U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #22, 00-03-22
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
879
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, March 22, 2000
Briefer: James P. Rubin
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
1,2,13-14 Upcoming Clinton-Assad Meeting/Status of Israeli-Syrian Track
1-3 Update on Israeli-Palestinian Talks at Bolling Air Force Base
SERBIA (Kosovo)
4-6 Milosevic's Recent Comments on NATO's Actions and Sanctions
RUSSIA
6-8 Upcoming Russian Elections/ Secretary Albright's Views re
Acting President Putin
CHINA/TAIWAN
8-9 Ambassador Holbrooke and Assistant Secretary Roth Visit
8,9-10 Former Congressman Lee Hamilton's Private Visit to Taipei
9 US Assessment of Taiwan Elections/Situation in Region
NORTH KOREA
10 Reported North Korean Demand for Compensation for Civilian
Korean War Losses
IRAN
10-11 Reaction to Secretary Albright's Recent Speech
11 Iranian Support for Terrorism
SUDAN/TURKEY
11 Reported Turkish Government Strengthening of Relations with Sudan
MIDDLE EAST
12 Pope John Paul's Visit to Region
DEPARTMENT
12,14-15 Class-Action Suit Against USIA Settled
LIBYA
12-13-14 US Consular Visit to Libya /Assessment of Safety for
Americans to Travel
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #22
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2000, 12:30 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Welcome to the State Department briefing on this
Wednesday, I believe, the first briefing of the week and another on-time
performance. Let's see if we can have an on-time ending.
I have no statements, no announcements, nothing other than the pleasure of
answering your questions.
QUESTION: Well, I don't know if it will be a pleasure for you to
contradict Mr. Mubarak, but are the Israelis and the Syrians close to an
agreement?
MR. RUBIN: With respect to the meeting that President Clinton is going to
have this Sunday, let me say the following. We've seen President Mubarak's
remarks. In our view, we've been working to clarify the needs and positions
of both sides so that there is confidence that if the negotiations resume
in earnest there will be a reasonable chance of success. It is in this
context that President Clinton will meet with President Assad and
try to take advantage of the opportunity we see to move the process
forward.
But in our view, this is going to take time, substantial time, and it is
not simply a question of process. There are substantive issues that are
outstanding that need to be overcome. There are still substantive gaps
between the parties and tough substantive decisions that are required to be
made by both sides, in our view.
QUESTION: This opportunity to draw parallel to what seems to be fairly
positive talks at Bolling. Are there substantive gaps on the future of
Jerusalem and on a Palestinian state?
MR. RUBIN: I don't think if there were agreement on all the permanent
status issues that we would be where we are. There is not agreement on all
the permanent status issues. We are, in fact, at a brainstorming stage
where we're engaged in a serious brainstorming effort to try to see whether
the needs and concerns can be met. And we're not even at the stage where
American ideas are being presented but, rather, we're there to hear each
side out and to encourage them to talk to each other.
Yesterday, Ambassador Ross brought the sides together for lunch and
stressed the importance of using this venue to work intensively on the
permanent status issues and brainstorm in an informal way to discuss ways
to resolve the gaps and the concerns that still remain. There was a dinner
last night -- I guess the Israelis and the Palestinians had dinner last
night. The US will host a dinner for the parties tonight. In general, the
atmosphere has been described as excellent and it reminded our negotiators
of the fact that, even though there are difficult issues in the negotiations,
there is enormous goodwill and respect between Palestinian and Israeli
negotiators.
I am told there is a Pizza Hut on base that has been used extensively.
There is an exercise room, to respond to some question I got yesterday. I
don't intend to put my cameras inside the exercise room to see who's
exercising with whom and what they're wearing during that process. And
that's where we are.
