U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #21, 00-03-16
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
883
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Thursday, March 16, 2000
Briefer: James P. Rubin
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 Secretary Albright will Address the American-Iranian Council, 9:30
a.m., Friday, March 17 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel
1 At 1:00 p.m., Friday, March 17, the Secretary will Brief and Answer
Questions About the American-Iranian Speech at the State
Department Briefing Room, Room 2118
SERBIA (Kosovo)
1 Substantial Unaccounted-for Weapons from the Kosovo Liberation Army
/ American Troops and KFOR Intend to Fulfill Their Mission of
Providing a Secure Environment in Kosovo
2-3 Kosovar Albanians Have Been Supportive of US and NATO Presence /
Leaders Need to do More to Get Control of Extremist Elements /
Secretary Albright Tells Congressional Panel that if Extremists
Continue Provocations, Albanians Risk Losing US Support / US in
the Forefront of Supporting Kosovo
CHINA
4-5 Chinese Diplomat Attacks Administration on Arms Control / China Has
Been Constructive Nonproliferation Area and Joining the MTCR in
cutting Off Sales to Iran
11-12 US/China Policy / Congressman DeLay's Criticism of US-China
Relationship/ US Policy Has Received Bi-Partisan Support
MIDDLE EAST
5-6 Comprehensive Test Ban / US Supports
Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction-Free Zone including Israel in the
Context of a Comprehensive Peace Settlement
10-11 Syria-Israel Track
14 Palestine-Israeli Negotiations to Begin Next Week
CHINA (TAIWAN)
6-7 US Supports One-China Policy, insists that there be a Peaceful
Resolution to Disputes / China and Taiwan are encouraged to Pursue
Steps to Reduce Tensions Across the Strait / China and Taiwan are
urged to Refrain from Actions or Statements that Increase Tensions
or Make Dialogue More Difficult to Achieve. / Under Secretary
Pickering Calls in Chinese Ambassador Li to Discuss Importance of
Prudence and Patience Before and After the Taiwan Election
COSTA RICA
8-9 Costa Rican Authorities have initiated an investigation of the
murder of Two American Citizens / FBI Has Offered Assistance to
Costa Rican Authorities
IRAN
8-9 Major Policy Speech on Iran / US Encouraged by Success of Reformed
Candidates in Making the Case for the Rule of Law Inside Iran /
Major Strides Forward in Terms of a Free Press Leading to a Free
Election with Freedom of Press and Elections
RUSSIA
9-10 US-Russia Relationship
PAKISTAN
12 US Disappointed in Government's Decision to Ban all Public
Demonstrations / US Ambassador Raises Concerns About Ban with
Government / US Concerns Expressed Human Rights Situation
NORTH KOREA
13-14 Preparations for High Level Visit Continue
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #21
THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2000, 12:43 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Welcome to today's State Department briefing. Let
me start by announcing the following. Secretary Albright is going to
address the American-Iranian Council tomorrow. The address will be a major
policy address on the subject of the United States and Iran. The meeting
will be at 9:30 a.m. at the Omni-Shoreham Hotel.
Later on tomorrow, at 1:00 p.m., Secretary Albright will be here in the
briefing room to answer questions about that speech for all of you.
QUESTION: She won't there?
MR. RUBIN: She will not there; yes.
We have a statement that will be posted after the briefing on Liberia. And
I am here to take your questions. And by the way, since today is Thursday
and some of you have not been as aggressive in asking questions as you
should be over your time here, I think I will have to give one final
opportunity to Eric Wagner to ask the first question since he refuses to
pipe up and raise his hand and wave and shout like some of the rest of you.
So, Eric, first question. And it's your last day. By the way, let me say
that I firmly believe in recognition for people's last days.
