U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #108, 99-08-19
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
813
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, August 19, 1999
Briefer: JAMES P. RUBIN_
BOSNIA
1-4 Reported 4,000-page secret report does not exist; nor has $1
billion of foreign aid been stolen. As best as US can tell, loss
of US aid totals $1 million.
IRAN
4-5 US reiterates that charges against 13 Jews accused of spying for US
are without foundation. US has long had problems with human
rights situation.
5 US policy is well known: US wants government-to-government
dialogue, discussion of problems.
TURKEY
5-6 Several Americans may be among killed and injured by earthquake.
Search and rescue team began work there last night. Emergency
supplies are being airlifted. US Navy ships are en route
from Spain, with 22 helicopters.
CHINA
6-7,9 American detained in Qinghai Province; consular access to be given
soon.
7-8 US arms sales to Taiwan are generally opposed by China; US acts in
accordance with Taiwan Relations Act, 1972 US-China
communiques. No extraordinary developments by China noted.
CHINA/TAIWAN
7-8,10 US has urged Taiwan and China to dialogue, resolve problems in
peaceful manner. US will continue to assist Taiwan with its
legitimate defense needs. US has made no decision to provide
theater missile defense, other than to protect US forces. Use of
force to resolve any dispute would be of grave concern to the US.
LIBYA
11-12 US policy is that Libya must renounce terrorism, comply with
pertinent UN Security Council resolutions, cooperate with Pan Am
103 trial as it unfolds.
NORTH KOREA
12 US troops in South Korea are not there to invade the DPRK.
RUSSIA
12-13 Charges of money laundering by particular bank best directed to US
Department of Justice.
14 US continues to condemn use of force against lawful authority in
Dagestan.
18 US had preliminary arms talks; US believes it can make minor
changes to ABM Treaty.
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
13-14 US in contact with both sides, so that they can find way to bridge
differences over Palestinian prisoner release can be resolved.
14 Secretary will have time in her trip to explore full range of
issues between parties.
CUBA
14-15 US has received response to US counter-narcotics proposals made in
June.
IRAQ
15 US made clear that no country should facilitate travel of Izzat
Ibrahim. There is no international legal basis to hold him in
Austria.
15-16 US in consultation with other governments to establish an inquiry
regarding possible war crimes.
GERMANY
15-16,17 Holocaust-Era Forced and Slave issues. Meetings in Germany
beginning Tuesday.
DEPARTMENT
16-17 An inter-agency group has been created to collect and coordinate
USG information in order to counteract anti-American propaganda
overseas.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #108
THURSDAY, AUGUST 19, 1999 1:10 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: -- Only one of the wire services has failed to wear their tie,
as duly noted. That's really something that is deplorable. It's not
condemnable; it's deplorable. I have concerns about it that I'll express
to that reporter after the briefing.
With that opening comment, let me just make one additional comment that I
had hoped would have gone away, which unfortunately has not gone away.
Corruption in Bosnia is a serious problem and the authorities there need to
take it seriously. That said, there continue to be reports about a non-
existent report by the anti-fraud unit of the Office of High Representative.
That report does not exist. The High Representative confirmed that
yesterday in his press conference. Nor are the reflections of $1 billion
of foreign aid being lost accurate. That $1 billion is a lumping together
of domestic revenue losses with minimal foreign assistance losses that
leads to a false impression that $1 billion of foreign assistance has been
stolen.
Furthermore, there is a suggestion that the international community has
sought to cover up this problem, when the opposite is true. The Peace
Implementation Council and the United States in particular have sought to
bring attention to the problem of corruption by mandating the creation of
this anti-fraud unit, establishing an anti-corruption strategy and speaking
openly about it.
This is particularly egregious. As best as we can tell -- and we've now
done an exhaustive search -- the 4,000 pages is work that the Bosnian
federal police themselves have done to uncover fraud in Bosnia. So not
only is there no 4,000-page report that the international community has
proven Bosnians are engaged in fraud, but the only 4,000-page document that
exists is a document in Serbo-Croatian that constitute the receipts and the
proof that the Bosnian federal police have put together an investigation of
corruption of one of their own.
Therefore, the perception hanging out there -- that continues to hang out
there -- that the international community had a report detailing $1 billion
in foreign aid is wrong and needs to be corrected.
The fact of the matter is that we have lost very little money in Bosnia,
precisely because we have been prepared for the corruption problems there;
precisely because we've made fighting corruption part of our policy. The
sum total of potential losses to us at this time is in the nature of $1
million. That is 1,000 times less than what the international community
has been subjected to reports about, over and over again.
QUESTION: On that very subject, the newspaper that got this all started
had an editorial today which continues with the same theme, despite yours
and others' attempts to sway them away from it. Would you like to see The
New York Times run a correction on this story; is that what you're
saying?
