U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #37, 00-04-25
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
705
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Tuesday, April 25, 2000
Briefer: James P. Rubin
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1-2 Secretary Albright Pleased at Decisive UNHRC Vote on Chechnya
2-5 Department Agrees to Expedite Visas for Elian Gonzalez's Playmates
RUSSIA
1,2 Russia Human Rights Policy in Chechnya
11 President Putin's Department Meetings
9,10 President Putin's Motivation for Pushing CTBT and START II through DUMA
CUBA
5-6 Cuban Response to Altercation Outside Cuban Interest Section
LIBYA
6-7,10 Delay of Lockerbie Trial/US Position
10,11 US View of US-Libya Relations
NORTH KOREA
8 North Korea's Support for Terrorism / Removal from US Terrorism List
8 High-Level Visit
ARMS CONTROL
8,9 NPT Conference / Editorial by Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov
8,9 CTBT / US Strategic Arms Control
SUDAN
10,11 US Consular Services
CHINA
11,12 US Calls on Chinese Government to Cease Falun Gong Crackdown
12 Consequences for Normal Trade Relations
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #37
TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2000,12:40 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Welcome to the penultimate briefing of the current
State Department Spokesman. Try to control yourselves.
I have two announcements. The first is that I've just received word that
the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva has voted on the resolution on
Chechnya. Secretary Albright is very pleased as the decisive nature of the
vote: 25 in favor, 7 against, and 19 abstentions. This decisive vote
demonstrates that the international community wants to ensure that there is
an independent investigation of the human rights abuses that have been
reported in Chechnya, that the Russians allow independent organizations
like the OSCE and the Red Cross and the UN to operate within Chechnya to
deal with this terrible crisis, and that the international community
sees the value of having that independent investigation meet the standard
of an international standard for fairness and accountability.
So Secretary Albright is pleased at the decisive vote. She regrets the fact
that the Russians were not willing to work with the rest of the members of
the Commission to allow for a Chairman's Consensus document to achieve our
objectives, because our objective is to get the Russians to act, not just
to make a point. And the action that we're looking for is, as I said, this
independent investigation with international involvement and meeting
international standards.
However, even though Russia chose not to work with the rest of the members
of the Commission - and, by the way, there were 15 co-sponsors of this
particular resolution - the Secretary and the Administration believe and
call on Russia to implement the steps called for in this resolution,
including the independent commission and working with the outside
organizations.
QUESTION: A couple of quick ones on that.
MR. RUBIN: Sure.
QUESTION: Of course, Ivanov is here and will see the President in about a
couple hours.
MR. RUBIN: Right.
QUESTION: She made this pitch in Moscow several weeks ago. Will there be
an effort here, and what chance do you have of persuading the Russians to
change policy?
And, secondly, how are people - the war is largely over. How are civilians
being treated now? And if they're not being mistreated, isn't this a matter
of the Russia's domestic concerns and not an international matter?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we do not believe the war is over. I think you saw
reports that we believe are credible of a paratroop division ambushed on
Sunday near Grozny which involved the killing of dozens - the injuring and
killing of dozens of Russian soldiers. So the war isn't over. And as we
said for some time, we did not think that the war would end just because
the Russians had taken Grozny, so there are reports of continued fighting
and this only reinforces our view that there can't be a military solution
to this conflict.
So, in short, these kinds of problems that we are talking about are not
going away. The intensity, perhaps, has been reduced by the fact that
Grozny has been taken, et cetera; nevertheless, the investigation of human
rights abuses, we believe, should be a domestic investigation - and I've
been trying to use my words very carefully on this - with an international
component to it and with an international standard met for fairness and
accountability in that investigation.
I do expect this to come up. We think that this vote, like a number of
other actions in Europe and elsewhere, indicate that the Russians are
severely isolated on this issue. And this is an issue of fundamental
disagreement between the United States and Russia, and is one that is
expected to part of the Secretary's discussions.
There have been some positive steps in terms of access by international
organizations and setting up their own ombudsman and their own operation,
but we want to take it to the next level, which will involve international
standards.
Next subject, Elian Gonzalez case. What I can tell you is that the father,
Juan Miguel Gonzalez, has requested through his attorneys that we expedite
the review of visas for a small number of Elian's playmates, each of which
would be accompanied by an adult family member, so that they may visit with
Elian for a relatively brief period of time.