QUESTION: Thank you. On Kosovo, you were in the region recently. It
appears certain parts of Southern Serbia, Northern Kosovo there were
several cases of ammunition, mortars, various other items that a army would
need, indicating that perhaps the aspirations of the Albanian nationalists
are greater than what the US would want. I mean isn't this sort of a
difficult situation?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we do believe that by and large the KLA, the Kosovo
Liberation Army, did demilitarize pursuant to the agreement with NATO and
the West. Their forces were demilitarized, and they are under the control
of KFOR. But we have had the view that there are still substantial
unaccounted-for weapons in Kosovo.
I think what this raid shows that US troops conducted in the US sector in
eastern Kosovo was that the American troops and KFOR intend to fulfill
their mission of providing a secure environment in Kosovo. And these raids
are consistent with that mission. We think it is appropriate for US forces
to take these kind of steps to prevent any extremists from provoking
further hostilities in the region.
We've known for some time that there was not full and complete compliance
with the demilitarization agreement, that there are weapons out there, and
we think it's appropriate that the US forces under KFOR operated to take
control of those weapons.
And similarly let me say that the fact that the US troops did not face any
real opposition in their attempt to gain control of these weapons at these
five locations, and then in many cases the Kosovar Albanians not only laid
down their arms but ran away, demonstrates that they do not desire a
confrontation with American forces. We do not believe that we are headed
for a confrontation with Kosovar-Albanians.
By and large, most Kosovar Albanians have been very supportive of the US
presence and NATO's presence in Kosovo. And there is no question that the
vast, vast majority of them want to see a peace-and-security reign in
Kosovo. But some extremists have been provocative, and we think it's
appropriate for the NATO troops to take action to uncover such weapons.
QUESTION: If I may follow up. The whole history of this area is that
extremists provoke and then these provocations snowball into bigger and
bigger conflicts. I mean, aren't you worried that these extremists, who
obviously have a way of hiding weapons and hiding other things that they
need, are going to make trouble?
MR. RUBIN: Well, clearly we are concerned that extremists have made
trouble in Kosovo. Secretary Albright sent me to Kosovo to make very clear
to leaders there that they need to do more to get control of extremist
elements like this. But we believe that NATO is capable of maintaining
security in the region. This raid that NATO conducted demonstrates that we
can ensure security, that we can confront those extremists.
We do not believe that Kosovo is going to become a thriving market
democracy based on ethnic tolerance in a few months. This is an extremely
troubled part of the world that has just gone through a wrenching
experience of thousands of people dying and hundreds of thousands being
ripped from their homes. So we think that this problem is not going to be
solved overnight. It can only be solved over time. And we are determined to
maintain the military police and diplomatic pressure necessary to try our
best to make it possible for all to live in Kosovo under conditions of
peaceful coexistence.
QUESTION: On that subject, the Secretary yesterday told a congressional
panel that if extremists continue the provocations, the Albanians risk
losing the support. How is that support manifested? What does the US do for
these people now? We know what you did for them until now.
MR. RUBIN: I am not going to get into a parsing the ways in which they
may lose American support. Clearly, there has been financial, military,
political, and diplomatic support for Kosovar Albanians. Not only did we
risk our airmen and our involvement in Kosovo on their behalf, but we have
been committed to supporting them in the future.
What the Secretary was pointing to was a generalized reduction in the level
of support that we have provided to people there. It is no secret that the
United States has been among the forefront of those western countries that
have been supportive of Kosovo. And there are some within the NATO alliance
and within Europe that have been less supportive.
So what the Secretary was indicating was that our support should not be
taken for granted and is based on an expectation that they will do what
they can to stem this extremism.
QUESTION: We've heard many times in many forms what your mission was in
Kosovo. But we haven't really heard what the Kosovar Albanians told you.
Did they say, "Yes, we will do more to restrain these people" Or did they
say, "It's out of our hands. We don't have any control over these
people?" Or did they just say they'd look into it? Could you kind of
describe how you --
MR. RUBIN: I think they said all of those things in different meetings,
different people. Kosovo is not a pyramidic structure of decisionmaking.
There are not just one or two people that control the levers of power
there. It is a very diffuse system.
