U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #126, 99-10-05
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
748
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Tuesday, October 5, 1999
Briefer: James P. Rubin
UNITED KINGDOM
1 Train Accident/ US Citizen Injured
TERRORISM
1-6 Status of Investigation of the Attack at Khobar
1-3,4-7 Contact with Iran
3-5 Saudi Arabia Cooperation with FBI
5,9-10 Justice Department's Decision to Remove Hani El-Sayegh
9 State Department's Issuance of Worldwide Caution
SERBIA-MONTENEGRO
7,9 US position on Independence for Montenegro
RUSSIA
7-8 Update on the Situation in Chechnya
NORTH KOREA
8 Prospects for Visit to US by North Korean Vice Minister
12 Meeting of KEDO/Status of Heavy Fuel Oil Deliveries
SOUTH KOREA
8-9 Preisdent Kim's Call for a Joint Investigation of the No Gun Ri Case
GERMANY
10 October 6-7 Round of Forced and Slave Labor Talks
CYPRUS
10-11 Visit of Turkish Cypriot Leader
ARMS CONTROL
11-12 Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearings on CTBT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #126
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1999, 1:15 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Welcome to the State Department briefing. Just a brief note
about the train accident in the United Kingdom. Our Embassy in London has
been in close contact with British police and transportation authorities
and with St. Mary's Hospital where most of the victims have been transported.
Additionally, a Consular Officer from the Embassy has been on the scene for
most of the day seeking information about the possible involvement of
American citizens.
At this time we are aware of one US citizen who was seriously injured in
the crash. Because we have no privacy waiver from this individual,
additional information is not possible. We are still trying to locate and
notify the family here, and for those reasons will not be releasing his
name at this time.
There is an emergency telephone number for the general public. That number
is 011, to get overseas, 44-1793-499-458. With that comment, let me turn to
your questions.
QUESTION: Several stories today about the Khobar bombing. Could you tell
us what you know about alleged involvement of Iranian officials and a
possible Iranian role in harboring Saudi suspects?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. First of all, let me say the Khobar bombing is being
investigated as a criminal matter and that investigation is ongoing.
Several people have been arrested and are pending trial in Saudi Arabia.
The US investigation of the attack at Khobar is ongoing but we are
investigating information concerning the involvement of Saudi nationals,
Iranian Government officials, and others. We have not reached a conclusion
regarding whether the attack was directed by the government of Iran. We
cannot comment on the specifics without jeopardizing future courses of
action.
But relatedly, with respect to the question of diplomatic contact with Iran
that some of you have asked me about, let me say this: The United States
has for many years sent messages to the government of Iran on a periodic
basis; often, those messages are focused on terrorism. Iran has denied any
involvement in the bombing and is not cooperating in the investigation.
We have made clear to Iran that there cannot be a lifting of the sanctions
we have imposed or an improvement in relations until Iran cooperates in the
fight against terrorism. Cooperation in this investigation would be a first
and important step in that direction, and as I have said before, we remain
open to an authoritative dialogue with Iran on this and other matters.
There is information that some of the suspects traveled to Iran after the
bombing. We do not know their current locations. We have not made -
contrary to some of the reports - specific requests of the government of
Iran. We have, however, sought a commitment from the government of Iran to
support bringing those responsible to justice. As I said earlier, Iran has
denied involvement in the bombing and is not cooperating in the investigation.
Let me emphasize with respect to the issue of Iranian Government officials,
we are investigating - and this is a key word - information that Iranian
Government officials were involved. I can't comment on specific individuals,
but let me emphasize we have not finished our investigation and have not
reached conclusions about the actions of particular individuals. It is
important to underscore that we are dealing with a variety of pieces of
information, including second and third-hand accounts and intelligence
reports. We are evaluating this information carefully and as quickly as
possible.
QUESTION: When you stress the word information, what's the significance
of that - that you don't have proof?
MR. RUBIN: Right. As I said just at the end of that, we have not finished
our investigation and have not reached conclusions about the actions of
particular individuals.
QUESTION: Could you sort of explain why the US has decided now to sort of
publicize that it's looking into information about the involvement - the
possible involvement of Iranian officials, where in the past the US has not
explicitly said that it was doing so? What's the reason for the timing of
this?
MR. RUBIN: I don't know the answer to why. My job here is often to try to
get as much information as possible available to you; that's what I do in
my discussion with other officials in this government. And when people
believe that it is possible to be as forthcoming as possible, we try to do
so.
