 |
Compact version |
|
 |
        |
|
 |
||
|
Wednesday, 18 December 2024
|
||
 |
 |
|
|
|
U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #143, 99-11-23U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next ArticleFrom: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>765 U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing I N D E XTuesday, November 23, 1999 Briefer: JAMES P. RUBIN_UK/LIBYA _US DEPARTMENT OF STATE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING DPB #143 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1999, 12:45 P.M.(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEDMR. RUBIN_: Welcome to the State Department briefing. Sorry for the brief delay. I don't have any statements, any notices, any comments or anything really to start with. So let's go to what we're here for, your questions. QUESTION: I have several things, but no particular order of importance. Does the US have any view of Britain establishing - exchanging ambassadors now with Libya? Of course, they had their own incident. It was cleared up. But do you have an overview of that kind of relationship with Libya? MR. RUBIN: Well, they announced the restoration of full diplomatic relations in June of this year. The British indicated they were taking this step because Libya has acknowledged responsibility for the murder of a British police officer in London in 1984. Libya has expressed regret for this act, agreed to cooperate with investigators, and offered compensation to the family. So that was the British decision, based on those factors. As far as we are concerned, we have made our view clear that Libya must comply with the remaining requirements of Security Council resolutions before sanctions can be lifted. Libya has given assurances that it will fulfill these requirements and end support for terrorism, cooperate with the investigation of the Pan Am 103 disaster and trial, pay compensation and acknowledge responsibility for the actions of Libyan officials. What we are going to look for is for Libya to take action on these assurances, and that is the basis on which we will guide our decisions with respect to Libya. So at this point, we think it is premature for the United States to discuss resumption of diplomatic relations. We think it is important for Libya to take concrete action in fulfillment of certain assurances. As far as the British decision is concerned, that's really for the British Government to decide. QUESTION: The things you suggest they have to do sort of mirror the demands you make of other countries that have supported terrorism. But missing from this -- maybe unintentionally or maybe it's irrelevant to the State Department's view of Libya -- the peace process. You know, you accuse Iran, for instance, of trying to undercut the peace. Does it matter if Libya opposes peace between Israel and the Arabs, or is it so remote from the area that you don't think about it a lot or worry about it a lot? MR. RUBIN: The way I would describe it is that there are a number of countries that we have diplomatic relations with, with whom we have diametrically opposed views as to the peace process. QUESTION: But that, in and of itself, is not a reason - it's a reason you cite for Iran -- for being at odds with Iran. One of the issues. MR. RUBIN: It's an issue that we have profound concerns about, that we would raise in discussions with Iran, which we have offered to have with Iran. QUESTION: Can I ask one more on Libya? He asked you about the United States establishing relations with Libya, and you answered in terms of lifting sanctions. Do you consider those terms to be synonymous? MR. RUBIN: I don't think that they're synonymous. What I said was: These are certain things that the Security Council resolution indicates which would put Libya back into the fold of countries that the international community would be taking off sanctions. As far as sanctions are concerned, there is also a congressional component that we would have to deal with. What I'm suggesting is that, before sanctions can be lifted, or further developments in the area of relations can be considered, we need to see progress. It is certainly not correct, if I gave the impression that sanctions lifting and diplomatic relations are precisely the same. Because they are not. But I did indicate that the kind of steps we're looking for from Libya are steps that also would affect the sanctions. QUESTION: On Iran. President Khamenei -- MR. RUBIN: President? QUESTION: Sorry, Supreme Leader Khamenei -- MR. RUBIN: We have to get our supreme leaders and our presidents right in this particular room. QUESTION: That's why I hesitated because it didn't sound right, somehow - said today that the Iranians had refused an American request to open an interest section with American personnel in it. What's the truth on that? MR. RUBIN: Well, we've seen reports of that particular statement by Khamenei. As a matter of fact, our interests in Iran are represented by the Swiss Government. We have not made any requests to change this arrangement. However, as a matter of policy, we have sought to promote people-to-people exchanges between Iran and the United States. In this context, the US Government has - on a regular basis - permitted Iranian Government representatives to travel to the United States, to take part in people-to- people exchanges. We think it's high time that Iran allowed US officials the same privilege in their country. More specifically, we have long wanted US consular officials to visit Iran, to look into facilitating the issuance of visas for Iranians to travel to the United States, and the assistance of American citizens wishing to travel to Iran. We have allowed Iranian officials to visit their interest section in Washington, for example. Unfortunately, the Iranian Government has not been prepared to reciprocate. QUESTION: You said it's high time, and you would like these things to happen, but have you not expressed these views to the Iranian Government? That you would like -- MR. RUBIN: Well, I think the Iranian Government is aware of these views. I just made them quite public. That's not the first time that this kind of - - QUESTION: Does that mean that you -- MR. RUBIN: Again, I'm not going to be in a position to go through every diplomatic exchange, through every potential method. Suffice it to say that the basic points that I made there -- I don't think what we would like to see happen will come as any surprise