We have agreed to expedite consideration of these visas. The applications
have not yet been submitted to our Interests Section in Havana but, once
they are submitted - and we expect them to be submitted - we would expedite
them very, very quickly.
So again, this is four playmates of Elian Gonzalez with one adult family
member accompanying them for a brief visit to - a relatively brief visit to
the United States to be with Elian Gonzalez and his father. And this
request was made by Elian Gonzalez's father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez, through
his attorney.
QUESTION: Is this four, f-o-u-r, playmates or for, f-o-r, playmates?
MR. RUBIN: Let me clarify what I can't believe I didn't clarify already.
This is four.
QUESTION: Accompanied by one adult --
MR. RUBIN: Accompanied by one adult of each child.
QUESTION: So that's eight.
MR. RUBIN: So four playmates with four adults. Yes.
QUESTION: Some schoolmates had already requested visas, though. Are these
new visas from the kids or does the adult member of the family still have
to submit visas, which weren't done previously?
MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't assume that they are going to be the same people.
Once we get the request, that question is answerable, but right now we
haven't received a request as to the names of the four. But we have agreed
to four, with four adults supervising - you know, family members of each
one of those children. And those playmates' names have not yet been
submitted to us so I don't know whether they will be the same as the
original list of 29 visas which had young children on it.
QUESTION: You said they would be coming for a short time, relatively.
Relative to what?
MR. RUBIN: Well, relatively to how long this case has been going on, for
example.
QUESTION: It could be a month or --
MR. RUBIN: A couple of weeks, no more than a couple of weeks is what we
are envisaging.
QUESTION: Would they come all at once or in sequence?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we haven't received the requests yet. When we get the
requests, we will expedite the visas. Then it will be up to Juan Miguel
Gonzalez and his attorney to make the arrangements for them to come here.
And that's not what our role is here.
QUESTION: Jamie, is there a chance - is there embedded in this request
also that other people be allowed to come, like a teacher -
MR. RUBIN: As you may know, we approved three additional visas which were
not used, for a kindergarten - the former kindergarten teacher of Elian
Gonzalez, a pediatrician and one of his cousins. Those three visas have not
been used. So those three are still available to be used and these
additional eight will be expedited once they are submitted.
And I am not aware of any additional visas that are being expedited. The
additional visas from the original package are still under review.
QUESTION: Why did the State Department believe that this was a reasonable
request?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we have taken the view that these are - look, I don't
know whether - all the facts here. But let me give you my best guess. My
best guess is that there is an understanding that he is going to be here
for quite some time during the legal process and that it was reasonable for
him to have people to play with, as a young six-year-old, I am increasingly
learning, needs to have someone to play with.
QUESTION: When you say - is the presumption then with the expedited --
MR. RUBIN: Presumption?
QUESTION: Presumption of approval?
MR. RUBIN: Correct. Yes.
QUESTION: I have a couple things. One is, can you define "expedite"? How
long will that take?
MR. RUBIN: Well, the last question was basically on that and I guess the
last time I said "expedite," I think it was within 24 hours.
QUESTION: Can I also?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, please.
QUESTION: Has the Administration made provisions so these playmates can
stay at Wye? Do we know where they will be staying?
MR. RUBIN: This is not the Administration's responsibility. The presence
of Elian Gonzalez at Andrews Air Force Base was worked out with the Justice
Department so I don't have any particular information on that. As I
understand it, it is the responsibility of the father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez,
working with his attorney, to deal with the visit of these individuals. So
the arrangements they have made to move from the Andrews Air Force Base to
the Wye Plantation presumably would allow for these visitors to spend
a short period of time with him.
QUESTION: Would the visas be specific to what city?
MR. RUBIN: No, they're never that specific like that, if they're not
diplomats.
QUESTION: On that same theme, if they're not specific to that, you say
you expect it to be for a couple of weeks. Will their visas have a certain
length that is different from a normal tourist visa?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to publicly describe a visa that hasn't yet been
issued. I'm telling you we're going to expedite the visa. I'm telling you
that is our expectation that they're going to be here for about two weeks.
I don't think that there will be a need for us to act with - you know,
preventing it from being 14 days plus one through some action like the one
you're suggesting. But I'm giving you a rough time frame that is about
two weeks. So in order to do what you're suggesting, we would have to pick
an exact time frame, and I'm not aware that that's our intent.
QUESTION: I wasn't trying to suggest anything except to clarify whether
this visa - these visas which would be - which you're willing to grant
would be for the normal time a visa is issued for.