QUESTION: At the outset you made the point, of course, if they were in
agreement there would be no reason to have the talks. I'm just looking for
you to parallel what you said about the other front. Are there still
substantive and procedural gaps, because if there were just procedural gaps
there would still be reason for them to talk? Are there substantive gaps on
Jerusalem and on a Palestinian state?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to comment on any specific issue, but I
certainly can say that there remain a number of big issues to be determined
in substantive terms in the permanent status talks. We're talking about
trying to get an agreement in several months and so, obviously, there are
some big issues out there that have not been resolved.
QUESTION: How do you interpret Syria's new call, renewed call, for the
Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights up to the 1967 line?
MR. RUBIN: Well, it's not new for such a call to be made. The positions
of both sides, the public positions, are fairly well known to us and their
reiteration doesn't surprise us.
QUESTION: Getting back to the Israeli-Palestinian talks, you said we're
not even at the stage where American ideas are being presented. Do you see
that as a necessary step that they'll have to go through, knowing the
intransigence of both sides?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we certainly hope that won't be necessary; ideally, that
through bilateral discussions they find ways to bridge these gaps. What
we've been doing is generally brainstorming with them privately about these
issues in the hopes that they will then, both sides, adjust their positions
sufficiently to bridge the gaps.
It's probably not realistic to say that if there's an agreement going to be
struck between now and September that no American ideas would be put
forward, but I'm just saying that right now where we are is that we're
focused on having each side explore fully through a brainstorming process
its needs and concerns on each of the substantive issues.
QUESTION: Is it correct that the third redeployment is also being
discussed during these talks?
MR. RUBIN: Well, it's been our experience that the permanent status talks
in previous times spent a lot of time talking about remaining interim
issues, so to speak. Now, with the bulk of the Sharm El-Sheikh Agreement
having been implemented, it's our view that the primary attention is being
placed on the permanent status talks. I can't exclude that the issue that
you mentioned will come up, but it's our expectation and my understanding
from yesterday that the bulk of the effort is on the permanent status
side.
QUESTION: Jamie, you've used the word "brainstorming" about half a dozen
times already today. In addition to brainstorming, what are the expectations
for this set of negotiations, about a week long, and do they include
getting to any drafting?
MR. RUBIN: Well, there will be some brainstorming, and I expect that to
be an important part -- the brainstorming -- so, in addition to brainstorming,
I would expect them to work on the substantive issues. We do not expect
there to be major breakthroughs at these talks. The report that there was
preparation being made to draft a treaty, in our view, is not accurate.
The parties, again, are focused on getting a framework agreement as
soon as possible so that the September 13th date can be met. Obviously,
people will be exchanging ideas and proposals, but we don't expect to begin
drafting during this session.
QUESTION: Will they put those ideas on paper? Isn't that what normally
people do?
MR. RUBIN: Well, thank you for telling me what people normally do.
QUESTION: No, no. While you're knocking down a story that some draftsmanship
isn't possible by the end of the week --
MR. RUBIN: The story about drafting a treaty.
QUESTION: No, the report didn't say drafting a treaty. It said that they
would begin drafting.
MR. RUBIN: Let me assure you that when we make a schedule we draft it on
a piece of paper. So if you want to use a piece of paper as your standard,
then you can assume that they gave me stage directions to come in the room
here and I used those stage directions to count the number of steps to come
to the podium and look into the microphone. So, yes, there will be papers
and pencils brought to the Bolling Air Force Base, but the suggestion
or the implication that we're at the stage of drafting a treaty is
incorrect and inaccurate.
QUESTION: What the report said is that -- and then I'll get off it
because the report is accurate. But the report said -- you're slightly
misstating it -- the report said by the end of the week, things are going
well, and they may be able to begin drafting which means, in this kind of a
setting where eventually stuff has to be legal and put on paper, that as
they talk they'll put down words on paper. That's all.
MR. RUBIN: We regard that report as inaccurate, and "drafting" is a term
of art that is understood in the context of this diplomacy to mean the
preparation of a joint document that would constitute a draft of an
agreement or a framework agreement. That story is, therefore, inaccurate in
our view because the focus of this effort is brainstorming and serious
exploration, and not the drafting of a peace treaty.