But I think it's clear from what I heard there that the leaders want to do
more, that they indicated that their intent is to follow through on their
promises to us, and that their intent is to oppose these extremists. The
question isn't so much what they have said to me in public or private, but
what the leaders there are going to do over the coming weeks and months.
What I was intending was to send such a stark and blunt message to them
that they would think about this and change their patterns of behavior and
practices. The words were encouraging, but it is not words that we are
looking for. It is not oral commitments. It's not verbal commitments, but
rather a change in behavior. And that's not something one can judge in a
couple of days.
QUESTION: Jamie, when you were there, did you specifically tell them that
they could expect raids like these if they --
MR. RUBIN: I think that would not be the way that diplomats would do
business, would be to pre-warn about operational activities of the
military. But I did make clear to them that the US intended to ensure
security in its sector, including stepping up patrolling along the border,
and that it would be a grave, grave mistake for Kosovar Albanians to
challenge American troops.
QUESTION: Even by just having these stockpiles of weapons?
MR. RUBIN: No, by confronting them. I mean, obviously, we're against them
having stockpiles of weapons. But your question was about these raids. And
what I said to them --
QUESTION: Not specifically these raids. I mean the question was did you
go and say look, if you don't shape up and we know about stockpiles of
weapons, they risk this kind of action -
MR. RUBIN: I didn't preview the specific raids. I said that we intended
to ensure security in our sector, that we intended to enhance patrolling
along the border areas as a result of the Presevo Valley problem, and that
it would be a grave, grave mistake for any Kosovar Albanian to challenge
American troops in the performance of their mission.
QUESTION: It seems that in The Washington Post's recent stories on Kosovo,
as I read them, civilian officials play down the possibility of a
confrontation with the ethnic Albanians, whereas the alarms are coming from
the uniformed military people. Could you comment on that, please?
MR. RUBIN: Well, it's not normally my practice to parse newspaper stories
for different views in different buildings. I can say this, it's my view,
and it's the Secretary's view that the US Government is united in its
determination to try to improve the situation in Kosovo, to use the assets
that are available to us. And that we, as a Government, do not believe that
we are headed for a confrontation with Albanians in Kosovo.
QUESTION: You said several times that your message to the Kosovar
Albanians was a "stark message." What was the stick that made it stark?
MR. RUBIN: Wow. Good question.
QUESTION: I mean if it's a stark message, it must be attached to some
kind of bleak consequences that they face --
MR. RUBIN: Well, stark is one of those words that you and I might have a
dictionary discussion about later. I believe it means can be stark naked,
for example, that it doesn't necessarily mean you're carrying any sticks
with you when you're naked.
QUESTION: It depends on how you deliver it.
MR. RUBIN: But what I meant by a stark message was that it was blunt, it
was from a friend. And it was a message Secretary Albright asked to deliver
to indicate to them that some of their closest friends are losing patience
with the failure of the Kosovar Albanian leaders to do more to stem
violence. And that a failure to change course could risk losing the support
of their friends. That is the stick. To the extent that stark had a stick,
that was it.
QUESTION: Speaking of friends, a Chinese diplomat today leveled a blast
at the administration particularly over its missile defense possibilities
saying that it's a double standard, that if you want to stop proliferation
of technology and such, you wouldn't be doing some of the encouraging of
other countries to develop missiles. And also this technology is apt to get
circulated around the world.
It's not the first time the Chinese have attacked the administration on
arms control grounds. But he did say you're stagnant and you're following a
double standard. Do you have a reply? A reaction?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. Over the years, China has had an evolution in its
policies on nonproliferation. Some 5 to 10 years ago, China was a major
source of problems for proliferation in that it was providing material and
assistance to countries of concern that were seeking to develop missiles.
So it is ironic that, after being part of the cause of the problem, China
would then several years later be complaining about the solutions the
United States is seeking to deal with problems that China helped create.
Now, more recently China has been much more constructive in the nonproliferation
area and joining the MTCR in cutting off sales to Iran of a number of
missiles and other activity. So they have been much more constructive.