to the Iranian Government. QUESTION: Does that mean that there has been a process in place whereby you have sought visas for officials to go? MR. RUBIN: Again, I'm not going to be in a position to detail every diplomatic contact. I think that you don't seek visas if you don't think that they're going to be warmly received. That's not the way the world works. You don't present a visa request if you don't think the other side has indicated its intention - procedures permitting - to look favorably on visa requests. So I think there is no -- our sense of the Iranian Government position is not based on having presented them with visa request and it being denied. We've never gotten to that stage. QUESTION: Then would it be fair to say that maybe that there has been some approach through the Swiss -- informal approach? MR. RUBIN: I think in response to your colleague's question, I was very clear that I don't intend to give you any detail on the ways in which our views are communicated. Suffice it to say that the specific points I made, about our desires to have American officials given the same privilege in Iran and our desire to have officials -- consular officials -- be in a position to facilitate the issuance of visas, are things that the Iranian Government will not be surprised by. QUESTION: I don't want to belabor this, so I will make this very quick. Does this mean that this is something more than just you getting up here and saying that we would like to see officials be able to travel to Iran? MR. RUBIN: Again, I think that is a fair assumption: that it's more than what I just said, yes. QUESTION: Can you give an indication of the timing on this? I mean, is this - it is obviously not you standing up now and saying it but how - when did this process of expressing your views -- MR. RUBIN: For some time now, not in the last couple of days -- QUESTION: -- osmosis process begin? MR. RUBIN: It's not through osmosis, and it's not in the last couple of days. QUESTION: From the opposite view, you keep trying to stir something with Iran, and the State Department is not going to be able to take no for an answer. Have they given you any indirect signals, keep trying to get a discourse going and some day you'll succeed? MR. RUBIN: I disagree fundamentally with your characterization of not taking no for an answer. I think we know precisely what we're doing and - QUESTION: (Inaudible.) MR. RUBIN: We are able to interpret quite well the language and the answers and the responses. We think it is in America's interest -- in the national security interest of the United States -- to provoke a type of - prompt a type of civilizational dialogue, where American officials and American experts and Americans of all walks of life and Iranians from all walks of life are in a position to communicate with each other, talk to each other and learn from each other. We think it is in the United States' interest. The more of that sort of thing that goes on, the better. And so we are for that. We have looked at ways to promote that. I gave you an example of a way to facilitate that. That is our view, and we will continue to express our view. QUESTION: No one suggests that you are not doing things for America's interests. And we are not scoring you on how well you're doing at it. My point of my question is: As hard as you seem to try, they don't seem to be terribly receptive. So I'm asking if in some way they have given you reason to believe that they will become receptive to these overtures because there is a totally other notion that is possible, that Iran is such a large country and such an important country, you've got to keep trying, yes or no. In other words, have they given you an indication that they are about to listen? MR. RUBIN: We are certainly aware of the lively debate, political debate about the rule of law and the future of Iran that goes on in Iran, and we think it is important for us to continue to express our interest in things that are in our interest. QUESTION: Understand, going back to the original question from Khamenei, he seems to be responding to something that you say didn't exist. We have not sought to change our situation in terms of full-time representation by the Swiss, we have an interest section, the Iranians have an interest section. But on another level, you say there is an asymmetry in the relationship with Iran, in the sense that we have granted visas for some of their officials to come here, they have not done the reverse. MR. RUBIN: Right, and what I'm suggesting is - first of all, I think it's important for us all to know that there can be mis-translations about what people are or not referring to. So we're aware of a press report about what he said, and as it was described. With respect to the American interest section, the level of representation - what we want in Iran - we haven't proposed any change in that. I'm giving you the facts. What I did also add is that in the area of visa issuance, the United States is prepared to send consular officials to Iran, in order to look into facilitating the issuance of visas for Iranians to travel to the United States. We think that is basically a good idea, to have the maximum kind of free exchange of people and ideas, and we're looking at ways to facilitate that. We would like that to happen. We have long wanted that to happen. There is a third question, which is American officials visiting the interest section. I guess what I'm signaling is that - or suggesting - is that we have allowed Iranians to visit the interest section here, not solely for the purpose of visa issuance. So you need to separate the three points. That's what we've done. That's what we want. As far as what, specifically - what Khamenei was responding to, I'm not exactly clear on. But what I can say is that this is what we have sought and wanted, and what we have not sought and not wanted. QUESTION: Am I not right in thinking that there is actually an Iranian official in Washington at the interest section? MR. RUBIN: They have visited there -- QUESTION: (Inaudible) the diplomatic list -- MR. RUBIN: I will have to check this. I believe they visited here for others who operate their interest section. QUESTION: Secondly, you said you haven't proposed any change, but then you said you would be prepared to send consular officials. Would you be prepared to send - presumably you would be prepared to send somebody to live in Tehran and run the interest section? Is that a fact? MR. RUBIN: That is not what I said. What I said was two things: We would be interested in having consular officials facilitate the issuance of visas. That's different than the interest section. There's another level of question of would we have an American leading the American diplomatic representation in Tehran. That's not what I'm suggesting. If Iran and the United States were in a position to have a dialogue, the kind of dialogue that Secretary Albright and the President have talked about, a direct dialogue to address issues of concern to both side, held with mutual respect for both sides' positions, we could then begin to address the question - as Secretary Albright said - of creating a road map to normal relations. Normal relations has a certain meaning to it. What I'm talking about here is consular officials being able to assist in the issuance of visas: not beyond that. QUESTION: At the American consulate -- MR. RUBIN: Correct -- QUESTION: On site? MR. RUBIN: Correct - to visit. I did not indicate. QUESTION: Oh, excuse me, not necessarily permanently on site. MR. RUBIN: Right, to visit, to look into facilitating the issuance of visas. What recommendations they would make, what would come after those visits, is premature at this point, since - as I indicated - we're not even in a position to have those officials to visit for that purpose. QUESTION: Well, I was trying to get a clarification as to whether you would envision them actually living there or visiting on a rotating basis? MR. RUBIN: I think first we need to be able to go once. QUESTION: Can I ask you about Kosovo? MR. RUBIN: Yes. QUESTION: Unlike Washington - there's no sign of winter, yet - it must be cold there. I wondered if you would bring us up to date, as the Secretary did a little bit in a TV interview. The amount of winterized gear that's gotten there? The policemen, and, you know, the lead question to the interview was, is Kosovo still a disaster zone? MR. RUBIN: Right. QUESTION: That's still a pertinent question. MR. RUBIN: Let me answer the general. On the specifics, I think the President and a large number of American officials have been there and have been taking a lot of questions on Kosovo. I prefer to leave the specifics to them. But on the larger point, I think those of you who have been following this closely from this room, and were here when the Secretary and other officials - including myself - talked about this, we were very clear that this was an enormous challenge, that the process had just begun, and that we expected to have an enormous challenge ahead of us. So those who are suggesting that we expected or thought that, in a few short weeks or months, that Kosovo was going to turn into Switzerland and everything was going to be wonderful, as some seem to use in a straw man device to attack the Administration, or some perverse form of the Administration's position, is simply not correct. Kosovo just went through a terrible war. The Serbs sabotaged the infrastructure and were responsible for the destruction of huge numbers of houses. Many Serb officials who knew how to operate the infrastructure left. As far as what we've done to try to help, we have done a lot to try to help. I think AID has done a terrific job in trying to get emergency shelter and temporary shelter put together. But I don't have further information to offer you on the specifics of that. Because I know the President's party has been discussing that. QUESTION: Also on Kosovo - what's happened to Mr. Thaci these days. He seems to have disappeared from the -- MR. RUBIN: Well, I believe he was in a meeting with Dr. Rugova and the President just today on the transitional council. So he has certainly been there, and he has been there and he has been working with the UN special representative Bernard Kuchner on the creation of the maximum degree of self-government for Kosovo and all that goes with that. QUESTION: Jamie, Iraq sent the oil markets into a bit of a spin when it said that it would reduce the amount of oil it would export, and this has obviously been a subject with a lot of interest up at the UN for a number of reasons. I wonder if you could bring us up to date on what - MR. RUBIN: On the UN resolution, let me say this. What Iraq did was to create an interruption in the revenues flowing to the UN's Oil for Food Program. But there will be no immediate impact on the humanitarian situation, because there is a full pipeline of humanitarian goods that have been contracted for and are on their way to Iraq. What this is really about is Iraq flouting the international community, and imagining that cynical political devices are more important for their objectives than providing the maximum revenue to provide food and medicine to their people. In short, not only is Iraq using cynical devices to thwart this program, but they are also obstructing the actual distribution of food and medicine. With respect to the weapons of mass destruction issue, the United States has been working constructively with a number of countries, and we are working closely with the British and the Dutch on their draft resolution that is now getting increasing support of the Security Council, which we hope will reestablish the maximum consensus possible in the Security Council, to send inspectors back to Iraq and to require those inspectors to be able to do their jobs. QUESTION: Have there been any contacts with US allies which are oil producers to compensate for the lack of Iraqi oil? MR. RUBIN: To compensate? Well, again, I think you shouldn't exaggerate the significance of this. Iraq, many times in the last five years, has said that they would stop pumping oil, or wouldn't accept a resolution, or wouldn't actually implement it, or delayed its implementation. These are political maneuvers that come up time and time again but, in the end, we believe that the Oil for Food Program is a way for the international community to make clear that Iraq must provide the food and medicine it claims it wants, and can only do that through the Oil for Food Program. With respect to world oil supplies, we think that any reduction in world oil supplies tends to increase short-term prices. And I would note that Iraq's production is one of many factors in determining world oil supplies, and I think that it is fair to point out that the oil price was going up considerably well before the Iraqi announcement yesterday. QUESTION: Do you think the markets have overreacted? MR. RUBIN: I don't