MR. RUBIN: I do believe that it's hard enough to get support in this
country for foreign assistance as it is. To have a false and unjustified
and unsubstantiated perception that $1 billion in foreign aid money has
been stolen by the Bosnians, when there is no such report proving that, and
there are no such estimates by the international community, harms that
cause, which the Secretary believes is a correct one; which is to find
appropriate ways to assist countries around the world through foreign
assistance.
To have the world continue to be told that $1 billion in foreign assistance
has been stolen, out of $5 billion total, does grave harm to that just
cause. We would like to see corrective measures taken that create the
truth and not this false perception. The truth would be that the Bosnians
themselves uncovered corruption; they documented that corruption; they
shared that information with the people in the international community; and
it was the Bosnians themselves that uncovered corruption in Tuzla of moneys
that ought to have been deposited for the purposes of funding in Tuzla.
This was not foreign assistance. The sum total of the foreign assistance
at issue here involves $1 million that we believe we are going to get
back.
So when all is said and done, it will probably be that no foreign
assistance has been misappropriated or lost. Instead, the world continues
to be told that $1 billion in foreign assistance has been lost.
QUESTION: What adjectives would you like to attach to The New York Times
editorial today in the light of all the statements that you've made on the
subject?
MR. RUBIN: Mistaken.
QUESTION: When you're talking about the $1 million, you're just talking
about US money, right; you're not talking about other?
MR. RUBIN: Correct, as best as we can tell. The whole issue of foreign
assistance relates to one bank which is now being litigated. In most of
these cases there is collateral for the various loans. The collateral will
be obtained if the loans are not repaid. So it's just a shame that this
mistake continues.
QUESTION: Jamie, as I read the story I didn't think it said that the
United States had incurred losses up to $1 billion, but talking about the
whole international community, including the World Bank and other
international financial institutions. I don't think it ever suggested that
the $1 billion was all out of US aid.
MR. RUBIN: Right, but if you deconstruct the facts, rather than cobbling
them together in the way that has been done, you discover that the total
amount of foreign assistance at issue is $20 million. The remainder of the
funds are local funds that have been obtained and possibly misused -- and
worse, projections on what funds ought to have been provided to the local
government if taxes had properly been levied and collected.
So the $1 billion comes from projections of taxes that weren't collected or
levied, (and) from funds that were misappropriated. The Bosnians
themselves uncovered this fraud and are acting on it. People have been
fired. They put together the proof; that's the 4,000 pages of documents;
what the Bosnians themselves uncovered.
That is -- if I were to do the rough mathematics, and please don't hold me
to this -- 99-98 percent of the $1 billion. Two percent relates to $20
million with this particular bank, which, having been subject to a loan
call, the bank is now going through a litigating process. And we believe --
AID believes -- that at the end of the day, none of that money will be lost
because there are collateral for these loans. At the end of the day, $1
million is now being subjected to litigation and I believe a court has
ordered that $520,000 of that $1 million is scheduled to be paid back next
week.
So when you deconstruct the $1 billion, you find that this alleged theft of
$1 billion simply didn't happen.
QUESTION: Have you been getting angry calls from the Hill about--
MR. RUBIN: We have received a number of calls, to my knowledge, from
people asking questions about the $1 billion of foreign aid money. I don't
have a detail of that; I know it's been an issue in the building. I
certainly know it came up on television programs that people who were on
were asked questions about.
QUESTION: So you think there's a real serious concern in this building
now, that if this report has not been corrected, that there's going to be
problems getting future aid, particularly for Kosovo?
MR. RUBIN: We're concerned that it is hard enough to get support in this
country for foreign assistance that advances the national security of the
United States in the way that the President had suggested just the day
before, by heading off conflicts that would cost far, far more to deal with,
and that it will be much wiser and cheaper and safer for us to use
diplomacy and foreign assistance to stop problems before they grow, than
having to deal with them militarily.
On the day after that call was made by the President for assistance and for
greater support from Congress, the next day we have a situation where an
incorrect perception has been created. That's what concerns us.
QUESTION: Jamie, so is your best estimate at the moment that all foreign
donors may have lost $20 million?
MR. RUBIN: No, again, and some of this is extremely detailed and, as
Betsy Steuart knows well, I am not a banker -- nor a pediatrician. There
are a lot of other things I'm not. But the best judgment that we have from
researching this carefully over the last two days is that the foreign
assistance at issue, the foreign money at issue, relates to the one bank --
the $20 million that was at issue when that bank went under, or went into a
situation where it couldn't pay its loans.
But the remainder of the money that is talked about in that particular
article refers exclusively to funds that were either collected and misused,
in Tuzla and other areas, or never collected an ought to have been
collected. So 2 percent of the $1 billion figure relates to foreign
assistance. Of that, I've gone through in some detail and tried to explain
- and I can get additional information for you -- how AID has protected
itself to ensure that the only funds now at issue for us are these $1
million that was deposited; and $520,000 of that $1 million is expected to
be paid next week.