But not too long ago, China was a major source of concern to this
government and to most governments for the provision of assistance to
countries seeking to develop long-range or medium-range missiles. So I do
find it ironic that they would be complaining about a solution to a problem
that they helped cause.
But directly on the point they're making, there is a danger of other
countries developing medium and long-range missile capabilities that do
pose threats to us. When we seek to counter them with limited steps, such
as the National Mission Defense we are contemplating and spending
significant funds developing and researching, we are trying to do it in a
way that is within the context of the ABM Treaty and that would only
require modest amendment. We do not see why that need cause a proliferation
of technology on the defensive side. And, frankly, what we are talking
about is defensive technology; that is technology that helps you defend
against incoming missiles. So we don't agree with those particular points
made by that diplomat.
QUESTION: Do you mean there is a definable distinction? People can
discern between technology that's used to kill incoming missiles and
technology that's used to fire missiles? I mean they are not sort of in the
same general category?
MR. RUBIN: No. I wouldn't agree they are in the same general category.
The basic technology needed to develop a medium or long-range missile is a
boosting capability to take a large heavy object a long distance, which is
different than identifying and locating and striking at high speeds a small
target. And those are different technologies, yes.
QUESTION: Very quickly, one last thing. The Chinese speaker said that the
US winks at certain governments, certain countries -- you know, cracks down,
complains about Iran, Iraq, et cetera -- but winks on certain countries as
they proceed along this dangerous path of proliferation of nuclear know-
how. And Mr. Butler, the former inspector, made it clear who he thinks is
being winked at. He said Israel. That Israel is a secret nuclear power.
The United States should be leaning on Israel to sign the treaty,
to declare itself. It's awful, he says, when people like Iran and Iraq sign
and then cheat; but it is also awful when Israel has a program and does not
sign on. How do you feel about Israel?
MR. RUBIN: We have made it clear that we believe in the context of a
comprehensive peace agreement that we would support a weapons-of-mass-
destruction-free zone in the Middle East. But we do believe that it has to
be in the context of a comprehensive agreement. More generally, Israel has
signed the Comprehensive Test Ban most recently, and we would want to see
early action towards a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone in the
Middle East including Israel in the context of a comprehensive peace
settlement.
QUESTION: Would you have them declared a nuclear power?
MR. RUBIN: I think our position on Israel is quite well known beyond what
I just said.
QUESTION: These Chinese academics who appeared in Beijing today made some
very alarming predictions. For example, that if the pro-independence
candidate in Taiwan is elected, then the PRC could respond within hours. Do
you have any comment on such rhetoric?
MR. RUBIN: From our standpoint, we believe in a one-China policy, and we
believe both sides should engage in dialogue. And we insist that there be a
peaceful resolution to these kind of disputes. We have repeatedly
encouraged both China and Taiwan to pursue steps to reduce tensions across
the strait. And we urged China, as well as Taiwan, to refrain from actions
or statements that increase tensions or make dialogue more difficult to
achieve. We urge, instead, positive steps to foster dialogue, reduce
tensions, and emphasize peaceful resolution and promote mutual understanding.
With respect to the use of force, let me say categorically that we reject
the use of force as an attempt to resolve cross-strait differences.
QUESTION: Okay. Would you like to say whether these remarks by these
academics increase tensions?
MR. RUBIN: I think it's fair to say that any remarks that are inconsistent
with the suggestions I made are not helpful. We want to see statements and
actions that make dialogue more likely not those that increase tensions.
QUESTION: It's not just Chinese academics who have been sort of sounding
or continuing to beat the drum on Taiwan, but also senior Chinese
officials. Since your comments on the White Paper, you've had China's prime
minister and other senior officials warn Taiwan in very strong language
that any moves towards independence would mean military action. Has the
administration in any way renewed its urging of the Chinese leaders to
maintain sort of rhetorical restraint?
MR. RUBIN: This morning, Under Secretary Pickering called in China's
ambassador, Ambassador Li, to discuss the importance of prudence and
patience before and after the Taiwan election and our hope to see following
that election positive steps to reduce tensions and foster dialogue.