intend to say anything to question the wisdom of the markets, other than to say that we will continue to make clear that the way for Iraq to get money for food and medicine is to implement the Oil for Food Program. QUESTION: (Inaudible) - Americans depending on imports for the vast bulk of their petroleum. Not since the Carter Administration have I heard an administration official suggest that that maybe isn't the wisest way to deal with the problem. And now you have these gas-eating Jeeps and -- MR. RUBIN: Who did say something you haven't heard since -- QUESTION: We tried - the Carter Administration tried very hard to encourage -- MR. RUBIN: Oh, so nobody has? QUESTION: Right. MR. RUBIN: Oh, OK. I thought somebody just did. QUESTION: The Carter Administration tried to discourage imports and encourage development here and tried to encourage gas - not - higher taxes and not using gas so freely. And by all accounts, by oil industry accounts, now that the compact season has passed and you can see all those buses down there, that the urban cowboys drive in here every day. We're burning gas at an enormous rate, we're importing more than we ever did and the prices are sky-high. They're no dummies out there. Does the Administration have a position on any of this? Do you think we should be relying on foreign oil? MR. RUBIN: Well - QUESTION: I didn't come in prepared to ask you that, so I'm not surprised if you don't have an answer. And what kind of car do you drive? MR. RUBIN: And what particular types of vestments might I be wearing? Let me take the question as to what kind of car I drive. QUESTION: It is a long time since we heard any suggestion that you shouldn't depend on Iraq and Iran for your oil from now on. MR. RUBIN: I will inquire as to the wisdom of me providing you information on my personal habits. QUESTION: I have a new subject -- QUESTION: I have the same subject. MR. RUBIN: Here and then there. Over here and then there. I'll come right to you, Betsy. QUESTION: You said that support for the UN resolution is increasing in the Security Council. Is that your way of saying that the Russians may be coming around now? MR. RUBIN: No, I was not suggesting that the Russians have agreed to this resolution. It is my sense that the support in the Council, the mood in the Council, the general desire to reestablish a consensus is growing, and that there is increasing support for this resolution. QUESTION: Jamie, you said that there is food and medicine in the pipeline. Can you give us some idea of how many months this pipeline can last before it begins -- MR. RUBIN: There has been a considerable amount of food and medicine that hasn't been distributed. There is a considerable amount of gap between the funds available and how much food has been purchased. So we are talking about considerable amounts. Moreover, I would point out that the Iraqis have indicated willingness to accept a six-month rollover for the Oil for Food Program, so this doesn't strike us as an unresolvable issue. QUESTION: New subject. MR. RUBIN: Please. QUESTION: Do you have any comment on The Washington Times report suggesting that the Chinese are about to deploy short-range missiles across from Taiwan? MR. RUBIN: Yeah, on the missile buildup story, there was a gross mischaracterization of the position of the State Department in such a story. Anything anybody can do to fix that will be appreciated and welcomed. The United States continues to monitor the situation in China closely. The characterization of the State Department's views is wildly inaccurate. We have made clear to the Chinese Government our concerns regarding Chinese missile developments and their influence on the situation in the Taiwan Strait. We have a strong interest in maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. That is why we have approved defensive arms sales to Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act. Among the items Taiwan has already purchased has been technology for Taiwan's Modified Air Defense System, MADS, which you asked me about yesterday, which has some limited anti-aircraft and anti-missile capabilities. In addition to this system, the United States has sold Hawk, Chaparral and Sky Guard surface-to-air missiles as well as vehicle-mounted Stinger Avenger systems. We will continue to monitor the military balance in the Taiwan Strait closely, and meet our obligations to provide Taiwan the arms it needs for an adequate defense. And we have made very clear that no decisions on theater missile defense systems have been made, other than for the protection of American forces. We do not preclude the sale -- possible sale -- of such systems to Taiwan in the future. Our interest, however, is in preserving peace and stability in the region, and any final decision will be made on that basis, especially in light of the fact that theater missile defense is a system still under development. It would be premature to make such a decision at this time. QUESTION: Are you satisfied with their response? It sounds like you found a way to try to make the people in Taiwan a little more secure. But at the root of the problem, what China is doing, the State Department has been habitually concerned about it -- MR. RUBIN: You wouldn't know that from some of the characterizations -- QUESTION: It's like on Chechnya. I mean, do they pay any attention to what you say? MR. RUBIN: I think we have made significant progress over the years with respect to China's proliferation policies. We are not in the position to dictate all the goals that we want - that they be achieved, and we will continue to express our concerns in that regard. QUESTION: When you talk about theater missile defense, I am a little confused as to whether you consider the really low-end systems, such as the Patriot -- whether you consider that in your answer theater missile defense. And in the things you have ticked off -- Hawk, Chaparral and Stinger -- none of those have any capability that I know of against ballistic missiles. Do they have any weapons systems from us that do have any capability against ballistic missile systems? MR. RUBIN: Yes, the MAD system, the Modified Air Defense System, which has some limited anti-aircraft and anti-missile capabilities. QUESTION: What part of that is from us? MR. RUBIN: Well, they have purchased technology for their modified air defense system, and I would have to get precise detail on the specific technological origination of every particular