MR. RUBIN: Right. I'm just not aware we're intending to put time limits
on it, but the point is that we, based on our conversation with the lawyer
and Juan Miguel Gonzalez through his lawyer, who has done what he said he
was going to do in the past, that they are talking about a couple of
weeks.
QUESTION: Can we go back to the presumption of approval for a second?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: I don't want to overstate the obvious here, but this means that
you are going to treat these visa applications the same way that you were
treating the applications for the immediate family before?
MR. RUBIN: Well, look, everything is a little different in life but,
generally speaking, I think the answer to that question is yes. We said at
the time we would expedite visas. They submitted a package of 29; 6 of them
we expedited. The other 29 are under review - the remainder of the 29 are
under review, so that would be 6 - 29 minus 6 is 23. I believe it was 29.
At least that's what I was told. So 29 minus 6 being 3, my expectation is
that I've lost my train of thought - other than to say that we're
going to move very expeditiously in expediting these visas.
QUESTION: Jamie, is it your understanding based on the conversations with
Mr. Craig that all four kids are going to come at the same time, or will
they come --
MR. RUBIN: I don't have an answer for that. Any other subjects?
QUESTION: Actually, I'm just curious if you've had any response yet from
the Cuban Government to the letter.
MR. RUBIN: Well, we did meet with the Cuban Interests Section today to
discuss a number of issues, including the investigation into the April 14th
altercation outside the Cuban Interests Section and Senator Graham's
request for information on Elian's treatment once he - once in Cuba were
discussed. I have nothing new to report on those issues.
QUESTION: You don't have any response to the editorial written by the two
people who were involved in the altercation, including this lawyer from
Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering?
MR. RUBIN: I think our response is the same as it was before they wrote
this editorial, which is that we want this issue to be investigated and
we've demanded an explanation from the Cubans for what transpired on April
14th in front of the Interest Section.
QUESTION: Are you prepared to say whether the Cubans offered an
explanation?
MR. RUBIN: I think that the information I have in front of me suggests
that nothing has changed in that regard, meaning that they have not
provided a satisfactory explanation.
QUESTION: Who requested the meeting, Jamie?
MR. RUBIN: I don't know. They meet a lot. And there are regular meetings
between us and the Cuban Interests Section and who calls the meeting, I'm
not always aware of.
QUESTION: Can you say who it was and who they met with here?
MR. RUBIN: No. Yes.
QUESTION: No? Yes?
MR. RUBIN: No, I can't specify all the individuals involved in the
meeting, because I just don't know their names.
QUESTION: Do you know if in the meeting there was any kind of time frame
discussed where if we don't get an answer by next week or something like
that? Was any time frame discussed in the meeting?
MR. RUBIN: When I have anything new to report on what our intentions are
with regard to this incident, I will be happy to report them.
QUESTION: New subject?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to the request by the prosecution in
the - to delay the start of the Lockerbie case?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. On the Lockerbie case, it is our understanding that the
prosecution has requested a delay in order to investigate additional
witnesses and evidence identified by defense counsel as witnesses, as well
as evidence they intend to rely on in presenting the defense.
The trial is being conducted by a Scottish court according to Scottish law
and, therefore, I am in no position to comment on how this request will be
handled by the court. The United States is fully confident the interests of
justice will be served in this case.
QUESTION: That's not exactly what I asked. Are you supportive of --
MR. RUBIN: Is that new? (Laughter.) You didn't answer my precise
question. Boy, I'm shocked.
QUESTION: Are you supportive of the prosecution in this?
MR. RUBIN: I think what you need to understand is that it would be
inappropriate for the United States Government during the course of a trial
to comment on every twist and turn in the case. This is not an appropriate
thing for us to do. We are not going to get into the habit of commenting on
the developments in a trial like this, but we do have confidence that the
interests of justice will be served in this case.
QUESTION: But (a) the trial hasn't begun yet.
MR. RUBIN: Right.
QUESTION: Which is directly opposite to what you just said (b) --
MR. RUBIN: I don't think it's directly - look -
QUESTION: Well, you said, we're not going to comment during the trial.
Well, there is no trial yet.
MR. RUBIN: We're not going to make it a practice to comment on every
legal twist and turn in the days leading up to the trial, during the trial,
until the trial has taken its course. That is standard operating practice
when a court proceeding is under way, for a government not to interfere in
that court proceeding.