In general, we don't think statements of the kind that were mentioned are
helpful. Instead, we want to see statements that can foster dialogue and
make it more likely to resolve this issue peacefully.
QUESTION: How concerned is the administration that should Chen Shui-Bian,
the pro-independence candidate, win that that will eventually shatter the
facade that's been in place for the last 20 years that there really is one
China?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I don't think it would be appropriate on the eve of an
election to make comments about what effect might or might not happen from
one particular candidate.
We don't support or favor any candidate in Taiwan's March 18th election. We
believe that this is a decision, a democratic decision, for the people of
Taiwan to make and not for us to prejudge by making comments on the eve of
such an election.
QUESTION: Can you tell us, as a matter of interest, when the State
Department asked Ambassador Li to come in? Because I asked about this
yesterday and I was told there were no plans to call him in.
MR. RUBIN: Well, this happened this morning.
QUESTION: He was called -
MR. RUBIN: This morning he met --
QUESTION: The request was sent out this morning?
MR. RUBIN: I'll have to check on when. I don't know precisely when that
happened, but the meeting happened this morning.
QUESTION: And it's over?
MR. RUBIN: Over, yes. Considering that it is 1 o'clock, the meeting is
over.
QUESTION: Well, you never can tell. They might have had a long agenda.
MR. RUBIN: It's not that long a meeting.
QUESTION: What was it that inspired the State Department to call in the
Ambassador? What happened between yesterday and today?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to speculate on how this developed. Suffice it
to say that we're on the eve of an election. It's obviously an important
election. We thought it was appropriate to have a face-to-face meeting with
the Chinese ambassador and urge patience and prudence on Beijing before,
during and after that election.
QUESTION: Are you doing the same thing with anyone from the Taiwan
economic and cultural --
MR. RUBIN: I would expect that we are in touch with Taiwan authorities
through the normal channels.
QUESTION: Can I change the subject?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: On your announcement about the Secretary. Any particular reason
why the Secretary is going to make this speech and then come back here to
discuss and explain what she said?
MR. RUBIN: Because it's a subject that the Secretary has not addressed in
full in a long time since the speech she made to the Asia Society. She will
take questions here from all of you. I can't imagine any of you would be
against the idea of having the opportunity to --
QUESTION: No, no. I'm not against it. I'm just curious.
MR. RUBIN: -- to ask questions of the Secretary of State on a major
policy issue like this.
QUESTION: Will she answer any questions at the --
MR. RUBIN: No.
QUESTION: But, I mean, you're obviously expecting her to say something
that is going to --
MR. RUBIN: You know, Barry and I once went at this. I try to not preview
her statements as major policy addresses unless they are indeed major
policy addresses.
QUESTION: Jamie, a different subject. Do you have any more information on
the status of the return of the bodies of the young women that were killed
in Costa Rica and any information on the investigation?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. On Monday, March 13th, Costa Rican authorities discovered
the bodies of US Citizens Emily Howell and Emily Eagen. Based on what the
Costa Rican authorities have told us, it appears that both women died of
gunshot wounds to the head. We have been in frequent contact with the next
of kin, and we will continue to help the victims' families however we can.
The Costa Rican authorities have initiated a criminal investigation, and we
are staying in close contact with the Costa Rican authorities in that
regard.
With respect to the other aspect of your question, I will have to check on
that.
QUESTION: Do you know whether the FBI's help has been offered or asked
for?
MR. RUBIN: With respect to the FBI question, my understanding is that the
FBI has offered to assist in this investigation and that the Costa Rican
authorities are considering that offer of assistance at this time.
QUESTION: Okay, one more. Separate and apart from this particular case,
would the State Department warn Americans who are sending their children
overseas to study? Is it safe? Is it something that you would say is a good
thing?
MR. RUBIN: Well, it is hard to answer that question in general, but let
me say this. We believe that individuals have to make individual decisions
about travel to foreign countries. In each country the situation differs,
and each family should use prudence and care in making decisions as to
where their younger children or students will go.