QUESTION: Some Israelis are under the impression that there may be an
outline of areas of agreement and disagreement, not so dissimilar to what
we saw come out of the Shepherdstown talks. Is that on track with what US
expectations are?
MR. RUBIN: As I indicated in response to Barry's question, paper and
pencil will be brought to the Bolling Air Force Base, and I expect pencils
to be used and paper to be used. The suggestion that we are -- what you may
recall the working document was was a draft treaty, for those of you who
read it. And therefore, when I said that it won't be a draft treaty, I was
saying that it won't be like the working document in Shepherdstown.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MR. RUBIN: Please.
QUESTION: Nearing the one-year anniversary of the NATO campaign against
Kosovo, new/old statements from Slobodan Milosevic that Serbia won the war.
We're heard that before, but now he's also claiming credit for the fact
that the EU is lifting the flight ban. Can you just give us some retrospective
comments?
MR. RUBIN: Absolutely. Slobodan Milosevic is more isolated than he's ever
been before. He's now lost control over Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia,
Macedonia and now Kosovo. The fact is that if Slobodan Milosevic had agreed
to negotiate seriously at Rambouillet or thereafter, the war could have
been avoided and there could have been Serb forces in Kosovo pursuant to
the Rambouillet Accords; there would have been extensive constitutional
protections for Serbs in Kosovo built into the accords; and the involvement
of Serbs in Kosovo would have been greater than it was because Milosevic
refused to sign the agreement, suffered 78 days of air strikes, then was
forced to remove all of his forces, police and military forces, that had he
agreed at Rambouillet to that approach then, some of which could have
stayed.
So he has lost greatly by this conflict and the bombing campaign obviously
set back Serbia's infrastructure significantly, so in that sense as well
the people of Serbia lost.
With respect to what's going on now in Kosovo and the sanctions question,
let me be very clear. The European Union and the United States agreed to a
suspension of the sanctions for one reason and one reason alone: because it
was requested by legitimate opposition leaders. They have been in contact
with us on a regular basis, and had it not been for the work of those
opposition leaders, those sanctions would have not been suspended.
So Milosevic may use the few remaining media outlets that he's allowed to
broadcast and publish and present their views to say black is white, but
clearly the fact is that it's the opposition leaders who deserve the credit
for this decision. Similarly, what you've seen in recent weeks is a massive
crackdown on the independent media by Milosevic's forces which demonstrates
how isolated and troubled and weak his regime is because it can't sustain
an environment where a free press is able to comment on developments
there.
With respect to Kosovo in general, a year ago the United States and its
NATO allies did conduct and begin the conduct of an air campaign. We didn't
do that by choice; we did that because Milosevic left us no choice. His
ethnic campaign of murder and mayhem began. He refused to pursue any peace
effort that we tried and, instead, went forward with the massive ethnic
cleansing campaign.
The result of the air campaign is that the objectives NATO set forth were
met. We said -- and I'm sure you all heard me time and time again -- say
that we would use air power until NATO forces went in, Serb forces left,
and the refugees could go home. And those three objectives have been
met.
Since that time, last summer and fall, the focus was on humanitarian
concerns, the million or so refugees having housing and food and schooling
and medicines. And we've met largely those goals and now the focus is on
trying to create security in the civil society there above and beyond the
security that NATO forces have created.
I was recently there. The situation is far, far better than it was last
summer. Murder rates are down. The situation is much calmer. The humanitarian
needs have been largely met, but if we're going to achieve the objective of
a Kosovo where there is democracy and coexistence and some level of self-
reliance, we have a long distance to go. We've been working on that. The
first free and fair elections are scheduled for this fall, the first free
and fair elections in the history of Kosovo.
So, clearly, there are important milestones ahead, but the long and the
short of it is the people of Serbia, the people of the world are much worse
off from the fateful miscalculation of Slobodan Milosevic a year ago, and
the people of Kosovo are obviously much better off than they were a year
ago when they faced the boot of Milosevic's oppression and now they have
liberation from that oppression.