And so all I am suggesting to you is that we remain confident. Nothing has
occurred that shakes our confidence that the interests of justice will be
served in this case. But we are not going to make it a practice of
commenting on developments that will lead-up to and during the trial itself
as it actually takes place and unfolds.
QUESTION: A different subject?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: North Korea. Today North Korea says that it will continue to
protect the Japanese Red Army fugitives. And this follows statements that
the US shouldn't interfere in things like this and that they may hold up
the high-level meeting as long as they are considered a terrorist state,
which kind of leads around in a circle.
MR. RUBIN: Right. Well, there is nothing new about this in the sense that
North Korea has been on our terrorist list. In bilateral talks with North
Korea led by Ambassador Mike Sheehan, he indicated what North Korea must do
to be removed from this list. Without getting into the details, it is
nevertheless a fact that North Korea continues to harbor Japanese Red Army
hijackers involved in the 1970 hijacking of a Japanese airliner. In
the past, the United States and other countries have expressed their
concern to North Korea about this issue and the need to take appropriate
steps to resolve it.
Resolving this issue would be an important step in addressing our concerns
about North Korean support for terrorism. We have described in the past to
North Korea what they need to do. We have described to them recently what
they need to do. We still believe that the basis for a high-level visit
that was being discussed exists. Obviously, right now, a lot of attention
is focused on the summit between the leader of North Korea and the South
Korean leader. We continue to work on our elements through diplomatic
channels and we are coordinating closely with South Koreans as they prepare
for this important summit.
QUESTION: But somebody is going to have to budge then. If they are saying
you have to remove the designation before they will hold a high-level
meeting and you saying that -
MR. RUBIN: Right. But that's not anything new for them to say. And in the
course of them saying that, we've still had a lot of discussions about the
high-level visit.
QUESTION: On the NPT conference that's going on right now?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Yesterday, the Russian foreign minister wrote an editorial
essentially saying, in so many words, that the ball was in the American
court on arms control. There are some who believe that President Putin is
trying to put the Americans on the defensive and make himself out and
Russia out to be the good guys in this. What would your response be?
MR. RUBIN: Well, first of all, my response would be that we can take
"yes" for an answer. We know how to respond to good news. We've asked the
Russians to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban. We've asked the Russians to
ratify START II. When they do so, that's good news and we can take "yes"
for an answer.
With respect to the ball in our court, certainly with respect to the CTB,
the ball is clearly in our court. The Senate refused to advise and consent
to ratification at the end of last year. We think that was a dangerous
mistake on the part of the Senate. As a result of that, the President and
the Secretary have asked former Joint Chiefs Chairman General Shalikashvili
to work with us to develop a plan for getting Senate approval of the
treaty by working closely and carefully and away from the limelight
with key senators who have legitimate concerns, so that the ball can
be removed from our court some day and have the treaty ratified, which we
think is greatly in our interest.
We've seen in the last 24 hours why ratification is so important, because I
think all senators would agree with us that preventing other countries from
developing nuclear weapons is in the United States' national interest. And
for those of you who were in New York or those who hear about it, you can
see how our failure to ratify makes our job harder in convincing other
countries not to go down the nuclear road. It is not a panacea, it is not
going to solve the problem, but it makes it harder with us not having
ratified the treaty.
So we agree that we would be better off if the Senate had advised and
consented to the treaty. In the meantime, we have nothing to be ashamed of.
The United States has led the way in arms control in the last seven years.
We've destroyed and dismantled 13,000 nuclear weapons. We've reduced our
forces from the highs of the Cold War by roughly 60 to 80 percent. We have
led the way in getting the Comprehensive Test Ban signed. We ratified the
START II treaty and gave consent to ratification four years ago. The
Russians have just caught up to this.
So while we certainly agree that it would be preferable for the CTBT to be
ratified, we don't accept the idea that somehow the United States is a
laggard. We've been leading the way in arms control for decades, and we
continue to do so.
QUESTION: Why does the Administration think that Putin so quickly got
both of these pieces of legislation through the Duma. What does the US
think his motivation is?
MR. RUBIN: There is a new Duma. This is the first set of actions of a new
Duma. The last Duma clearly tied START II and CTBT to a number if
irrelevant and unrelated issues, whether it was the bombing of Kosovo or
Iraq or NATO enlargement. The last Duma tended to use START II as a
political football to express their opposition to some American policy,
which the Russians eventually realized was not in their interest, because
ratifying the treaty was better for them than not ratifying the treaty. So
the new Duma is obviously a Duma that cares more about Russia's self-
interest than making political points.