technology. But what I'm suggesting is that they have purchased - presumably with our support - the technology that has a limited anti-missile capability. QUESTION: OK, well, the other part of my question was, you said no decision had been made on theater missile defense systems. MR. RUBIN: Right. QUESTION: I'm just wondering whether you consider a small area defense system, such as the Patriot, whether you consider that under that umbrella? Or is that something that is below that threshold. MR. RUBIN: I will have to get you an answer to that considered question. Hopefully, my answer will be as considered as your question. QUESTION: Still on this subject. Can you comment on the substance of the story which is that China is expanding - it's deploying nearly a hundred missiles at Yangang? MR. RUBIN: I take it that's another one of those intelligence reports, and I wouldn't want to do that. QUESTION: But you won't criticize that aspect of the story? You'll criticize the way the State Department's position is characterized. But you are not commenting on the substance of the story, correct? Because it's an intelligence matter? MR. RUBIN: No, that's not correct. QUESTION: All right what's wrong about that? MR. RUBIN: Because the position about the State Department wasn't derived from intelligence sources. Q I know it - I didn't say that. What are we talking about? We're missing each other here. When I asked about the substance of the story, you took issue with the way the State Department is portrayed in the story. MR. RUBIN: Right, and I was prepared to get into the substance, in fact -- QUESTION: Agreed, and you got into -- MR. RUBIN: -- because it wasn't based on intelligence matters. QUESTION: Right. What you've done for Taiwan is not based on intelligence matters. MR. RUBIN: Right. QUESTION: But so far as that substance - the real point of the story - the State Department, the Administration has no comment because it involves intelligence, correct? MR. RUBIN: Precisely. QUESTION: Good. QUESTION: Yes, Mr. Rubin, when you talk about the MAD system, I wonder if the US is also providing Taiwan - is the advance version of the Patriot, which is PAC-3. This is question number one. I have another question which relates to a story that appeared last Friday in The Washington Times, also - to the effect that there was a conference - a military conference between Taiwan and the US prior to the annual spring - annual military purchase conference. During the conference Taiwan's request for submarines was rejected, as in the past. But what interests me was the fact that the story also alluded to something like an anti-Taiwan faction in the Clinton Administration. It even pointed the finger at people like Sandy Berger, NSC Director, and Ken Lieberthal, he's the top China aide, and also people in this building like Roth - Assistant Secretary Roth, and Susan Shirk. So my question is, do you have any comment on that story, and also on my first question? MR. RUBIN: Good questions. Let me suggest the following: First of all, with respect to what specific systems we might have under consideration for future defense cooperation pursuant to the Taiwan Relations Act, I am not in a position to comment. We and Taiwan have agreed that we will not comment on discussions we are having, as to what we might or might not provide in the future. So I wouldn't be able to answer the first question for that reason. Secondly, the two A's - part A of your second QUESTION: I think the same answer applies. In other words, it's fair to say that we have been talking to Taiwan. We do discuss with them, regularly, the ways in which we can meet their legitimate security needs, and we discuss that at a technical level and the specific ideas discussed, we're not prepared to discuss publicly. Thirdly, part 2-B of your QUESTION: I think it's fair enough to say that that kind of labeling is facile, and misunderstands the complexities of the US-China relationship and the Taiwan question, and doesn't comport with what I know to be the views of various officials. I have no reason to think that Mr. Roth or Mr. Berger are anti-Taiwan in any way, shape or form. QUESTION: Jamie, same subject. What is the Administration's position on the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act? MR. RUBIN: We have opposed that law under the basic formula that, if ain't broke, don't fix it. We have a very good working system, and a set of communiques and laws deal with the US-Taiwan military relationship. We believe it has served us well, and served America's interests well. Therefore, we don't support changing it in principle. With respect to some of the specifics, some of them are already being done. Others of them, we believe, could have harmful effects, both in giving Taiwan a false impression of what would happen, and/or giving China unnecessary advantage or knowledge. So we don't think that the proposal is wise. We think that our US-China policy has been working fine, thank you. With respect to Taiwan, I would remind anyone concerned that in 1995 we acted in a certain way based on our laws and our consideration of what was right for the national interest, and that we have promoted dialogue between China and Taiwan, and we will continue to do so. QUESTION: Your opposite number in China, Mr. Sun, the foreign minister's spokesman had some comments that seemed to be directed at an unnamed presidential candidate saying that a statesman with vision and a sense of responsibility must clearly see the overall interests of China-US relations. Do you have any comment on his remarks? MR. RUBIN: Well, unfortunately, I'm sorry to say that the foreign minister in China has privileges that I don't have - so the Foreign Ministry spokesman in China has privileges that I don't have, which is to comment on the development of the campaign. I certainly think that we believe that vision, and what's in the national interest, may not comport with what the Chinese think. That wouldn't be the first time we've had profound disagreements with China about their vision for their future without full respect for human rights of the people of China, and what damaging effect that would have on them. So we have a very, very profoundly different view than the Chinese Foreign Ministry or the Chinese Government about their vision for the future. So they're entitled to their views, but I think it would probably behoove them to spend more time worrying about their vision, than