QUESTION: Well, there's not complete liberation. He's still in power.
MR. RUBIN: I said liberation from Milosevic's ability to control events
and crack down on the people there. A year ago, Milosevic was beginning and
was intensifying an ethnic cleansing campaign that massively killed Kosovar
Albanians that led to a million people being expelled from their homes and
a number of other horrible atrocities. So that's what Milosevic was able
to do to them a year ago. They are now liberated from not only that
threat but from the ten years of apartheid-like oppression they suffered
under Milosevic from essentially the '90s.
QUESTION: How likely does the US believe it is that Milosevic would
direct any kind of military campaign against Montenegro?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we've made our views on Montenegro very clear. We regard
the security of that region, including Montenegro, as of interest to us. We
think that it would be a grave mistake for Milosevic to take actions that
would affect the ability of Montenegro to continue on its democratic
course. Actions he's taken in the past have only led to disaster for Serbia
and Croatia and Bosnia and in Kosovo.
QUESTION: Do you think that the people of Montenegro should feel the same
sense of security that the people of Kosovo did, that should Milosevic sort
of carry out any kind of attack against them that NATO would come to their
defense?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to speculate on such a question. What I can say
is that the security of the region, including Montenegro, is an important
interest of the United States.
QUESTION: Jamie, what would you say the analysis here is how Milosevic,
despite all the things you've recited, is able to stay in power? If he's so
hated by his people --
MR. RUBIN: His dictatorial regime of security services --
QUESTION: But dictatorial regimes eventually collapse. It takes a while
sometimes but --
MR. RUBIN: Right. Well, I think your question contains the answer within
it.
QUESTION: New subject?
MR. RUBIN: Please.
QUESTION: Russia. The elections are coming up on Sunday. I know that we
can't say that Putin has been elected, but considering it's like an
unstoppable train at the moment, could you please tell us what kind of
partner you think Putin is going to be for the United States and how
hopeful the Clinton Administration is of achieving its goals this year,
particularly compromise on NMD?
MR. RUBIN: Well, first let me say obviously this is an election that
hasn't happened yet. The polling, I confess, is quite one-dimensional, and
that is a reality.
As far as our experience with Putin so far has been, the Secretary laid
these views out quite clearly in a piece recently -- and let me reiterate
them for you -- is that in certain areas we've been encouraged and in
certain areas we've been profoundly discouraged. We've been encouraged that
he has identified the necessary steps that need to be taken for economic
reform to move forward. He hasn't yet implemented those steps but he has
identified them. He has clearly indicated an intention to work with the
West and understands, in his view, the importance of working with the
United States. That was demonstrated by the decision of Russia to
resume work between NATO and Russia through the NATO-Russia Joint
Council.
We've also been encouraged that he seems to want to have an open discussion
of the whole ABM/National Missile Defense issue with us and that he shared
our concern about the growing threats from other nations around the world.
He also indicated that so long as the fundamental principles of the ABM
Treaty could be protected that he wanted to work with us on this issue. The
ABM/NMD issue is extraordinarily complex and we are long way from
resolving it. Obviously, that's something we would want to intensify
work on after the election, whoever is elected president.
More broadly, the Secretary expressed profound concern and profound
criticism about actions in Chechnya that have involved the attacks on
Chechen civilians, that have involved restrictions on the ability of the
international community to find out what's going on there, to provide
relief and shelter for those in desperate need. And on the logic behind the
war which suggests that through this military campaign that the problem can
be solved when, in our view, it will take far, far more than that. It will
take a political solution to resolve it.
In addition, the Secretary obviously was profoundly disturbed by the
actions taken against Mr. Babitskiy and the general issue of press freedom
in Russia. There have been some blows to press freedom in Russia in recent
weeks and months, and those are matters of concern to us.