QUESTION: What do you think is the motivation? What do you think the
president's motivation -
MR. RUBIN: I don't know what President Putin's motivation is. But,
certainly, we're pleased, whatever his motivation is, that they have
responded to our calls for ratification. And when you call on another
country to ratify a treaty and they do so, we don't feel on the defensive;
we feel pleased.
QUESTION: Does it surprise you at all or strike you as unusual at all
that one of the reasons that Putin has the support in the Duma is because
of his support for a policy which you vigorously object to? That would be
Chechnya.
MR. RUBIN: I'm sure that there would be some people who would want to
write, you know, elaborate analyses of this complicated interaction between
Chechnya and arms control and the United States. And maybe when I leave
government, I'll be interested in writing such an analysis. But, for now,
suffice it to say that this Duma is more pragmatic on arms control, and
that's something to be welcomed.
To the extent that President Putin pursues policies that we reject and
oppose and condemn, as he has occasionally and has with respect to Chechnya,
we will continue to make clear our views. The connection between that, I
think, is the kind of thing that would require speculative comment which,
even on my second-to-last day, I don't care to do.
QUESTION: Jamie, can we go back to Lockerbie for just a moment? Can you
comment on how you view the - or how the State Department views the current
state of relations between the United States and Libya?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. We've made clear that Libya has to meet the requirements
of the Security Council resolution. There are several of those requirements,
which I would be happy to provide for you. But the gist of it is that they
must cooperate with the trial, they must stop supporting terrorism, they
must provide compensation for the victims of this terrible tragedy.
QUESTION: Sticking on the whole terrorism list thing, can you confirm
that the Embassy in Sudan is now providing consular service and, if it is -
MR. RUBIN: You missed the day we did this.
QUESTION: Oh, all right. Okay. Well, then, my second question was --
MR. RUBIN: But I would be happy to do it again.
QUESTION: Well, I assume the answer is, yes.
MR. RUBIN: But those of you who were here wouldn't want me to do it again,
because it takes a really long time.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, then, I assume that the answer is, yes, though?
MR. RUBIN: No, the answer is, no. But I will be happy to explain it.
Okay.
QUESTION: Look, don't go through the whole thing. I'm aware of the
rotation and all that stuff. But if the -
MR. RUBIN: No, no -
QUESTION: But if the - are people -
MR. RUBIN: But you know. You don't want to know. (Laughter.)
Ask the question. What's the question?
QUESTION: Well, it requires a - can you get a visa if you go to the
embassy in Khartoum?
MR. RUBIN: No.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. RUBIN: Interviews are conducted by some of these rotating officers
who visit from Cairo. They interview.
QUESTION: Fine, fine, fine.
MR. RUBIN: But to get the visa, they have to go to Cairo. Okay?
QUESTION: Jamie, just a logistical question?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: The Ivanov schedule as provided by the Embassy has him here
tomorrow morning for about three hours before having lunch with the
Secretary. It talks about him seeing negotiators.
What is -
MR. RUBIN: Let me get you the details of those meetings in the morning
after the briefing. I'll be happy to do that.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about the latest arrests in China
of Falun Gong?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. With respect to the Chinese arrests, let me say that we
continue to see the arrest and detention of persons peacefully expressing
spiritual beliefs as a matter that profoundly disturbs us. Such detentions
are in direct contravention of internationally recognized standards of
human rights that are enshrined in international human rights instruments,
to which China has acceded. The right to freedom of expression and freedom
of speech and association and conscience are fundamental human rights.
China has accepted that, and that's all these people want to be able to
do.
We call on the Chinese Government to cease its crackdown on the Falun Gong,
release all those in custody for the peaceful expression of their beliefs,
and guarantee the rights of citizens to freedom of speech, conscience and
association and peaceful assembly that China itself undertook by signing
international human rights instruments.
QUESTION: Do you suppose they know that this hurts their chances of
getting what some people call trade advantages - other people call normal
trade preferences?
MR. RUBIN: I suppose that China has the ability to understand the
consequences of its actions, and I don't know precisely what their calculus
was. But -whatever their calculus was, we oppose it.
QUESTION: Whenever there's -- (inaudible) - calculus, we oppose
it?
MR. RUBIN: On this issue.
QUESTION: You prefer trigonometry.
MR. RUBIN: We prefer trigonometry, right.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:15 P.M.)
|