Every country has different conditions. That's why our Consular Affairs
Office works so very hard in trying to make available through the Internet
and through a number of other sources of information the best possible
information about conditions in various countries. But it is up to
individuals to make these decisions to travel overseas, just as it is to
make decisions to travel in the United States.
We can provide information, and when problems develop we can work hard to
try to deal with them. But when Americans go overseas, our ability to
control the situation obviously has changed.
QUESTION: Two different subjects, if I could go back to Iran for a
moment.
MR. RUBIN: Sure.
QUESTION: Without previewing the Secretary's speech, could you share with
us why the administration feels that the time is right now to have a major
policy speech on Iran? Why now?
MR. RUBIN: Good try. Let's see how I can respond to that. There has been
an important election in Iran. We have been encouraged by the success of
reformers in making the case for the rule of law inside Iran. The
overwhelming victory of reform candidates is a tribute to a thriving
democracy in Iran. It's not perfect. No democracy is perfect. There are
still issues that we have on human rights grounds and others. But there
have clearly been a major stride forward in terms of a free press leading
to a free election leading to an overwhelming victory for reformers in
this most recent Parliamentary election.
As a result, Secretary Albright believes it's appropriate for the United
States to respond to that election through a major policy address. What she
specifically intends to say in that address, I prefer to wait until she
makes it.
QUESTION: There is another big election that's coming up. This one is
going to be in Russia. Is the administration sending any kind of message to
the man who looks likely to win the election, Mr. Putin, what he can do to
help write a new chapter in the US-Russian relationship?
MR. RUBIN: Well, without getting into the question of who will or won't
win the Russian election, whomever that is, our view would be the same. And
that is that we want to work to bring Russia into western institutions. We
want to bring home to Russia the need to deal with the Chechnya problem in
a more rational way. We want to ensure that the freedom of the press, the
freedom of the association, the civil society that's been created in
Russia in recent years is maintained and strengthened. And we want
to see Russia proceed on the path of economic reform so that it can
play a strong and stable and democratic role in Europe.
At the same time on the security side, we want to ensure that Russia has
the tightest possible restrictions on the transfer of technology from
Russia to countries of concern. We also want to work with Russia to reduce
further our strategic nuclear weapons.
Those are the principle elements of our relationship. We also work on a lot
of other regional subjects. And we would certainly want to see in any new
presidential administration a commitment to work with us on those
objectives.
Eric. Let's go to Eric Wagner. Is it your last day by the way?
QUESTION: We can call it my last day. It depends on how you define
last.
MR. RUBIN: Last, yeah. Or Day.
QUESTION: The Iranian ambassador to the United Nations I believe is
expected to be in the audience of this group that the Secretary is speaking
to tomorrow. Will she be meeting with him at some point?
MR. RUBIN: There is no plan to such a meeting.
QUESTION: Would she be opposed to such a meeting?
MR. RUBIN: We've offered to have a dialogue. We don't expect this
speech/public event to be the place where such a dialogue will be kicked
off.
QUESTION: Do you have any reason to share the optimism of the Syrian
Defense Minister who said in Lebanon today that he expected Syrian-Israeli
talks to resume within weeks, and also said that President Clinton would
make an announcement on this I believe?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I'm not aware of any imminent announcement. With respect
to the Syria-Israel track, we've made clear that we are in regular touch
with the parties in an effort to get negotiations restarted. We're trying
to clarify positions to see if we can get to a point where there is enough
confidence on each side that it can meet its needs if negotiations are
resumed, and that the negotiations will lead someplace if they are
resumed.
Obviously, I can't get into the details of these communications and to
comment on every speculative report. And with respect to a meeting between
the President and President Asad, I'm not going to go into what we may or
may not do other than to say that we've always made it clear that we will
do what we think is appropriate to advance the prospects for peace between
Israel and Syria. And we continue to try to clarify the respective
positions of the two sides.