We do have specific information with respect to the involvement of Iranian
Government officials and that information has come to light and we are
making clear - I hope in the last day or so - our determination to pursue
this investigation rigorously and vigorously.
As we have demonstrated on a number of occasions, the United States has
responded to terrorism in a number of ways, but our record is clear. We
will do what it takes to get to the bottom of these incidents, whether it
was maintaining sanctions on Libya for many, many years and now, 11 years
later after the Pan Am 103 bombing, two suspects are in custody awaiting
trial. We spent four years working to apprehend the individual responsible
for killing staff members of the CIA. We spent approximately two years
tracking down some of those responsible for the World Trade Center
bombing.
So we pursue these investigations rigorously and we have the patience and
the determination to see them through, and as information comes to light
and we think it's appropriate to make that information public without
causing damage to our investigation, we do so. That is the judgment of
those involved in the investigation that this information is not making -
confirming it publicly won't hamper the pursuit of justice.
QUESTION: If I may follow up, you raised Libya and while you did bring
some suspects from Libya to an international - to a court, but a previous
administration also launched a military strike against Libya as a
consequence of a terrorist attack. Are you suggesting that military action
is one of the possibilities if you all were to come to a conclusion about
possible Iranian Government involvement in Khobar?
MR. RUBIN: I don't want to speculate on what we do when we are able to
complete the picture for a full investigation, but let me be clear the
United States has used a variety of means to respond to terrorism in the
past. We have used economic and diplomatic sanctions, as in the case of the
Libyan involvement in the Pan Am 103. We have employed military force
consistent with international law when we believed it was necessary in self-
defense to prevent further attacks.
We will choose to act against terrorism at times and in ways that is in the
best interest of the United States. We will continue to make our judgment
about what is in our best interest, and when we judge that our best
interest requires a military action we have not hesitated to use military
force.
QUESTION: Then if I could, does the United States suspect - or can you
say - that the highest levels of the Iranian intelligence apparatus were
involved in the Khobar bombing, or can you say?
MR. RUBIN: What I can say is that we are working to answer the question
of whether this was a case of state sponsorship of terrorism. This
investigation is not over. We have information regarding the involvement of
Iranian Government officials and we are continuing to investigate and we
are determined to get to the bottom of this. In a case like this, we will
continue to work on it and in similar cases we have shown an extraordinary
patience, and determination and there are suspects who are now in prison or
are now awaiting trial who know that our patience is long when it comes to
responding to terrorist cases like this.
QUESTION: Just to follow on that point, for those who are waiting for
trial in Saudi Arabia, the United States has not been able to interview -
our FBI people have tried and been refused. Is there any progress in that
regard of access to the prisoners to our investigators?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say that our assessment at this point is that the FBI
has reported and told us that it has recently received good cooperation
from Saudi authorities in this investigation. It is true that there were
some initial differences but these have been overcome and the United States
and Saudi Arabia have a long history of successful strategic cooperation,
including on the important issue of protecting American forces and the
cooperation is more than satisfactory. Clearly in the initial phase, as
the two investigating teams were getting to know each other, there
was a rough start. But we believe we've been getting - and we're satisfied
about the cooperation we've received from Saudi Arabia.
QUESTION: But, specifically, have FBI agents actually had access to
interview those people arrested and detained for Khobar?
MR. RUBIN: Now you've been to this briefing a lot. I would say that in
response to your question, I gave you about as forthcoming an answer as
I've ever given on this subject and you'll have to draw your own conclusions
about what I said.
QUESTION: You said - this is an information question - you said there's
information that some suspects traveled to Iran after the bombing and also
you have specific information on involvement of Iranian officials. The
information is pretty vague. Can you say is this good information, reliable
information? Do you believe this information?
MR. RUBIN: We think it's information that is sufficiently credible to
state it - that there is such information. We get a whole variety of rumors
and data in this business and this government and there are various levels.
Credible evidence we did not say it was. That is a phrase that one has
heard me use. Information is another phrase and rumors is a third phrase.
So you should draw your own conclusions about that.
QUESTION: In Iran's contacts with the US, they supposedly have brought up
the issue of the shoot-down of the Iranian passenger plane in 1988 by an
American ship in the Persian Gulf. Is that true and what relevance does it
have to this particular case?