QUESTION: Jamie, has there been conversations about this between anybody
at the State Department and The New York Times?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: You don't want to go any further than that?
QUESTION: I assume that discussions would pretty much follow the same
tone.
MR. RUBIN: You can be assume that we take our same position in private
as we do in public, and sometimes perhaps not as politely.
QUESTION: New subject -- apparently you irritated the Iranians to no end
yesterday, by demanding the release -- or saying they should release these
13 Jews accused of spying. Would you like to meddle a bit more today in
Iran's internal affairs by responding to their refusal to release
them?
MR. RUBIN: We continue to stand by our views that the allegations that
these individuals were involved in espionage are without foundation. We
call on the government of Iran to uphold its stated commitment to protect
the rights of all religious and ethnic minorities by releasing these
individuals and ensuring that no harm comes to them. That remains our view,
despite the comments from Iran.
QUESTION: Can you extrapolate that a little bit, and say what this
particular chapter or subchapter in US-Iranian relations means <I>vis-a-
vis</I> the purported softening of their line and the <I>rapprochement</I>?
MR. RUBIN: Well, let me say this -- we've long had concerns about human
rights; those concerns, obviously, continue. What we have also said is
that we would be prepared to have a dialogue with the government of Iran
about issues like terrorism, issues like support for the opponents of the
Middle East peace process and issues like weapons of mass destruction, that
remain the reason why a number of laws and other steps have been taken with
respect to our relationship.
So this has long been a problem -- human rights issues. We've detailed
them in our human rights report. This certainly fits into that category.
QUESTION: Just a one-day visit. A similar question on Libya.
QUESTION: Did you see anything interesting in President Khatemi's
remarks, which came up yesterday and you hadn't seen them? Also, do you
have any reason to believe that this spy case is, in fact, merely a
reflection of the internal struggle in Iran?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say we have no way of knowing for sure what the
reasons for the spy case are, and I don't want to speculate.
With respect to President Khatemi's statements, as well as statements
attributed to Ayatollah Khamenei, we've seen press statements and reports
about that. As far as we're concerned, our policy toward Iran is well-
known. Secretary Albright has called for a government-to-government
dialogue with Iran. That dialogue would be conducted without preconditions
on either side. In the course of such a dialogue, the United States would
address Iranian policies which the US finds objectionable, including, as I
said earlier, support for terrorism, violent opposition to the Middle East
peace process, and development of weapons of mass destruction.
That remains our view. The Secretary articulated about a year ago the
reasons why we were prepared to have that dialogue and the reasons why we
thought it worthy of moving forward if the Iranian Government was willing,
and how a road map to normal relations could be created.
QUESTION: And the US policies which Iran finds objectionable, too,
right?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Secretary Grossman said this morning -- without getting into
any details -- that five Americans are among the victims in Turkey; five
dead and two injured. Do you have any details on that?
MR. RUBIN: I have very little detail, but let me provide you what I can
in a situation like this. Our consulate general in Istanbul has learned
that several American citizens may have been killed or injured in Tuesday
morning's earthquake. We are in touch with families of those affected.
Out of deference to the families, we will not be providing the names of
these individuals.
With respect to four contractors at the Turkish naval base, which is
another issue, we understand that two of the contractors had left the area
prior to the earthquake, but that the other two remain unaccounted for. We
are following up on these individuals.
Our consulate general continues to work with local authorities, and has
sent personnel to Izmit to determine the well-being of Americans. In that
regard, let me say that Secretary Albright did speak today to Foreign
Minister Cem. She laid out in detail what it is that we've been able to
put together in a short period of time, including the search and rescue
team that already began work last night, and was able to pull two children
and one adult out from the wreckage; that the USAID has sent a disaster
assistance and response team; that the USAID has contributed eight experts
to augment UN coordination efforts; that we are sending disaster assistance
charter planes to Istanbul with emergency supplies, including 30,000
blankets, plastic sheeting, emergency medical supplies for 10,000 people,
in addition to epidemiologists.
She also informed him that the European Command expects a 24-person medical
crisis response team to arrive in Istanbul at 1:00 p.m. local time, to help
Turkey assess the medical situation; that three Navy ships are en route to
Turkey from Spain. One ship has 22 helicopters to evacuate people to
medical facilities on the ships. The military is also preparing to send
manpower and equipment to fight the fire at the Tupras refinery in Izmit.
She emphasized American readiness to assist Turkey in this great time of
need. We intend to continue to remain in close contact with the government
there.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- five were killed?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have that; I can see what we can get for you during
the course of the day.
QUESTION: Five? Because you just said seven.
MR. RUBIN: If Grossman said five, then I'm sure he has it. I just don't
have that information in front of me. I'll try to get that for you.