worrying about the vision of American politicians. QUESTION: You focused on human rights. Would you include that posture to Taiwan as something where your vision and theirs might be somewhat at odds? MR. RUBIN: I think we've spoken in the past about our opposition to the threat of force in that regard, or the use of force -- our firm opposition to that. So that would certainly be a difference. QUESTION: Follow-up? QUESTION: Change of subject? QUESTION: Follow-up? QUESTION: Sierra Leone? MR. RUBIN: Yes. QUESTION: The United Nations Special Envoy issued a statement yesterday that violence has continued unabated by the rebels since the July peace accords. Do you disagree with this characterization? Secondly, if you agree with it, what are we going to do about it? Are we going to continue to have normal relations with that government? MR. RUBIN: Well, I think we don't have normal relations there. Secretary Albright was recently in Sierra Leone, and met with a number of the faction leaders, and strongly urged them to comply with the requirements of the accords, especially in the area of demilitarization and demobilization. We are concerned and have been concerned for some time, about a number of reports that certain factions are not intending to comply with those requirements. We strongly support the agreement and the international community's willingness to step in, provide peace-keepers and provide the opportunity for a better life for the people of Sierra Leone, who some of these rebel leaders claim to speak for - would be impaired and harmed if the faction leaders don't comply with the requirements of the peace accord. QUESTION: Jamie, the Jordanians have expelled these Hamas leaders. I'm wondering if the State Department thinks this is a good conclusion to this? Is this what you would have liked to have seen? Or would you have been -- MR. RUBIN: Let me get you that in one second. QUESTION: Could I speak to (inaudible)? MR. RUBIN: We'll come back to that. Let's let them have their brief -- QUESTION: The Colombian Government has been requesting the extradition of some 15 Americans for some years on drug trafficking charges. Do you expect your government to extradite those Americans to Colombia? Is that something that you would do on a normal basis? MR. RUBIN: As far as extradition questions of people in the United States, I would urge you to direct that question to the Justice Department. With respect to your question, obviously we followed the situation very closely. We're aware of the latest developments. It's been our view all along that this is a matter for Jordan to deal with, that it's an internal matter, and that any questions regarding the legality of this and the reasons for these particular actions are for the Jordanian Government to speak to. And that is our view of that. QUESTION: On Saudi cable, Mrs. Arafat seems to be back to the subject of Israeli actions. She is a little more specific this time, suggesting that Israel puts environmentally hazardous operations in Arab areas that they wouldn't put in Israeli areas. It's the "poisoning our children" refrain again, and I wondered if you had a chance to reflect on that. MR. RUBIN: Yes, we have seen the press report and it is deeply troubling - - this kind of a press report. The continued repetition of baseless charges, charges without foundation that have only served to provoke the situation, that are outrageous and inflammatory, has no place in the public discourse between Israelis and Palestinians. They only serve to undermine the trust and confidence so necessary at this juncture, as the parties work to resolve their differences, and we have made that view known to the Palestinian Authority. QUESTION: I noticed the Prime Minister of Israel - (inaudible) - I don't want to say copied State Department, but he is asking for an end, a suspension of inflammatory rhetoric and such. It sounds like, at least for now, he's not getting very far, right? Or is Mrs. Arafat a private citizen, and what she does is her business? MR. RUBIN: She is clearly not a private citizen. Nor is she the leader. She is not Chairman Arafat. And, obviously, if Chairman Arafat or the top negotiators would use these phrases, it would be a far, far worse situation. Nevertheless, we think that all those who care about the Middle East Peace Process and want to see that process succeed, should bear in mind that provocative, outrageous statements that only make - poison the atmosphere between Israelis and Palestinians undermine the trust and confidence that is necessary at this juncture when both sides are being asked to make decisions that affect such existential and important questions as the permanent status issues. On this? QUESTION: Closely related. MR. RUBIN: Closely related. We will ask you all to judge whether it is closely related. A one would be yes and a two would be no after the question is asked. QUESTION: (Inaudible.) QUESTION: Does the United States have any position, or has it had any diplomatic input into this dispute in Nazareth, over the church and the mosque and so on? MR. RUBIN: I will have to check that. By the way, my vote is that it was a one; it was close. QUESTION: We are investigating a story concerning the report by Zeev Schiff, a military correspondent for Ha'aretz, who said that three weeks ago a Department of State official, a man from the human rights area named Brent Freeman, was in Israel - MR. RUBIN: Bennett Freeman. QUESTION: Bennett Freeman, OK. Was in Israel - E-mail was bad. Was in Israel and was warning Israel that she should not re-institute torture. This is close to rhetoric, I guess, in a sense. Can you confirm or deny the report by Zeev Schiff that the Department of State is trying to stop the bypass legislation that is being considered by the Knesset Committee at this point, to -- MR. RUBIN: Let me check with Bennett Freeman and I will try to get you an answer. QUESTION: And a second question from yesterday. In the case of General Yaron - Canada has declared him PNG, and there are indications that European countries have the same attitude towards him, for his part in the Sabra and Chattila massacre 17 years ago. Is the Department going to take a look at him from the standpoint of the Gilman and Leahy amendments, that require you to not have relationships with people who are involved in either torture or war criminals activity? MR. RUBIN: I'm not sure about the applicability of the particular legislation. With respect to his