MR. RUBIN: Without answering the question directly as to what they've
said in a diplomatic exchange, we do not think that's relevant. A number of
steps were taken after that tragic incident and I will get for the record
for you the steps that we took. But regardless, we think that Iran should
cooperate in our investigation to get to the bottom of this act of
terrorism.
QUESTION: It has been widely said over the years that the Saudi
authorities deliberately avoided any suggestion that Iran had a role in the
bombing for diplomatic reasons. Has something changed in that? Are the
Saudi authorities now open to allowing you to go public with possible
accusations of Iranian involvement?
MR. RUBIN: We don't need Saudi Arabia's permission to make information
public. Let me say that you've described one strain of reporting about
Saudi Arabia's motivation in not wanting to name Iran. There has been
another strain of reporting that suggested that they have wanted to name
Iran. So there is often different strains of reporting. Whether that
reflects different strains of opinion, you can make your own judgment about
that.
But we have been receiving satisfactory cooperation, as I indicated in
response to one of your colleague's questions. We believe the information
is of a sufficient credibility to mention it publicly but, at the same time
- and I hope as you all decide how you will write about this or cover this -
that you also take into account that we have said, and I have said over and
over again, that we have not reached a conclusion about the specific
individuals or about the question of whether this incident was - this
terrorism was sponsored by Iran itself.
QUESTION: Is the Administration offering Iran anything in exchange for
cooperating in this investigation?
MR. RUBIN: I think it's fair to say that we have told Iran that we -
certainly Secretary Albright did, I think in probably the most clear way -
that we would like to develop a road map to normal relations. Normal
relations has a lot of meaning, including not having sanctions in place,
including having a number of more normal diplomatic relations, and that the
obstacles to those more normal relations are primarily in three areas: the
important cooperation and the rejection of terrorism; the change in the
opposition to the Middle East peace process; and the question of the
pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles.
Those are the three areas that we have said we would like to talk to Iran
about. They could raise issues that they might want to discuss in a
dialogue that we have offered. Obviously, if there was an improvement in
that area there would be an improvement on the key question of our
sanctions. We have made clear to Iran that there cannot be a lifting of
sanctions and an improvement of relations unless and until Iran cooperates
in the fight against terrorism. Cooperation in this investigation would be
a first and significant step towards that end.
QUESTION: That was the Secretary's speech back a year and a half ago,
though. If I could just follow up, that was the speech that she first gave
a year and a half ago. But in this latest move that we've just made in
returning that Saudi national - or moving to return him to Saudi Arabia,
has the US or President Clinton in his letter made any additional reference
to this road map for normalization?
MR. RUBIN: Again, I wouldn't be in a position to comment on any specific
words used in any specific message. We have certainly had a number of
diplomatic exchanges in the form of messages to the Iranian Government over
time. These messages have often focused on terrorism. Iran has denied any
involvement in the bombing and is not cooperating in this investigation.
That is the current state of play: They are denying involvement and not
cooperating in this investigation.
I have said that cooperation in this investigation would be a step in the
direction of cooperating in the fight against terrorism. As I also said and
I'll preview the answer to the next question, there are other issues of
concern to the United States, including the question of ballistic missiles
and weapons of mass destruction, including the opposition in substantial
ways to the Middle East peace process.
So those are all issues that we would raise and they are all issues at the
top of our agenda with Iran, and it wouldn't be possible to lift sanctions
or have a substantial improvement in relations until Iran cooperates in the
fight against terrorism. Obviously the other issues would also be taken
into account.
QUESTION: It sounds like you're softening your position.
MR. RUBIN: I wasn't intending to.
QUESTION: Question about terrorism.
MR. RUBIN: On Iran?
QUESTION: Well, no, not Iran.
MR. RUBIN: Let's stay with that, okay?
QUESTION: Do you know if the US has indicted or sought the indictment of
any individuals in Iran in connection with Khobar?
MR. RUBIN: I don't do indictments from here.
QUESTION: Italy announced yesterday, I believe, to provide political
asylum through PKK terrorist organization leader Abdullah Ocalan. Do you
have any comment or reaction?
MR. RUBIN: I'm sorry, could you please repeat that question?
QUESTION: Italy yesterday announced that they will provide the political
asylum for the PKK terrorist organization leader Abdullah Ocalan.
MR. RUBIN: But he's in prison in Turkey.
QUESTION: Yes, but Italy announced that they were ready to give him
political asylum.
MR. RUBIN: I'm sure that will have a very significant impact on his
future.