QUESTION: Greece and Cyprus are among some of the donors that are giving
aid to Turkey. Do you see their gesture as a softening in some of the
tensions between the two countries, or do you think it's just a big
humanitarian gesture or what?
MR. RUBIN: Well, they would have to describe the rationale for their
decisions. But in our view, at times like these when thousands of people
have died and many, many more thousands are at risk, it is appropriate on
humanitarian grounds for all countries in the world to get together and try
to assist when they can. If this reflects something beyond that, it would
be up to those governments to say that.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the detention of an American and an
Australian in China in Qinghai Province?
MR. RUBIN: Immediately after hearing of this detention, we requested --
and have since been granted -- consular access. The consular officer will
be on the first available flight to Qinghai Province and will arrive late
Friday evening. We have urged the Chinese to release the American. We
understand they were preparing an independent study of the impact of a
proposed World Bank project. That is our understanding of the situation.
QUESTION: I'm wondering, has China communicated recently to the United
States that it wants to see America gradually reduce arms sales to Taiwan,
saying that such sales are destabilizing to the region and the world? Did
such demands -- if they were to be classified that way -- come in a letter
from President Jiang Zemin to President Clinton?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say that President Clinton and President Jiang have
exchanged correspondence on several occasions in recent months. The
Secretary of State has spoken to the Foreign Minister on several occasions
in recent months.
My experience has been that whenever the subject of Taiwan comes up -- and
especially at times when the subject is of greater interest -- that the
Chinese position has been to oppose arms sales to Taiwan in general and to
make the points that you made.
That is a continuing position of China; they continue to have that view.
We continue to take the view that we are guided by the Taiwan Relations Act
and the three <I>communiques</I>, and will act in accordance with those to
provide the equipment we think appropriate to Taiwan.
QUESTION: Can I just follow that, too? Do you have any comment, just
reaction to the ambassador's statements today basically saying that Taiwan
is not Florida, and that the US should not interfere in internal matters of
Taiwan and China?
MR. RUBIN: Well, our relations with China and our unofficial relations
with Taiwan have been guided by the Taiwan Relations Act and the three
<I>communiques</I> for many years. We think the differences between China
and Taiwan can be resolved peacefully. We think our policy promotes that
kind of peaceful resolution, and is to the benefit to the people of Taiwan
as well as to the people of China.
So we act pursuant to those guidelines in a way in which we think promotes
peace in the region and promotes the welfare and well-being of the people
of Taiwan and the people of China.
QUESTION: The US still has not seen any extraordinary developments on
the part of Beijing in terms of movements?
MR. RUBIN: No, we have not seen any extraordinary developments.
QUESTION: The Taiwan Cabinet has announced plans to put forth to
Parliament the idea of setting up an early warning system to detect
airborne Chinese planes and missiles and, ultimately, to have a total
missile defense system. First of all, what's your view of that proposal?
And in the event Taiwan goes ahead with some early warning system, would
the United States be prepared to help with equipment or advice?
MR. RUBIN: First of all, those are obviously decisions that Taiwan has
made. With respect to our involvement in them, let me say that Taiwan's
security in the region depends on more than a balance of weapons systems.
We have strongly urged both China and Taiwan to engage in dialogue and to
resolve differences in a peaceful manner. That is one of the key
components of security in the region. The record clearly shows that good
US-China relations contribute to reduced tensions in the region.
With respect to the specific suggestion on theater missile defense, let me
say that we will continue to assist Taiwan in meeting its legitimate self-
defense needs in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act and consistent
with the 1982 joint <I>communique</I> with China.
Among the items Taiwan has already purchased has been technology for
Taiwan's modified air defense system, which has anti-aircraft and anti-
missile capabilities. The Taiwan authorities are assessing their own
capability and needs for missile defense, as these comments and suggestions
you reported indicate. We have made no US decisions here in the United
States on deployment of theater missile defense systems, other than for the
protection of American forces in the region.
We do not preclude the possible sale of theater missile defense systems to
Taiwan in the future. Our interest is in preserving peace and stability in
the region. It is premature to make that decision about theater missile
development now, when those systems are still under development and both we
and others are studying this question.
QUESTION: Does it concern you at all that the Chinese Ambassador
repeatedly today refused to rule out the option of the use of force by
China against Taiwan?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we've been operating for many years now, as I said in
response to the previous question, under a framework in which our relations
have been guided by the Taiwan Relations Act and the various <I>communiques</I>.
We believe that has been to the benefit of the people of China, the people
of Taiwan and stability in the region.
For some time now, the Chinese have taken the position you describe. There
is nothing new about them taking that position; they've been taking it for
years.
QUESTION: What's your reaction to it?
MR. RUBIN: We believe very strongly, and have said very strongly, that
all the dispute between China and Taiwan must be resolved peacefully.
We've made clear that the use of force would be a matter of grave concern
to the United States.