So those are the assessments that we've had to date. It is impossible to
predict what Mr. Putin will do if he were elected, what steps he will and
won't take, but we judge our relationship by steps he takes, not so much by
words he uses. And in some cases, that may lead to a profound concern and
criticism and, in some cases, that may lead to encouraging cooperation.
QUESTION: A quick follow-up. Does the United States actually want the
Russian Government to pay for the human rights abuses which have happened
in Chechnya since there seems to be a general consensus emerging, not
necessarily in the US Government but in general in supporters of Putin's
candidacy that the Chechen war has actually helped Russia or, rather, will
help Russia in the long run?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we don't see it that way. We think the Chechen war was a
grave miscalculation because it is something that will not end as a result
of the military campaign, that it only engendered increasing anger and
resentment on the part of the people there. We think on the human rights
abuses that an independent investigation is required. We have urged in the
strongest possible terms that Russia investigate the human rights
abuses that have been alleged, some of those allegations coming from
highly credible international groups that have interviewed refugees and
others. So we think these abuses must be investigated and those responsible
pay the consequences.
QUESTION: That was a pretty good scorecard, but I wonder if you can
embellish a little bit. I hate to ask you to do comparisons because
comparisons aren't always fair, but it sounds like a show-me or a wait-and-
see but you're not predisposed, as the first Clinton Administration was, to
a warm embrace of Boris Yeltsin. You approached Yeltsin, I think it's fair
to say, in a sense that he's going to be on the right track, we want to
help him, we like the prospects of democracy and capitalism growing in
Russia. But your rundown on Putin sounds like there's good and bad and
you're going to have to wait and see.
Aren't you going to start out with Putin as if he's a continuation of the
kind of reform with some blots that Yeltsin began, or is he a different
sort of a leader? He's been accused of being anti -- you notice he's -- I
mean, there have been analyses that he's somewhat less than a democrat,
with a small "d."
MR. RUBIN: Let me say that there was a particular word in your question
that I will take to give a very short plea. For those, especially opinion
writers, who seem to want to quote out of context the Secretary's statement
that he was a leading reformer without the other half of the sentence about
him being from the KGB and not knowing which is the outcome, I urge that
those writers stop this misleading and unfair plucking of three words out
of three paragraphs that does a grave disservice to journalism in
general when those kinds of pluckings take place out of context.
With respect to your question, let me say that it's clear that Acting
President Putin is indicating that he is going to put together a very
energetic leadership of Russia, that they will be working on 100-day plans
and they will be trying to jolt the system through an election of an actual
president as opposed to an acting president.
And to the extent that that jolt and those actions are consonant with the
kinds of policies and principles that we've described, that would be
encouraging -- and clearly we're going to see that kind of energy from Mr.
Putin if he's elected. So that in certain cases will be very encouraging;
in others, it could be problems, as it was in the case of Chechnya. So that
is our view. We're going to wait and see what Mr. Putin does and judge him
accordingly.
QUESTION: Can I move to another subject?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Can you tell us something about the talks Ambassador Holbrooke
and Assistant Secretary Roth had with the Chinese leadership in Beijing and
also, for that matter, former Congressman Hamilton's visit to Taipei to
meet with the president-elect there?
MR. RUBIN: Well, that other visit, he's a private individual. You'd have
to approach Mr. Hamilton to see about what he --
QUESTION: Where, though?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I'm sure you can track him down with your energetic
investigative steps.
With respect to the Holbrooke-Roth trip, let me simply say that they
concluded a good visit to Beijing. They met with a number of officials,
including the president, the vice premiere and the foreign minister. The
focus of the trip was on UN issues but, obviously, the full range of
bilateral issues came up.
The team indicated that the discussion of Taiwan took place in a constructive
atmosphere and China's wait-and-see approach on Taiwan was encouraging.
From our standpoint, obviously we've been urging restraint and prudence and
patience and urging both sides to develop an active dialogue that can
resolve the cross-Strait issue.