QUESTION: You said not aware of any imminent announcement I believe at
the beginning. Could you be a bit -
MR. RUBIN: No, I think - didn't you suggest there was an imminent
announcement?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. RUBIN: And I'm not aware of an imminent announcement.
QUESTION: I didn't say that, I said -- (inaudible) -
MR. RUBIN: No, No, you were referring to a Syrian statement, right. And
I'm saying I'm not aware of any imminent announcement.
QUESTION: Can you say there will not be an imminent announcement?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of one is all I can say. I can't --
QUESTION: Well, would you know if -
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of an imminent announcement. I tend to be aware
of such imminent announcements.
QUESTION: If there was going to be one -
MR. RUBIN: But I am not always aware of every imminent announcement that
is imminent.
QUESTION: Did you see Congressman's DeLay's speech this morning at CSIS?
He said basically that the administration has adopted an appeasement policy
towards China and it is more craven than Neville Chamberlain's in 1938. And
those are almost direct quotes.
MR. RUBIN: Well, having not read the entire speech, I'd prefer not to
comment on the comprehensive views of Mr. DeLay on this subject of China
and all its nuances. But let me say that the China policy we are pursuing
is one that has received bipartisan support for many administrations,
including President Bush's administration, including President Nixon's
administration.
And perhaps Mr. DeLay's disagreement is with the leaders of both parties
who have been in office who have viewed it as in the interest of the United
States to work with China, to engage with China, to develop relations that
advance our interests economically in terms of trade, in terms of
nonproliferation, even while maintaining strong support for Taiwan through
the Taiwan Relations Act through the various communiques.
So I think Mr. DeLay's criticism sounds like the kind of broad attack on a
whole series of Presidents' views of the US-China relationship in the
context of Taiwan.
QUESTION: Do you guys have any reaction to the decision by Pakistani
authorities to ban all public demonstrations, religious processions, etc.?
Does this just add one more item to the list of things the President is
going to shake his --
MR. RUBIN: We are extremely disappointed by the government of Pakistan's
decision to ban all public political rallies throughout the country. We
recognize the need to maintain order, public order, but the broad ban is a
challenge to freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly and is inconsistent
with the government's pledge to respect the fundamental rights conferred by
the Pakistani Constitution.
We understand some officials have cited security concerns surrounding the
March 25th visit of President Clinton as one of the reasons for the ban.
While we appreciate the security preparations undertaken in advance of the
visit, a broad ban on public rallies and political rallies throughout
Pakistan is an inappropriate means in our view to provide such security.
Our ambassador in Pakistan raised our concerns about the ban with the
government of Pakistan within hours after it was announced. We were told
the ban would be lifted following the President's departure.
We have also expressed our serious concerns to the Pakistani Government
about the detention of Pakistanis arrested under the accountability
ordinance who have been jailed without charges for longer than 90 days,
often under harsh conditions.
The human rights situation in Pakistan and the need for the prompt
establishment of democratic civilian government are among the topics
President Clinton will discuss with General Musharaff in Islamabad.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on Mozambique? I'm wondering --
MR. RUBIN: Let me suggest -- I will come right back to you -- that that
may have been the most comprehensive and on-point answer I have ever
received from the SA Bureau. Thank you.
QUESTION: On Mozambique, I am just wondering if you can clarify any plans
to help in the reconstruction?
MR. RUBIN: We will have some statement about debt relief later today, but
I just don't have the details for that for you.
QUESTION: It's North Korea. How confident are you that you will be able
to set the date for the possible North Korean high-ranking official's visit
to the United States?
My second question is although you couldn't agree on the date and the
persons who are coming to the United States, but in New York, both the
United States and North Korea agreed upon having talks on the missile and
framework agreements. Are they new ones or just the continuation of
previous talks? If they are new ones, how different are they from the
previous talks?
MR. RUBIN: Well, the topics are the same as the previous talks, certainly
in the sense that we have been talking about missiles before and concerns
about missile proliferation and indigenous missile capabilities. But they
are new talks because they are now going to be scheduled meetings to
discuss these issues.