QUESTION: Follow-up on that. I know that last week you hadn't heard
this, but I wondered whether this week people in think tanks were passing
on the message they've been receiving from Chinese officials --
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of that.
QUESTION: -- on the inevitability of some kind of military gesture by
the Chinese.
MR. RUBIN: I'm aware of the reports about it; I'm not aware that any of
those reported outsiders have talked to our people. They haven't told me.
I can't rule it out; I'm just unaware of it.
QUESTION: -- the ratcheting up of the rhetoric in the government-
controlled media; for instance, the statement that a neutron bomb can take
care of an aircraft carrier?
MR. RUBIN: Well, let me just say that we, as a matter of policy, would
view with grave concern any use of force to resolve that dispute. We do
not want to engage in a to-ing and fro-ing on who can do what under what
circumstances. But we would view with grave concern any use of force.
QUESTION: Two seconds -- and I don't want to split hairs. I want to go
back to the two people that were detained in China. Is there some reason
that you aren't calling on the Chinese to release the Australian?
MR. RUBIN: There's no particular reason. Again, as the State Department
for the United States, our primary responsibility is to American citizens
overseas.
QUESTION: Yes, but, I mean, you're also calling on the Iranians for the
release of --
MR. RUBIN: I'm going to get to that, OK? So when an American is taken
in a situation like this, the first thing we do is call for the American to
be released. Then we seek access to him, pursuant to the Vienna Convention.
I will have to check, but I don't see any reason why the Australian
shouldn't be released either. It certainly would be our view that anyone
in this position ought not to be imprisoned for doing what was envisaged by
the World Bank; and that is to examine the project in that area that the
Chinese themselves indicated they would provide access to.
So -- provided there weren't some internal laws broken, which I'm not
familiar with -- we call for people in that position to be released.
QUESTION: Tell me what exactly the status is of the nomination of
Admiral Prueher as Ambassador to China. It seems to me that at this point
in time with everything going on in the US-China relationship that it's
really vital to have an ambassador there. It would seem that placing that
on fast track would put us in a --
MR. RUBIN: It is the prerogative of the President to nominate ambassadors
for countries; so therefore, that question is best directed at the White
House. I don't believe they've nominated an ambassador formally. So
anything I say will be inappropriate.
QUESTION: The Chinese ambassador this morning seemed to be particularly
concerned that American defense of Taiwan would become an issue in the
presidential campaign. For instance, George W. Bush yesterday promised
that if he becomes president he would defend Taiwan's independence. The
ambassador said this morning, "A few American politicians have already said
the US would defend Taiwan against invasion. I believe this is a very
dangerous statement. The Chinese people will not be cowed by anybody's
threats or blackmail." Are you concerned that this delicate issue of
whether or not we would defend Taiwan is becoming an issue in the
presidential campaign?
MR. RUBIN: Wow. Good question; well-formulated, well-researched. The
only thing I can do in a situation like this is to quote Secretary Albright,
which is that she had her partisan instincts surgically removed when she
took the post of Secretary of State. Since I work for someone who has no
partisan instincts left after being surgically removed, I certainly
wouldn't want to say anything that could even be construed as partisan.
What I can say is that it is the view of this Administration and this
President and this Secretary of State that the issue of Taiwan is best
dealt with through the means that we have been dealing with it. That is,
encouraging dialogue between Taiwan and China; acting pursuant to the
Taiwan Relations Act; pursuing a relationship with China that advances the
national security of the United States through improvements in their
practices on non-proliferation, cooperation with respect to the issue of
North Korea, and other matters that I've repeated endlessly here in the
briefing room. That is our view.
I am confident that the Chinese understand our political process, having
worked with this country through several different administrations that
have changed. I would hope they would understand the democratic process
and act according to that understanding.
How did I do, by the way, on that? Did I navigate it OK?
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: It seems that Beijing is not only directing their threats
towards Taiwan, but they're directing them towards the United States. I
mean, the statements that are coming out of there are very strong. Are you
all alarmed at those type of statements?
MR. RUBIN: As I indicated, we believe that the issue of Taiwan must be
resolved peacefully. We would view with grave concern any attempt to use
military force. That is our view. In the meantime, we will continue to
work with China and work through our unofficial relationship with Taiwan to
promote a peaceful dialogue. That is our position.
QUESTION: With the trial of the two suspects of Pan Am 103 due to start
in a couple of months --
MR. RUBIN: By the way, let me point out we have mentioned other news
organizations on a regular basis here in the briefing room. So there's no
attempt to favor one news organization or another.
(Laughter.)
I think the record would show very clearly that a number of different news
organizations have been mentioned roughly equally in the two years that
I've been here.
QUESTION: The New York Times was mentioned earlier.
QUESTION: The New York Times was mentioned in a way it probably didn't
want to, actually.