QUESTION: You say wait-and-see, Jamie. Did you get a response? Did
Ambassador Holbrooke get a response to the US's appeal for restraint? Wait-
and-see sounds like they'll see how Taiwan behaves and then they'll decide
what to do about it. I thought you wanted -- I think you want some
expression of restraint generally.
MR. RUBIN: Right. I am sure that the Chinese officials have not been shy
about expressing their views on this. From our perspective from these
meetings, let me say that Ambassador Holbrooke indicated it was encouraging
to him to see that China was reacting to the elections with prudence and
caution.
QUESTION: There was a report --
QUESTION: Can we stay on the subject for a couple more questions?
MR. RUBIN: Go ahead.
QUESTION: What is your assessment of the situation in the Taiwan Strait
after, you know, the dynamic changes as embodied in the election and
victory of Mr. Chen Shui-Bian, the opposition party candidate?
MR. RUBIN: Well, the election has taken place. We've expressed our views
on the election, congratulated the victor. On the military side, there are
no indications of unusual buildup of forces in or around the region. On the
political side, we're urging all concerned to make statements and actions
that will make it possible for dialogue to resolve the issue to develop. In
general, we have taken the view that improving cross-Strait economic ties
serves the interest of both Taiwan and the PRC and is conducive to
peace and security in the region.
QUESTION: On Mr. Hamilton's mission --
MR. RUBIN: As I indicated, you'd have to -- I'd refer you to Mr.
Hamilton.
QUESTION: I understand, but part of the situation would be whether you
expect or have gotten a report from Mr. Hamilton. I can't believe that the
Administration wouldn't be interested in the discussion because it's part
of the picture, however formal you are about not acknowledging Taiwan's
status.
MR. RUBIN: All I can say is that he is traveling March 22 to 24 -- today
is March 22 -- that he's traveling in a private capacity, that we welcome
his willingness to travel to Taiwan. Senior officials have spoken with Mr.
Hamilton since the election. In addition to being familiar with our
thinking, he is well acquainted with the views of senior members of
Congress. And the visit just began.
QUESTION: I don't know if you've seen this report yet, I think it just
came out, but the North Korean News Agency says the United States military
during the Korean War was responsible for killing about a million North
Korean civilians and is demanding compensation.
MR. RUBIN: I haven't seen that report, and I will pass the question
on.
QUESTION: Did that come up during the talks in New York?
MR. RUBIN: I have no idea.
QUESTION: The weekly question about Iran: Have you heard anything in
response to the US overture?
MR. RUBIN: Heard anything?
QUESTION: Well, I don't want to say "been a response."
MR. RUBIN: You want to stay on Korea?
QUESTION: I'm sorry.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - the Foreign Ministry, in case you're wondering
what I'm going to bring up, their spokesman --
MR. RUBIN: You do better pronouncing my name.
QUESTION: Anyway, their spokesman has said the following: "The contradictory
remarks of American officials over the recent days, at times was inappropriate
(inaudible) reveal their little knowledge about the geography of the region
and indicate insincerity."
Do you have any reaction?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. Let me say that we've seen a variety of reactions to the
Secretary's speech in a variety of fora, both the Foreign Ministry, the UN
Ambassador, certain other political figures. A number of people have
reacted in a variety of ways. And as you may recall from this podium,
Secretary Albright said that we expected that this would take time for the
political system in Iran to digest, that we weren't expecting any response
of any significance quickly, that we were trying to make -- I won't
elaborate on what the Secretary's speech was intended to do. She did
that herself. So we're not surprised that there is a variety of opinions
expressed.
With regard to one point, I think that most people I know refer to that
body of water as the Persian Gulf, so I think people are probably not
appreciating our language if they think there was any meaning to excluding
the word "Persian." I think everybody I know calls it the Persian
Gulf.
QUESTION: There are some people who probably appreciate the way you
referred to the body of water, which is probably why you referred to it
that way.