QUESTION: Can I just go back to Iran one more time?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Is it necessary for Iran to address all of those areas, the
three areas - the weapons of mass destruction, opposition to the peace
process and supporting terrorism - in order for the easing of sanctions to
begin or do they only have to speak out against terrorism and stop
supporting terrorism?
MR. RUBIN: This is similar to the question George asked a couple of
times. Let me try to answer it as best as I can. We don't have a dialogue
with Iran. We don't have a road map for normal relations. We have offered
to create one. We have said that we would be willing to have an authoritative
dialogue, one that was openly acknowledged, in which we would raise our
issues of concern -- and I've listed them -- and they could raise
their issues of concern.
During the course of that dialogue, we would be prepared to discuss the
road map to normal relations which would address the kind of questions that
both you and George have asked me. What I'm saying to you is that all of
those are issues of concern and it's premature in the extreme for us to
worry about parsing each one of them and what steps they would take and
what steps we would take in response when we don't have a situation where
Iran is even prepared to have a dialogue. But that should not be interpreted
as meaning a lessening of our concern about terrorism, about the opposition
to the Middle East peace process, or about the development of weapons of
mass destruction.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. I am a journalist from independent
Montenegro Radio and Television in Montenegro. And I want to ask you, Mr.
Rubin, if citizens of Montenegro decide on a referendum that Montenegro
will be an independent state, will the American Government support the
decision or not? Thank you very much.
MR. RUBIN: Well, we do not support independence for Montenegro. That's
been our view for some time. But let me be clear that Milosevic's efforts
to consolidate power have led to repeated violations of the Yugoslav
federal constitution and those of its constituent republics, including
Montenegro. In particular, Belgrade has stripped the constitutional rights
and powers of Montenegro and prevented Montenegro from playing its
constitutional role in the federal government.
We believe Montenegro's leaders have demonstrated a measured and rational
approach to political and economic reform which we fully support, and we
certainly have commended and will continue to commend their efforts to work
within Yugoslavia for reforms that would bring democracy and a better life
to all of Yugoslavia's citizens.
We call on all Serbian political parties to commit to establishing the rule
of law in Yugoslavia, protecting the human rights of all Yugoslav citizens,
and respecting Montenegro's rights and authorities granted by the
constitution.
QUESTION: I have two very separate questions. Can you comment about the
arrest of a number of Chilean army officers on charges of torture during
the Pinochet dictatorship? And the second question, can you comment on the
escalation of hostilities in Chechnya?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have any information on the first question. With
respect to Chechnya, let me say that there has been -- Russian forces have
occupied territory inside the border of the Russian Federation Republic of
Chechnya. Aircraft and artillery continue strikes across Chechnya. There
are credible reports of civilian casualties but no reliable estimates.
The Russian defense spokesman indicated that Russia lost two aircraft over
Chechnya in the past two days. We have raised our concerns with Russian
officials about this continued military escalation as well as recent
military actions, and we have asked the Russians to clarify their
intentions. The Russians have said their forces are seeking to create a
"security zone." We are continuing to monitor this. We continue to believe
that any general resumption of hostilities in Chechnya would further
threaten stability in the entire region. We have urged a constructive
dialogue involving all legitimate leaders in the north Caucasus and remain
convinced that only in this manner will the Russians be able to achieve
long-lasting stability and security in the region.
With respect to partition that has arisen in the last 24 hours, we
recognize the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation but we would
expect that any Russian internal political boundaries would be established
in accordance with the Russian constitution, and we believe it is important
for all sides to avoid steps that could make productive dialogue more
difficult.
With respect to a question yesterday about nuclear weapons, we have seen no
reports which suggest that the Russians are preparing to use nuclear
weapons in Chechnya. We do not regard it as credible that the Russians
would use such weapons in this conflict, but let me say that we have
consistently urged all parties to refrain from indiscriminate or disproportionate
use of force that would harm innocent civilians, and certainly this would
fall into that category.
Similarly, we would expect the composition of Russia's regional governments
to be determined by local voters in accordance with Russia's constitution
and electoral laws. We continue to urge that Russia's central government
and Chechnya's legitimate leaders find a political solution. We are
concerned by reports that suggest a government in exile is being established
based on the local legislative return in the '96 elections. Those elections
were sharply criticized by the OSCE which were carried out at the
height of the 1994-96 conflict.
