U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #116, 97-08-14
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
422
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Thursday, August 14, 1997
Briefer: James P. Rubin
ANNOUNCEMENTS/STATEMENTS
1 Reception IHO 50th Anniversary for India Independence
1-2 Temporary Suspension of Operations at Afghanistan Embassy in
Washington
AFGHANISTAN
2 Status of Afghan Embassies in Other Countries;Diplomatic
Immunity; Precedent for Suspension
2-3 Practical Effect on Afghan Diplomats;Status of Afghan
Consulate in New York
3-4 Maintaining Contacts w/ Factions; Staffing at the Embassy; Use
of Embassy Building
4 U.S. Staffing in Kabul
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
4,7,8-9 Dennis Ross Briefs Secretary Albright on Meetings, Security
Mechanism Established
4-6,9-10,17 Secretary Travel Timing Depends on Progress Over Coming Weeks;
Criteria, Purpose & Goals for Travel; Potential Stops
5 Middle East North Africa Economic Conference
6-7 Ross Discussion with Palestinian Authority re Security Policy,
Anti-Terrorism Actions
7-8,10-11 Israeli Withholding of Funds from Palestinians; Easing of
Travel Restrictions
9 Potential Ross Travel Pending Secretary's Decision on Timing
16-17 Israeli Concerns About Syrian War Preparations
QATAR
6 Under Secretary Pickering's Meeting with Foreign Minister
NORTH KOREA
11-12 US Congressional Delegation Concern re DPRK Military Diverting
Humanitarian Aid
11-12 USG Confident No Significant Diversions of US Aid Occur; WFP
Monitoring
12 Timing of Next USG Food Aid Shipment to DPRK
CAMBODIA
12-13 US Revocation of Bunma Visa for Drug Trafficking Involvement
13 US GSP Trade Designation
AMERICAN HEMISPHERE
14 Central American Law Enforcement and Drugs Ministerial
Conference
MEXICO
14 US Coast Guard Interception of Illegal Asian Migrants
COLOMBIA
14-16 Constitutional Court Ruling on Forfeiture of Drug Trafficker
Assets
BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA
15 US Efforts to Capture Indicted War Criminal Radovan Karadzic
UNITED KINGDOM / NORTHERN IRELAND
16 Gerry Adams Request for US Visa Approved by Secretary Albright
16 Period of Validity, No Restrictions on Fund Raising
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #116
THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1997 12:45 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Please forgive the delay. We will try to make
sure that never happens again.
QUESTION: Famous last words.
MR. RUBIN: I do have a couple things I want to start with today. First,
I'd like to tell you a little bit about the Secretary's schedule over the
last day. Last night Secretary Albright hosted a dinner on the eighth
floor - a working dinner on climate change. She had several outside
scientists, whose names I will be able to get you a little later. But in
addition to that, we had representation from many of the key agencies -
Secretary of Commerce Bill Daley was there; Secretary of the Interior Bruce
Babbit; Under Secretary Tim Wirth; Under Secretary Stu Eizenstat; and Dan
Tarullo, the assistant to the President on these matters was there, as
well.
So the attempt was to begin to come to grips a little bit with the science
and the policy we're trying to pursue in light of the upcoming Kyoto
conference and the upcoming White House conference on this subject.
This morning the Secretary opened the Central American Law Enforcement and
Drugs Ministerial with Attorney General Reno and General McCaffrey. She
had a long meeting this morning with Ambassador Dennis Ross, reporting on
his trip to the Middle East. She will drop by tonight a reception for the
50th anniversary of the independence of Pakistan. I expect she will make a
similar appearance tomorrow night at the 50th anniversary of the
independence of India.
I don't know what the press arrangements are by those embassies, and you'll
have to speak to them.
I have one announcement I'd like to read today and then go to your
questions.
The Department of State has decided to suspend temporarily operations at
the Afghanistan Embassy in Washington, effective August 21st. The
Department has been forced to take this action because of continuing
contention among Afghan factions within the embassy over who represents
Afghanistan and our belief that there is no effective government in the
country. The suspension does not signify a break in relations, nor any
diminution of U.S. Government interest in promoting a peace process in
Afghanistan that will lead to a broadly representative government to
protect the rights of all Afghans and see that Afghanistan abides by its
international obligations.