appointment, that is an internal matter for the Israeli Government to decide. As far as what we would do if he sought to come to the United States, I have nothing for you on this. QUESTION: Another subject? Another subject? MR. RUBIN: Yes. QUESTION: What is the State Department's opinion, if any, about the decision made by the Government of Israel to allow Muslims to basically move in on Christian territory? MR. RUBIN: I think one of your colleagues just asked me that question. I said I would get back to him on it. QUESTION: That's on Nazareth. QUESTION: Oh, OK, that's the Nazareth question. MR. RUBIN: Yes, I just said I would get back to him with an answer on that. QUESTION: I would like to go to your yesterday briefing, when you announced the sanctions on one company from the Czech Republic and one from Kazakhstan. I was wondering why are the sanctions imposed now, eight months after the individuals were apprehended and six months after the Czechs accused them of illegal trading? You know, what's the mechanism why the sanctions come now? MR. RUBIN: I think the sanctions were imposed - I believe -- November 17th, if my memory serves me. They were the subject of an investigation, and it takes some time to investigate. We obviously also consulted extensively with the governments in Kazakhstan and the Czech Republic, and made decisions based on the cooperation of the Kazakhstan Government in the investigation. So that often takes a significant amount of time. The announcement that I made yesterday was based on a decision that had been reached on the 17th. We informed the Kazakhstan Government over the last several months, and have been discussing these transfers extensively with them. So it often takes quite some time to answer the relevant questions, and to come to final determinations, so that's the way our process works. QUESTION: Are there other companies in the Czech Republic which are closely monitored by the US Government who have activities in Iran or Serbia? MR. RUBIN: Well, certainly, the subject of arms sales from the Czech Republic to other parts of the world is not a new subject. As someone who follows the situation closely, you, I presume, know that. But I'm not in a position to specify any specific company or action. QUESTION: On that, I think you probably, in your very lengthy answer to the question yesterday -- MR. RUBIN: A very tightly formed, short question got a very long answer. QUESTION: -- probably gave - exactly but revealed probably all there was to reveal about it. But I'm just wondering, was there any evidence the US has that the head of the Kazakhstan armed forces was involved in the sale at all? MR. RUBIN: Well, I believe there were a certain number of officials that were -- QUESTION: My recollection was you said officials of Agroplast, not of the Kazakh Government. MR. RUBIN: Let me check on that for you, and try to get back to you. QUESTION: Change the subject? MR. RUBIN: Yes. QUESTION: Given your interest in human rights and the rights of women, do you have anything to comment on the rejection of the decree by the Emir of Kuwait, of giving women the right to vote? MR. RUBIN: Well, we're aware of the constitutional principles that were involved in the vote by the Kuwaiti National Assembly. Nonetheless, let me say that the United States reaffirms our strong support for the expansion of political participation in Kuwait, including this extension of full political rights to women. We encourage and urge the Kuwaiti Government and parliament to extend these rights. Our support for a wider political participation - including the vital role of women - in the political process has long been a pillar of our policies. QUESTION: On Cuba - I wonder if you got the reaction I asked you yesterday about the decision of Venezuela to sell oil to Cuba, and use an oil refinery on the island? Also there is a report that Japanese businessmen are in Cuba looking for trade with the island. I wonder what is your reaction? MR. RUBIN: According to press reports the president of the Venezuelan National Oil Company has announced a new study, which will investigate the feasibility of a joint investment between the Venezuelan and Cuban state petroleum companies. Those are the facts. With respect to our views on US- Venezuelan relations as regarding Cuba, let me say we are strongly encouraged by the support for democratization in Cuba expressed by Latin American countries. We hope that each country works in its own way to promote greater freedom and respect for human rights in Cuba. That is our view on that. What was the second part? QUESTION: The Japanese? MR. RUBIN: The Japanese - yes. In that question, this is a bilateral matter: the trade mission between the Japanese business community and the government of Cuba. I would note, however, that Cuba defaulted on much of its debt in the mid 1980s, and their creditors have traditionally found it quite difficult to collect on their Cuban credits. QUESTION: Or the Cuban - Cuban business leaders -- QUESTION: Everybody in the world is trying to forget what are you saying in terms of maintaining Cuba isolated. They are looking for business everywhere - Spain, Mexico, Japan, Canada. So what's -- MR. RUBIN: Our sense of the way the world is going, is that the world is increasingly focusing attention on the human rights tragedy in Cuba, that some unprecedented activities never before taken place, with leaders of Latin American countries directly meeting with dissidents, forcing Castro to have those meetings publicized, and ensuring that the people of Cuba understand the terrible human rights tragedy that has gone on as Castro has refused to allow democracy and human rights in Cuba -- that's the sense that we get that's really changing. The fact that other countries don't like the American embargo, which you have asked me about, probably, most days you've come to the briefing, is not news. There's nothing new about that. What's new is the extent to which that countries' leaders are increasingly pointing the finger directly at the Castro regime's failure to follow internationally accepted standards of human rights. That's what's new. Now, you are presumably going to decide what's new. But that's my opinion of what's new. QUESTION: One more on Latin America -- QUESTION: Can I ask - I'm just curious as to why you felt it necessary to issue this warning to the Japanese industrial (inaudible) that the Cubans have defaulted on? MR. RUBIN: It was a note in