Read the Maastricht Treaty (Maastricht, 7 February 1992) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923)
HR-Net - Hellenic Resources Network Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Thursday, 28 March 2024
 
News
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  Announcements
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Hosted
  Mirrored
  Interesting Nodes
Documents
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  Constitutions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Other
Services
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts
  Tools
  F.A.Q.
 

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #21, 00-03-16

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

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.)


U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
Back to Top
Copyright © 1995-2023 HR-Net (Hellenic Resources Network). An HRI Project.
All Rights Reserved.

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.01b run on Friday, 17 March 2000 - 2:59:59 UTC