MR. RUBIN: Yes, perhaps.
QUESTION: Anyhow, with the trial of the two suspects in Pam Am 103 due
to start in a couple of months, might we expect an improvement in US-Libyan
relations; and if not, what else does the US expect from Libya?
MR. RUBIN: There is no new development in our Libya policy. Our Libya
policy has been quite clear and it remains clear. That is that there is a
Security Council resolution; that Libya must meet its requirements, which
include renouncing terrorism, demonstrating that all the support for
terrorists has been cut off, that compensation is paid to the victims, and
that the trial of the Pan Am 103 plane -- they cooperate in its unfolding.
That trial is in February and we will be, obviously, following that very,
very closely. We continue to have a number of deep, deep concerns about
Libyan support for terrorism. We have taken the view that Libya must take
concrete steps -- beyond the fact of the trial of the Pan Am 103 suspects --
to end and renounce support for terrorism. It has not yet done so. The
specific requirements, again, are in the Security Council resolutions. So
that is where our views on Libya remain.
QUESTION: The Dutch are holding a US-Libyan dialogue in Malta next week.
There are reports around town that maybe one of the government agencies,
including the Department of State, might send a representative.
MR. RUBIN: I don't know anything about that.
QUESTION: Could you take the question?
MR. RUBIN: We'll take the question.
QUESTION: Just to see, what else does the US Government believe Libya
should do specifically with regard to the Pan Am 103 case?
MR. RUBIN: As I indicated earlier, we believe that Libya should not only
have provided the suspects, as has now been done, but should also cooperate
as the trial unfolds. It would be premature for me to speculate as to what
specific steps unfold in that area. It is correct that Libyan Government
officials have not been implicated directly in an act of terrorism in
recent years, but we remain concerned about what might unfold as this trial
unfolds.
So we will await the beginning of this trial. We will be watching very
carefully whether Libya complies with the requirement in the Security
Council that they cooperate fully as the trial unfolds, and that they pay
compensation to the victims of the Pan Am 103 terrorist bombing.
QUESTION: Does "cooperate fully" mean that other Libyan officials might
be called upon to testify and that you would expect them to do so?
MR. RUBIN: Well, as I indicated, I'm not prepared to speculate on what
additional steps may be required as the trial unfolds. But whatever is
required, we expect Libya to cooperate fully if they're to meet this
requirement of the Security Council resolution.
QUESTION: Does the United States believe that Moammar Qadhafi or any
other senior officials in Libya above the level of the two suspects were or
might have been involved in ordering that crime?
MR. RUBIN: Under legal advice, it is our considered judgment that it
would be best to allow the trial to unfold without expressing our opinions
publicly prior to that trial.
QUESTION: Korea -- the North Koreans have broadcast once again that they
believe the United States still harbors the intention to invade North
Korea. They have said this again and they say that one of the evidences is
that the US keeps troops and material in South Korea for this purpose. I
would just ask, is there any way the United States Government could perhaps
convince the North Koreans that this is purely wrong?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we've certainly tried and we're aware of that
particular claim. It's something that comes up regularly.
QUESTION: Put on the green eye-shade again.
MR. RUBIN: Uh-oh, does this require banking capabilities?
QUESTION: Another banking story.
MR. RUBIN: At least I have a future ahead of me.
QUESTION: Another banking story, another story in The New York Times.
This one is about -- I'm not sure which bank it is -- but the Russian mob
laundering money through their -- can you comment on that?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, I can. The battle against money laundering is a top
priority for the American Government. We are, of course, concerned about
any reports of money laundering, and the State Department will do whatever
it can to assist the agencies that are investigating this case. However,
it is long-standing policy not to comment on ongoing investigations. This,
therefore, would require those interested in more details to contact the
Department of Justice.
QUESTION: Since the issue of siphoning off of aid has been elevated, can
you say or can you look into whether any aid to Russia -- and there have
been allegations that that's been siphoned off, as well -- has been
laundered through this bank?
MR. RUBIN: We will look into whether there's any connection here to the
extent it relates to foreign aid. We may or may not be able to give you an
answer, but we will certainly endeavor to do so.
QUESTION: I'd like a 4,000-page report.
(Laughter.)
MR. RUBIN: Wow.
QUESTION: Can you tell us whether the United States is doing anything to
try and resolve the dispute over Palestinian prisoners? And while you're
at it, could you remind us what your position was when this blew up under
Prime Minister Netanyahu? Maybe it's changed since then, but I doubt
it.
MR. RUBIN: Oh, I see. The prisoner release issue in Wye; is that what
you're talking about?
QUESTION: Yes. Have you been trying to --
MR. RUBIN: We are in contact with both sides. We understand that
discussions and contacts between the two sides are continuing. We want
them to find a way to bridge the differences on this issue, and all the
issues between them.