MR. RUBIN: I don't know. Everyone I know calls it the Persian Gulf.
QUESTION: Pope John Paul II seems --
QUESTION: Can I ask another on Iran, do you mind? When the Administration
talks about Iran, it regularly makes the point about the continuation of
Iranian terrorism and links that to the Middle East peace process. But I'm
curious to know whether the Administration believes that Iran is still
responsible for terrorism outside of the context of the Middle East peace
process? I mean, there have been charges in the past about the Iranians
involved in Europe, Pakistan, South America, Turkey.
Does the Administration believe that that continues, or are we strictly
talking about support for Hezballah and Hamas?
MR. RUBIN: I would prefer to get an expert to give you a precise answer
to that question.
QUESTION: On another terrorism subject, I believe the Sudan is still in
the terrorism-supporting countries, and I heard that the Turkish Government
decided to strengthen its relations with Sudan's Government. As a good ally
of Turkey, the United States, do you have any reaction on this subject?
MR. RUBIN: With respect to that question, let me say that I do have an
answer to it. I'm just struggling to find it. In general, the United States
would hope that any country considering relations with Sudan would take
into account Sudan's abysmal human rights record, its ongoing prosecution
of the war in the south which is ravaging the country, and Sudan's support
for international terrorism.
QUESTION: Another subject. This week, early this week, several European
governments or ambassadors in Ankara and also the low-level US diplomat
from the US Embassy, they attended Iraqi Kurdish group reception in Ankara.
And the Turkish Government, they didn't attend any officials.
MR. RUBIN: Not Americans?
QUESTION: One American, low level.
MR. RUBIN: Okay. Well, I'll have to check with the Embassy. I mean, this
is way below my radar screen, but I will check.
QUESTION: The Pope in his visit to the Holy Land appears to be interested
in speaking words of reconciliation and bringing about unity. What is the
State Department's take on this man's pilgrimage?
MR. RUBIN: Well, obviously, it's a very important visit for His Holiness
to go to the Middle East to visit these sites, and his message of
reconciliation is one that we fully endorse. And the more that the peoples
of the region can focus on reconciliation rather than revisiting past
grievances, the greater the chances that the enormous opportunities for
peace this year can be realized.
QUESTION: So you think that the Pope's visit, in fact, can engender that
peace process?
MR. RUBIN: We certainly hope so, yes.
QUESTION: Any comment on the settlement today of the $508 million lawsuit
in a sex discrimination case against USIA?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. As you know, our able Deputy, Jim Foley, has been able to
address that question in the past and I will get him to give you a answer;
if necessary, even go on camera for you.
QUESTION: That would be very nice. Thank you, Mr. Foley.
MR. RUBIN: Good.
QUESTION: Is there anything that you want to add on your statements
yesterday about the trip to Libya?
MR. RUBIN: Well, let me say this. The visit to Libya of several consular
officials will occur -- they're leaving today. This is a visit to assess
conditions pursuant to the Secretary's authority under law to assess
conditions for Americans traveling abroad. The Secretary has authorized
these four officials to travel to Libya for a single purpose, and that is
to assess safety conditions for Americans.
It's very important for people to recognize that the Secretary of State's
authority to restrict the validity of passports only occurs in three cases:
when there are armed hostilities, when there is imminent danger to the
public, or safety of travelers. And the law specifically says that the
passport restrictions are not intended to be used as foreign policy tools
or sanctions.
So if the assessment leads to a change in the travel restriction, that is
not an easing of sanctions, by definition, and so those who may see it that
way should be urged to take another look at the law and how it's applied.
This is a visit that follows up on a recommendation and an assessment about
changed conditions on the ground in terms of Libyan Government behavior, in
terms of the number of Europeans who have been traveling, and the Secretary
thought it would be appropriate to have this one visit. This is not about
Libyan policy in general. The United States does not believe that Libya has
satisfied all the requirements necessary to be removed from the terrorism
list. Although there have been some positive steps, there remain substantial
and significant steps remaining for Libya to take, including disassociation
with certain groups.