QUESTION: Let me just follow on that subject of partition. Does the
United States believe that the resettlement of Chechen refugees in the
portion of Chechnya that is controlled by the Russian troops at the present
time indicates that they are looking at some kind of semi-permanent
partition?
MR. RUBIN: We don't know what the future will hold, and I prefer not to
speculate. I'm simply saying that we would expect that any arrangements
that are made will be done pursuant to the constitution and in consultation
with legitimate leaders who have been elected by the people and, therefore,
can have a chance of making their decisions stick.
QUESTION: I have two questions. Is there anything going on in the State
Department concerning the No Gun Ri massacre; for example, setting up a
special discussion channel with the South Korean government? Another
question is: Is North Korean Vice Minister Kim Gye Gwan coming soon to the
United States?
MR. RUBIN: With respect to the second question, I don't believe any
arrangement has been made finally for another high level visit. We would
expect a high level visit but I don't think the specifics have been
formalized at this time.
With respect to the question of a joint investigation of the No Gun Ri case,
let me say we are consulting here in the State Department and elsewhere
through the government with the South Korean government on this issue. We
have made clear that are committed to a full review of the facts and that
in this effort we will work closely with the South Korean government. The
modalities of this cooperation, in other words, the specific arrangements
and how to move forward, have not been determined at this time and we
expect to fully review the facts and then, upon a full review, decide on
what the appropriate next steps should be.
QUESTION: Montenegro is a part of Yugoslavia. It's under the sanctions
for seven years. Do you have - do you see any concrete mechanism how to
help citizens of Montenegro not to suffer?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. I think we've taken a number steps to provide direct
assistance to the people of Montenegro - both humanitarian assistance,
financial assistance - and we will continue to use our flexibility to
ensure that the effective and praise-worthy policies of the Montenegrin
Government are rewarded through real, concrete support. We've been doing
that for some time and we intend to continue to do that as best we
can.
QUESTION: Regarding the worldwide caution released today regarding Mr. El-
Sayegh.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Is there a deadline on his cooperation? I've seen a deadline of
Wednesday and I've also seen a the word "soon" used - that he should
cooperate soon before he's --
MR. RUBIN: This is really an FBI matter and I'm not the right person to
ask this question to. He has presumably certain legal remedies that he can
pursue and we'd expect that he would pursue them. What course they
ultimately choose is up to El-Sayegh and his lawyers and it's really the
Department of Justice that has been working on the legal steps here and
would be in a better position to tell you what the various options
are.
QUESTION: Has the State Department or anybody else within the US
Government received information since the Justice Department made its
announcement yesterday that would cause the State Department to issue this
worldwide caution?
MR. RUBIN: No. When we make statements on matters like this, we make a
judgment as to when information becomes public what potential impact it
could have on American citizens around the world. This worldwide caution
specifically references the announcement by Deputy Attorney General Holder
and the fact that we are investigating information concerning the
involvement of Saudi nationals and Iranian Government officials, and then
goes on to say - given these facts - the potential exists for retaliatory
actions.
So this worldwide caution is part of what we think is a prudent measure to
alert people around the world to the potential risks as a result of the
announcement of El-Sayegh being returned to Saudi Arabia or removed to
Saudi Arabia and the fact that we're investigating information with respect
to Iranian Government involvement.
QUESTION: What is the distinction between removing him, deporting
him?
MR. RUBIN: Extradition would require an extradition treaty, as I
understand it, and there isn't such. So removal is a more English word than
extradition which is a more legal word, I think. But the lawyers probably
will have trouble with that basic, common sense answer.
QUESTION: On another subject, the slave labor talks that are going to
take place tomorrow and Thursday, there have been reports of varying kinds.
One of them in the Washington Post says that the amount of the fund to be
used for compensation is $3.8 billion and German sources say that's not
right, that the claimant lawyers say that --
MR. RUBIN: Keep asking.
QUESTION: if that's right that's a pittance and they're going to walk.
Can you steer us on what is the size of that fund?
MR. RUBIN: I doubt I can get into the specific numbers, but let me say we
did make significant progress in our discussions of the legal and
administrative aspects of the foundation for the first time during the last
round of talks; therefore, we now can begin the discussion of compensation
amounts. Since the dollar size is now on the table, we would expect a lot
of public views as to whether it's enough or too much.