In that regard, it is our diplomats' judgment that further comment could
only complicate the prospect of achieving a successful resolution of that
particular issue.
QUESTION: Can you tell us how you're in contact? What level -- who's in
contact with whom?
MR. RUBIN: I would expect that the very able team of Ross and Miller,
ably assisted by Mr. Indyk and our embassy in Israel and our consulate with
the Palestinians, is the vehicle. I can certainly try to check when our
last contact was, but normally it's through that Middle East peace team,
broadly defined.
QUESTION: Can you clear up one thing on that point? Wye does not
specifically require Israel to release any "flavor" of prisoner. Wye gives
Israel the power to select which prisoners are chosen and it leaves the
rest of it completely ambiguous; is that not correct?
MR. RUBIN: I'll have to check on that; I don't know the answer to
that.
QUESTION: On the Middle East: back to confidence-building measures. Is
the Secretary going to take up demolition of houses and perhaps some of the
other issues that are not directly related to Wye, but are the basis for
confidence between the parties, and for future negotiations? Is she going
to mention any of these issues that have been taken up by the Department
previously but have been ignored in the past few years?
MR. RUBIN: I would like to leave the Secretary the option of publicizing
her agenda items at the time of her trip. But let me say I would expect
that the Secretary would have an opportunity in the time in the Middle East
to explore the full range of issues related to the Middle East peace
process, and the efforts we have made in that regard, and efforts we
believe are necessary to avoid complications in that process.
QUESTION: Barak has decided not to grant Peres a Cabinet position or a
ministerial position. Do you have any comment on that and if that's going
to affect at all the peace process, since Peres is such a major player?
MR. RUBIN: That would be a comment on an internal political decision of
the Israeli Government, which is not appropriate for me to make in that
regard.
QUESTION: Dagestan? With increased Russian involvement in Dagestan,
even strikes against sites in Chechnya, it's occurring in an environment
which is much different than it was the last time they got involved in this
area. You have increasing Azeri-Turkish ties; both Azerbaijan and Georgia
are making noises about joining NATO; some people in the West -- some
foreign policy observers -- are saying we have to draw the line in the sand
with Russia in the Caucasus. I was wondering if there's not concern in
this building, that that military situation in the Caucasus may serve to
draw the West into a conflict that would not be in its interests.
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of heightened concern in that regard. I'm
aware of our position about the conflict in Dagestan, which is that we
condemn strongly the use of force against lawful authority, and that we
urge all parties to exercise restraint in preventing indiscriminate attacks
against civilians. That's our position on Chechnya. I'm not aware that
that particular concern of those thoughtful observers has seized the
Department.
QUESTION: There are some reports that the United States and Cuba are
about to reach an agreement on drug fighting.
MR. RUBIN: We have received a response from the Cubans on the proposals
we made in June regarding counter-narcotics cooperation. No final
decisions have been made. Continued cooperation between the United States
and Cuba, on a case-by-case basis, is essential to plug interdiction gaps
being exploited by traffickers using Cuban airspace and seas.
As Under Secretary Pickering said yesterday, that would be cooperation in
discovering trafficking and ending it.
QUESTION: This sort of cooperation has already taken place. Has this
taken place without any kind of formal agreement, or would this be a first
agreement of this kind?
MR. RUBIN: No, this would be efforts to improve counter-narcotics
cooperation.
QUESTION: Jamie, yesterday as you were urging the Austrians not to
facilitate the travel of Saddam Hussein's right-hand man, he was in fact
jetting out of the country on a plane. Are you disappointed at all that
the Austrians didn't "un-facilitate" his travel?
MR. RUBIN: We have made our views clear to concerned governments that
Izzat Ibrahim has been implicated in some of the Iraqi regime's most
heinous war crimes and crimes against humanity, and that his travel should
not be facilitated for any reason. Obviously, he didn't feel completely
comfortable in Austria, and we are not losing any sleep over that.
QUESTION: But are you disappointed that the Austrians didn't stop him
from leaving, or that they apparently did facilitate his travel?
MR. RUBIN: Well, again, as I indicated yesterday in response to these
questions, what we were primarily referring to in that regard was the
facilitating of travel from Iraq to countries of convenience for any
reasons -- not travel back to Iraq.
As I indicated, there is no basis to hold him, even though we regard the
Iraqi regime as responsible for a number of atrocities. We've been working
with the Indict Campaign and others to try to bring greater and greater
attention to those violations of humanitarian law and human rights. We
would like to see the international community give greater and greater
attention to it.
But as far as legal grounds for holding him, I pointed out that there are
none. But we certainly don't think members of the regime that is responsible
for these atrocities, and causing the great suffering that they have caused
to the people of Iraq, to the Kurds and to so many others in the region,
should have their travel to locations of convenience facilitated.