So any suggestion that this action reflects a larger policy question on
Libya is simply incorrect. So, in short, the visit is intended to help the
Secretary make an informed decision about what the situation is on the
ground with respect to American travelers.
QUESTION: There are family members of Pan Am 103 who believe that the
timing of this visit is somewhat inopportune with the trial only six weeks
away.
MR. RUBIN: Well, with respect to the timing and the trial, let me say
that any time we're dealing with a situation like this with family members
it is a difficult circumstance. They obviously lost loved ones and family
members, and anything related to Libya is obviously a question of
concern.
We worked very, very hard to get this trial. The Secretary of State
personally intervened on numerous occasions to get this trial that the
families richly deserve, and the trial is going to be under Scottish
justice. So we have worked very hard on their behalf and we will continue
to work hard on their behalf, but with respect to this question they are
just going to have to believe us that it's unrelated. The timing is more
related to the assessment provided to the Secretary last fall that
indicated that there were changed conditions on the ground, but she still
believed that it was appropriate to extend the passport restriction
and continue to make assessments, and this assessment follows up from
information provided to her last fall.
We don't know how long the trial will last and it is her statutory
responsibility, as I've described it, to make assessments as appropriate
about the travel of American citizens. Although we do recognize how painful
any question related to Libya is for members of the families who lost
people in the terrible act of terrorism.
QUESTION: Jamie, I'd like to go back to where we started and clear up one
thing that I'm uncertain about, at least. In the upcoming meeting on Sunday
between President Clinton and President Assad, is it the expectation of the
US that an agreement to restart talks could come out of that meeting, or is
that not the expectation and would it take more time even if things go
well?
MR. RUBIN: I do not want to predict what will come out of that meeting.
We have no expectations. It's impossible to predict and speculate on what
will occur in that meeting. We think that the correct next step is to have
a meeting at this level that a face-to-face meeting can involve potential
progress that cannot be made any other way, but I'm not going to predict or
speculate or describe expectations that people can't have since we
don't know what will happen.
QUESTION: Can I just ask, to go back to Libya, the assessment that the
Secretary is responding to, did that come from within the Department?
MR. RUBIN: Conditions are regularly reported to her about these questions,
and last November they were reported that there were significant changes --
the ones that we have talked about in terms of Libya's open support for
certain terrorist groups that have now been expelled, the conditions of
increased European travel.
Despite those assessments, she decided to extend the travel restriction but
asked to be kept regularly informed about conditions. And so as that date --
since November she's been getting regular reports about the assessment of
conditions, and it is therefore appropriate now to have this visit of
consular officials.
So rather than seeing it as six weeks before the trial, if that is indeed
what it becomes, it's more like several months after she extended the
restriction despite the fact that some objective conditions had changed.
QUESTION: On a tangential issue, is there --
MR. RUBIN: We love tangents here. You can go anywhere, anywhere on that
board.
QUESTION: Is there any apprehension on the part of the State Department
that pressure to increase oil production might reduce the ostracization of
so-called rogue states -- Iran, Iraq, Libya?
MR. RUBIN: Our determination to pursue our national interests in the area
of countries that support terrorism or pursuing weapons of mass destruction
will not be affected by those other questions because, in the meantime, we
are working diplomatically and we hope to have progress in increasing
production that way. So I don't see the two as connected in any way, shape
or form.
QUESTION: One serious question. If that note from Jim said he's not going
to let you push off the answer on him, could you please give me a response
on the lawsuit?
MR. RUBIN: No, that note indicated that Jim would be happy and thrilled
to answer that question for you after the briefing.
QUESTION: Do you want to do it now?
MR. RUBIN: No, no, after the briefing.
QUESTION: Okay. On camera, though?
MR. RUBIN: If you need that, he will do that.
QUESTION: I do need that.
MR. RUBIN: If you build it, he will answer it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:15 P.M.)
|