passing. QUESTION: The Foreign Minister of Panama is in this building today, having meetings with several State Department officials. I just wonder if you have a readout? MR. RUBIN: He is heading a delegation of Panamanian officials meeting today in the Department, to discuss a broad range of issues including Panama Canal security, law enforcement cooperation, trade, economic and social development. He's meeting with Assistant Secretary Romero and officials from other agencies, and I will certainly encourage them to try to offer you a readout at the end of those meetings. QUESTION: I guess you know investigators into the Egypt Air crash are trying to figure out if this should remain an accident investigation or a criminal investigation. I wonder if you know if American diplomats in Egypt have been asked, or have given any sort of formal recommendation of the chain of command as to whether this, indeed, should be a criminal or an accident-type investigation? MR. RUBIN: Well, I think American diplomats unfamiliar with the investigation wouldn't be in a position to make recommendations as to what the evidence does or doesn't show about which direction the investigation should take, or who should be the lead agency. I think it is the job of American diplomats to sensitize the Secretary and the Department to the local feelings and views. I'm sure that they have made clear to us, in a variety of forms, the uproar that has taken place in Egypt during the past week, as a lot of speculation came out about the causes of the crash. They might - I suspect since I've been aware of some of this - also be reporting on some of the outrageous conspiracy theories that have existed in the Egypt media that are particularly irresponsible. QUESTION: Is the Korean Defense Minister going to be having any meetings here this week? I know he's at the Pentagon? MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of any meetings with the Secretary, but I can check that for you. QUESTION: Yesterday I asked a very brief question about the Arctic Council. Did they -- MR. RUBIN: Right, they did -- QUESTION: -- come to any -- MR. RUBIN: They did provide me some information. Senior government officials from the eight-member Arctic Council and 150 participants met in the Department November 17th through 19th in a run-up to the ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council in Alaska, planned for next year. The officials stressed strong support for the development and implementation of an Arctic Council Action Plan to eliminate pollution in the Arctic. The United States showcased its high-tech sustainable development project on tele-medicine, to strengthen council interest in the topic, and improve the quality of health care available to the residents of remote settlements throughout the Arctic. We also introduced a comprehensive sustainable development project on ecological tourism in the Arctic. Other project discussed including managing regional fisheries, the health and environmental needs of indigenous communities, and social science work and research in the Arctic. Senior Arctic Council officials voiced support for a climate impact assessment, a comprehensive effort to examine the effects of global climate change, and increased UV radiation in the Arctic region. The assembled officials reiterated support for the ratification of protocols on persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals. QUESTION: That ministerial meeting in Alaska is that a foreign ministers meeting? MR. RUBIN: Ministerial meetings - it would be at the ministerial level. Which ministers would go, I think, would still be determined. QUESTION: Jamie, let me go back. I came in in the middle of your discussion about Taiwan and the PRC. Specifically, I would like to ask if you had responded to a question regarding the policy statement that George W. Bush made about China, about getting tougher with China, about getting closer to Taiwan and protecting Taiwan, especially with anti-missile systems. Can you comment at all on Mr. Bush? MR. RUBIN: Well, I have indicated in past times that the presidential campaign is a very important part of America's debate. I understand the interest in the United States in serious policy discussion about foreign affairs issues. Frankly, I welcome - the more serious the policy debate occurs on serious issues, the better for the country. As far as commenting every time a campaign speech or comment is made, I don't think that's my job. I'll try to balance that with the obvious need, over time, to respond to direct criticisms of the Administration's policy, which I do think is my job. So in general, the short answer to that question is, I don't have any particular comment on it right now. QUESTION: This guy is a front runner in a major party, and he's talking about a -- MR. RUBIN: Don't abandon me now. QUESTION: -- a party platform of what his views are on China. Now that would not warrant some kind of response under this Administration? MR. RUBIN: Well, I think I described my principles. QUESTION: I just want to follow up quickly to two issues that came out yesterday, if you have anything new on them. First, the Russians floating the idea of a joint commission on ABM: Have you heard anything new on that? MR. RUBIN: We're aware of the idea and the views that I expressed yesterday -- QUESTION: There hasn't been formal communication on that? You can't confirm that they have -- MR. RUBIN: We would welcome the opportunity to continue discussions with Russia on the ballistic missile threat, but I don't believe that idea has ripened into a formal diplomatic discussion. QUESTION: Do you have anything new to say on Patrick Seals' report? MR. RUBIN: Seal? QUESTION: Patrick Seals -- MR. RUBIN: Yes, I responded to that yesterday. Nothing new. QUESTION: The story continues -- MR. RUBIN: To borrow a phrase of your colleague's, since I have nothing new to say, I won't say anything. QUESTION: All right. QUESTION: Do you have anything new on the report released by Congress yesterday of government-wide -- sort of "how is everybody doing in Y2K?" - in preparation for that event? The State Department received a B. You have slipped from an A. Do you know why this happened? MR. RUBIN: This is from Congress? I don't know. I'll have to get those who work on this to get you an answer. QUESTION: Thank you. (The briefing concluded at 1:45 p.m.) (###)
U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
All Rights Reserved.