QUESTION: On that, Jamie, is the US trying to encourage the UN Security
Council to develop a tribunal for war crimes in Iraq?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think a tribunal would probably be beyond what we are
doing right now. I think we are in consultation with other governments and
have been for some time, encouraging an effort to be made to establish an
inquiry. We're certainly supportive of the non-governmental organizations
that are trying to develop evidence and highlight that evidence.
QUESTION: On the meeting between Mr. Eizenstat and Count Lambsdorff, I
know that Mr. Eizenstat's no longer here, but apparently you're in charge
of his public relations. Can you tell us what you know about the
meeting?
MR. RUBIN: Is that what he said?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. RUBIN: I wonder how that would go over with Treasury PA?
QUESTION: And also can you tell us whether --
QUESTION: The second-longest serving --
MR. RUBIN: He's gone; Howard left.
QUESTION: Can you tell us whether there is a proposal to postpone the
slave and forced labor talks in Germany next week?
MR. RUBIN: There will be meetings next week in Bonn. These meetings
will include all of the parties who have previously participated in plenary
sessions. The participants will continue the discussions on principles for
structuring the German foundation initiative. The participants include
attorneys representing German enterprises, Central and East European
governments, the Jewish Claims Conference and US class action lawyers.
German Government and US Government attorneys will also attend.
The meetings begin on Tuesday and will continue through the week. We hope
to reach general agreement on key principles for the establishment of the
German foundation initiative. Further comment on these talks would be
discouraged, and I refer you to Secretary Eizenstat's press briefing of
July 15, available on our able website -- if a website can be able.
QUESTION: Have you seen the proposal put forward, I think, Tuesday by
the class action lawyers for a new foundation -- in other words, a new
variation of an idea? Does the State Department think that this new idea
put forward at this point is going to be helpful?
MR. RUBIN: I'm advised that given the meetings coming up next week, it
would be in appropriate to comment on substance at this time.
QUESTION: My colleagues will forgive me for this one. Please forgive
me. This is regarding that new international group which would coordinate
State Department information overseas. The international information --
MR. RUBIN: I'm familiar with that.
QUESTION: No, my question is -- my understanding is that part of the
purpose is to counter anti-American propaganda overseas. How would forming
this group do that?
MR. RUBIN: This is a classic misunderstanding. The United States
Government, much to your surprise I'm sure, has hundreds of inter-agency
meetings. There are hundreds of inter-agency meeting groups that meet
under various auspices. And they call themselves something, and they have
a meeting. In other words, just the way the Correspondents Association for
the State Department Press Corps has meetings. They call themselves the
Correspondents Association.
So the issue here is simply that a forum and a mantle for a meeting was
created, with the idea that the more we coordinate inter-agency, we get
information from around the government, the better able we will be here at
the State Department to project that information to debunk anti-American
propaganda overseas and to promote what we believe to be America's
interests overseas.
There is nothing strange about that. The only new element is that there's
an inter-agency group. There are a lot of inter-agency groups. There's no
new entity; there's no new organization; there's no new agency; there's
merely a procedural device, called an inter-agency group, that will work
harder to do better what I try to do every day.
QUESTION: Does this involve any extra staff, setting up this procedure?
MR. RUBIN: No, an inter-agency group just means everybody has to go to a
meeting.
QUESTION: OK, so there's no new office.
MR. RUBIN: There are a lot of changes that have been made as a result of
integration, and preparations for the United States Information Agency's
joining the State Department. I would be happy, for those of you who are
interested, to get a briefer to explain to you the way that integration is
going to work. But I'm not aware that there are new hires unrelated to
that and solely related to the fact that there's an inter-agency working
group.
QUESTION: Is it true that at one point you were seeking to have the
entire US Information Agency's I Bureau put under your wing at the Public
Affairs Office?
MR. RUBIN: Under my wing -- what can we call that? Let me say that
there were a number of different proposals during the process of integration.
I did not take the view that the entire I Bureau ought to be attached to
the Bureau of Public Affairs.
QUESTION: I think we forgot to ask you one thing on the Holocaust. You
said the meetings begin on Tuesday and they will deal with two principles.
What are they -- you're talking -"p-l-e-s" or -"p-a-l-s?"
MR. RUBIN: A speller I be not. We hope to reach agreement on key
principles -- l-e-s.
QUESTION: Those principles are?
MR. RUBIN: The main elements of the German foundation initiative.
QUESTION: Anything on Holum and arms talks in Russia?
MR. RUBIN: Just that we had our discussions. They were preliminary
discussions. We have long wanted to be able to get together with Russia,
to spell out our vision of how we can have the ABM Treaty modified and
still move forward with deep reductions in strategic arms. We believe that
we can make minor modifications to that treaty in such a way as to permit
any necessary limited national missile defense, while still ensuring that
the basic principle of the treaty is upheld. That is something that we've
been discussing with the Russians.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:05 P.M.)
[end of document]
|