We will continue to have contact with the factions here and at our
diplomatic posts and through frequent travel to Afghanistan. This decision
reflects the Secretary's view that we must be strictly neutral towards the
Afghan factions, and it should not be seen as favoring or penalizing any
particular faction. We hope that this action will encourage the factions
to end the fighting and form a broadly- based, representative government.
The long and the short of it is that the last diplomat standing wanted to
take the position that he was in charge of the embassy. We concluded that
that would send the wrong signal about our neutrality as regards to
factions. So the Secretary has decided to suspend temporarily operations
at the Afghanistan Embassy.
Questions?
QUESTION: Diplomatic immunity for those guys?
MR. RUBIN: Well, the way I understand it's going to work is, they will be
able to stay here - Afghan faction representatives -- and their visas will
be changed accordingly, but they will not have diplomatic immunity.
QUESTION: Are other governments doing this?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of any other decision of this kind. It may be
that other governments were not in the same situation where you had a - we
had not, as you know, allowed any new accreditation.
So you had a
situation where one man was left standing in the Afghan Embassy. We
thought it would be a mistake to signal that that faction was someone we
preferred or not. So we wanted to ensure neutrality. That was the Taliban
representative..
QUESTION: Has the United States ever taken this kind of action before in
a similar situation where there's contention among factions?
MR. RUBIN: I will have to check that. I don't know the answer. I will
get you an answer to that.
QUESTION: How many people is this affecting, Jamie?
MR. RUBIN: Well, the last accredited diplomat is one. But it does affect
any possibility that the Afghan factions now will be forced to have their
own - let me restate that slightly. The decision removes from the embassy
the diplomats currently working there.
They will lose diplomatic privileges and immunities, but may remain in
Washington with appropriate visa adjustments if they represent one of the
Afghan factions.
Although you haven't asked, let me say that the Afghan consulate in New
York will remain open. We're not suspending operations there because that
consulate provides useful services to the Afghan-American community. We
draw a distinction between the political functions performed in an embassy
and the service functions performed at a consulate.
So the answer is that diplomats working there will no longer have
diplomatic immunity. If they can be accredited as a representative of a
faction, we would try to assist them in that process in getting the
appropriate visas and we would talk to them. But we made a decision we did
not want to have this one faction's representative be seen as in charge of
the embassy in Washington.
Yes.
QUESTION: I'm a little confused about that because I just got tip about
this before we got in. I called over to the embassy and spoke to the
anti-Talibani man, who is still there.
MR. RUBIN: My understanding is that we concluded that the result of not
taking this action was that the one representative of the Taliban would end
up being in charge. That would send a signal that we were not neutral; and
we therefore have suspended operations at the embassy.
I'm not saying there may not be other people there, but we're talking about
who thinks they're in charge.
QUESTION: How many people are there there?
QUESTION: This fellow wasn't charge. I mean --
MR. RUBIN: And he may not see things exactly the same way. But we've
concluded that the way to avoid any possibility of a signal being sent that
we supported one faction over the other was to suspend operations for the
embassy.
Yes.
QUESTION: Since the United States is going to continue contacts with the
Afghanis, how are you going to do that? Through the consulate in New York
or which channels are you going to use?
MR. RUBIN: They can stay in the United States. They can get
accreditation as a representative of a faction. We will continue to meet
with them as faction representatives. We will not, however, meet with a
representative of the Afghan Government through the embassy.
So there will be contacts; we will continue to meet with them in other
parts of the world, and we will meet with them in Afghanistan when our
diplomats travel there.
Yes.
QUESTION: Do we have any - is there any U.S. Embassy representation
remaining in Kabal?
MR. RUBIN: I don't know precisely; I don't believe so. But there may be
people that go in and out. But no, I don't believe so.
QUESTION: How many people are in the embassy now here?
MR. RUBIN: We'll get you that number.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Jamie?
MR. RUBIN: Yeah.
QUESTION: Will the building remain in use by these various factions? Or
has the U.S. closed the building?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we will suspend the operations. My understanding is
that if they want to stay and serve as a faction representative, they would
have to do it from some other place. Yes.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: On Dennis Ross' trip, can you tell us anything about his
conversation with the Secretary and what you plan to do next?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, I can. He had a long meeting with Secretary Albright
this morning. They went over in some detail what the progress and lack
thereof was in his trip. He explained in detail that he could not report,
while he was there, about his meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu and
his meetings with Chairman Arafat and the mechanism that he helped create
to deal with security cooperation.