On the agreed framework, we are going to discuss the issue of an additional
visit to Kumchang-ni. The North Korean side - we confirmed in New York its
agreement for another visit there.
With respect to the high level visit, it is not easy to reach final
agreements on issues like this with a country like North Korea. That's why
we work so hard and we give such praise to diplomats like Ambassador
Kartman who have worked mightily and patiently and I have compared them in
the past to marathon runners. But at the end of the day, they often do
accomplish significant objectives as we've had on both the nuclear and
missile side with North Korea. Preparations for a high level visit do
continue and further discussions will be scheduled through the New York
channel. We, for our part, think a high-level visit would be constructive
and we will continue to work towards that end.
QUESTION: Could you tell us are the obstacles to this visit, are they
mainly to do with the physical arrangements to the visit, like where he
goes and who he sees and so on? Or is it the substantial background to the
rest of the talks, the framework agreements and missiles and so on that
prevent this visit from taking place?
MR. RUBIN: I do not think it would be constructive to make public the
elements of our discussions on this subject.
QUESTION: Can you say if any progress was made on creating the conditions
that would allow this visit to happen in these last talks without
specifying what that progress might have been? I mean, before it began a
senior official in this room was fairly confident that there would be an
announcement made as a result -- (inaudible) -- during this round of talks,
and obviously it wasn't. So has any progress been made? Or can you not even
say that?
MR. RUBIN: Well, obviously, there wasn't an announcement and, as I
indicated, it is not an easy job to work these problems through with North
Korea. I am not sure there is a step in between the meeting for preparations
of a visit and announcing the visit that constitutes progress. In other
words, if you have a number of meetings designed to get a visit scheduled
and the name identified and the time set, I am not sure you can say that
the meeting on final preparations made progress unless you have the meeting
scheduled. So I don't know how to slice that salami any thinner.
QUESTION: Well, you basically just said there was no progress.
MR. RUBIN: No. If you want to --
QUESTION: Well, no, no. I just --
MR. RUBIN: No, no. I've said what I've said and you get to say what you
said that's what I said, yes. I didn't use the words that you said.
QUESTION: Jamie, do you still feel that a visit is going to happen within
the span of a month?
MR. RUBIN: We think that obviously the original time frame envisaged a
visit later this month. So that original time frame has not been met. Now,
with respect to do we still think there is going to be a visit, we are
still intent on working towards that end. And we think that preparations
should continue and we are continuing to work on that. We think it would be
constructive. But in a case like this, until it happens, it hasn't
happened.
QUESTION: Two quick questions, one on a statement made against Kuwait by
Saudi Arabia for their failure to bring the price of oil down. Are you
satisfied with the Richardson mission? Are you doing anything further with
other OPEC countries besides Saudi Arabia? And can you give us a clue as to
what's going to happen in the Palestine-Israeli negotiations next
week?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. On the second question that you asked, we will hopefully
have some more information for you as to the time and location. The talks
will begin next week. Obviously, we want to give a kick start to the very
complex series of issues that constitute the permanent status of negotiations
with the objective of getting a framework agreement sooner rather
than later that can allow the September/mid-September deadline for
a permanent peace to be met. I do not think it will be helpful to go into
the details of that.
With respect to OPEC, we do believe that we are working assiduously to make
the case diplomatically for an action by OPEC and we support Secretary
Richardson's work.
QUESTION: On Cyprus, it seems Special Coordinator of Cyprus, Tom Westin
was in the area in recent days. I was wondering, do you have anything to
say?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have an update on his trip, but I will check that for
you right after the briefing.
QUESTION: Do you have a date for the press on that yet?
MR. RUBIN: I will hope to have an announcement for you very, very soon on
times and location.
QUESTION: And people? People, too?
MR. RUBIN: I think I've said it with the level in the past.
QUESTION: Yes, but you didn't say who exactly.
MR. RUBIN: I think I have, but I'll try to --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - and all that what's his face?
MR. RUBIN: Not the what's his face part. Okay.
(The briefing concluded at 1:26 P.M.)
|