The October 6th and 7th meetings will be focused on this subject. There
will be participants from the German and US Governments, from the
governments of Poland, the Czech Republic, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and
Israel. There are also participants from German enterprises, The Conference
on Jewish Material Claims and a number of others. But I'm not in a position
to talk about specific numbers, especially before the meetings have even
begun.
Our role is of a facilitator bringing together the interested parties to
address the issue of dignified payments. I can tell you that former Under
Secretary Eizenstat, current Deputy Secretary Eizenstat, will be available
to brief you and perhaps he will be then in a position to discuss numbers
which we are not now in a position to discuss.
QUESTION: Without identifying the number, has the United States
Government been given that number by the German Government?
MR. RUBIN: I'll have to check that for you.
QUESTION: There was a meeting at the State Department yesterday afternoon
between Turkish Cypriot delegations and Mr. Weston. Do you have anything
about that meeting?
MR. RUBIN: We continue to work on the important question of Cyprus; on
the importance of exploiting the window of opportunity that now exists for
Cyprus to finally achieve a peace settlement. We've been working with the
Greek and Turkish Governments extensively in recent weeks and will continue
to talk to relevant officials to try to advance that process.
QUESTION: Do you have any comments on ongoing military exercises held by
Cyprus and Greece in Cyprus?
MR. RUBIN: I'll have to check that for you. I'm not aware of that.
QUESTION: I understand that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will,
after all, be having a hearing this Thursday. Will Secretary Albright be
testifying?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, my understanding is there will be a hearing and that
Secretary Albright will testify. She had intended to cut her visit short on
the expectation that such a hearing might be possible, as well as other
activities surrounding our full court press to try to pursue the Comprehensive
Test Ban.
As many of you know, there was a full briefing at the White House by a
number of officials about the treaty and Secretary Albright is making a
number of phone calls to Senators and other former officials, former
Secretaries, during the course of her trip today and tomorrow and will be
flying back tomorrow night to be here in time to testify on Thursday.
QUESTION: Can we have access to her remarks?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, we'll do the best we can to get it as soon as it's
available.
QUESTION: Does she have any other events related to the CTBT over the
next few days apart from the appearance at the committee?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think the bulk of the effort will be the hearing,
which is a critical moment. We, in fact, have been urging hearings be held
for over a year or more to have an actual formal consideration of the
treaty and so Secretary Albright is very pleased that there is going to be
a hearing at which the United States can present its case of the important
benefits of ratifying this treaty and the dangerous consequences for the
United States of a failure to ratify in a nonpartisan, serious, analytical
way.
I would expect her to be involved in a lot of telephone work and perhaps
other meetings that will be scheduled during the next few days in order to
encourage Senators to vote for a treaty that we think can only advance the
interests of the United States.
Let's remember we're talking about a situation where we have decided we
don't need to test, and those who take the position that we shouldn't test
and oppose the Comprehensive Test Ban are adopting a position of unilateral
nuclear disarmament. We don't think we need to test because we have a
stewardship program and a reliability program that guarantees our deterrent,
so voting against the CTBT will only make it much, much harder for us to
credibly and persuasively convince countries like India and Pakistan and
other countries of concern from testing. So a vote against this treaty is a
vote against the United States' efforts to stop proliferation around
the world.
QUESTION: The Indian Government says that it doesn't need the US to
ratify this treaty to convince it to go forward with signing it, that its
decision will be based on its own national security. So why is the State
Department so convinced --
MR. RUBIN: Right. I would expect the Indian Government to say that, that
its decision would be based on its own national interest. I would be
stunned in the extreme if India said anything different.
The question is when we push countries like India and Pakistan to pursue a
policy of signing the CTBT, ratifying it, not going down the nuclear road,
how credible is our push? How credible are we seen as one of the leading
countries that are trying to stop proliferation around the world? And a
vote that leads to the failure to ratify this treaty will undermine the
credibility of the United States in discussions like that.
India is going to make its own decision for its own reasons and I would
expect them to say that they are only going to make that decision based on
their own calculation. But I'm sure that they are not suggesting that the
treaty shouldn't be ratified. That would stun me greatly.
QUESTION: On another subject?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: KEDO - the Korean Energy Development Organization - is meeting
in New York. Is the United States up to snuff now on its heavy fuel oil
deliveries?
MR. RUBIN: I will have to check the current state of play and we'll get
that to you shortly after the briefing. But I believe that we've been
moving to get the necessary funds and have been providing the fuel oil
consistent with the schedule.
(The briefing concluded at 1:55 P.M.)
|
