't normally do that; I wouldn't start
now.
QUESTION: Well, that's not --
MR. RUBIN: Normally, people make certain assumptions. I don't normally do
that, and I'm not going to start now.
QUESTION: Okay, but just for the record --
MR. RUBIN: I have no information for you to provide on the specific
threat, and I don't accept the idea that it is normal practice to specify
the source of the threat.
QUESTION: Okay. Whether it is normal or not, when the five or six
embassies were closed some weeks ago, it was related to the --
MR. RUBIN: No, I think I used my words very carefully. I would check back
and see what I said about it before you continue down this line. What I
said was that we had indications, generally, of Usama bin Laden's
organization's willingness and desire to conduct actions against the United
States or its interests, generally. Then I indicated that in each of these
five, we had tactical information that justified closing it. Now, I made
that point, but I did not link Usama bin Laden to one particular embassy
threat.
QUESTION: Even though Usama bin Laden's name was mentioned in the same
paragraph as the other information? There seemed to be a fortuitous --
MR. RUBIN: Well, it wasn't - I'm not disputing what judgments you all can
draw, and conclusions you can draw. I'm just saying that I'm not going to
be in a position because of security reasons to identify the source of
every threat when I identify a threat for you; or else I won't even be able
to identify the fact of the threat, because I will continue to battle those
who understandably want to protect any possibility of new information being
provided to the bad guys.
QUESTION: Anything new on the release of the Perry report?
MR. RUBIN: No.
QUESTION: Is there a particular threat as far as Albania is concerned?
MR. RUBIN: I think we've generally said that in Albania, the conditions
are such that we've had concerns. As you know, Secretary Cohen didn't
travel there; Secretary Albright didn't travel there when she was
considering it. There are some concerns about security in Albania, and I
would give you the formal language on it. But there have been for some
time.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 12:20 P.M.)
|