The Secretary has decided to watch closely what results occur from the
mechanism and watch those results over the coming weeks and make a decision
about timing for a trip based on that assessment.
I can say this about her trip - the Secretary has not traveled to the
Middle East as Secretary of State. In beginning internal discussions about
such a trip, she has decided that she wants to be sure that the trip is not
exclusively focused on the Israeli-Palestinian problem. I think it would
be fair to say it will be primarily focused on the Israeli-Palestinian
problem, but we have broader interests in the region. We have national
security interests in the region that go beyond Israel and the Palestinian
Authority. So her trip may also include a public component.
As you know from her speech, she feels very strongly that the people in the
region have made a decision for peace and she would like probably to talk
to the people. So I guess what I'm saying is, the trip will have a broader
component than simply the Israeli- Palestinian issue. She's beginning to
think a little bit about her schedule - she is going - and exactly what
she'd do while she's there. What we're going to do is watch the results
over the coming weeks and make a decision on that basis.
QUESTION: When you say coming weeks, though, I mean, are we talking - can
you quantify that in some way? Are we talking three weeks? Are we talking
six weeks? Are we talking --
MR. RUBIN: Based on the word weeks, I think it's fair to say that there
is a possibility that the trip will be in September. I wouldn't expect it
to go much beyond that.
QUESTION: What do you mean, you say, she is going? So now it's not --
MR. RUBIN: But again - excuse me, just one - to make sure I was clear on
that. We're going to look at it; we're going to examine it. She said in
her speech that she was prepared to travel to the Middle East at the end of
the month, provided that sufficient progress had been made in her view.
But she didn't say she intended to travel at the end of the month. Based
on Dennis' assessment and her thinking about what she wants to accomplish
on that trip, it's possible that the trip will not be in August and will be
in September.
Yes, I cut you off.
QUESTION: No, this is fine.
MR. RUBIN: Okay.
QUESTION: Its reported that could part of her trip include trying to
salvage the Middle East-North Africa economic conference that appears to be
teetering on the brink of postponement?
MR. RUBIN: The Secretary has scheduled an internal meeting on that
subject. She's quite aware of the problem there. I think to the extent
that her interests in the region will reflect broader issues beyond the
Israeli- Palestinian dispute and getting that back on track, I think that
that is an issue that will be part of her thinking. I don't think it
necessarily means she'll be traveling to the Gulf States, though. I think
it means that that is a component of our regional interests, and I suspect
it will be part of her agenda, yes.
QUESTION: Can I do a follow-up?
QUESTION: Does she believe it's realistic that that event will take place
as scheduled in mid-Fall?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we've said we would participate, as you know. We would
like to see as much participation as possible. Clearly, the difficulties
in the peace process have made that - the participation - less than it
might have been. We'll have a better chance to look at that after she
makes the trip and sees whether any progress that she can nudge along and
move forward might change what is possible at such a summit. But we
recognize the problem.
Yes.
QUESTION: -- meeting today with the country foreign minister? And is
this the same - about the same issue? And could you please give us an idea
of the schedule?
MR. RUBIN: I believe that Secretary Albright may - may - drop by a
meeting that is being held with Under Secretary Pickering. After that, I
would be in a position to report to you what happens at that meeting, yes.
QUESTION: Just to make clear - the Secretary had said that she would go
to the Middle East if there was some progress. And so, are you saying now
that after her conversations with Ambassador Ross that she has concluded
that there was enough progress to meet her expectations, her requirements?
MR. RUBIN: Carol, I'm not trying to split hairs. But what she said was
that she would be prepared to go. Prior to that, she said that she wasn't
prepared to go. She would be prepared to go if there was some progress on
security issues.
The Secretary of State is going to the Middle East soon, I can assure you
of that. The when is going to be linked to the kind of trip she wants to
have and the kind of results that we see in the area of security that we're
going to be watching in the coming weeks. I hope that was close to an
answer.
Yes.
QUESTION: Over the past two weeks since the suicide bombs hit Jerusalem,
there's been all this call - even by the Secretary - for Arafat to take a
stricter stance against fighting terrorism, make some arrests. And
Netanyahu has come out and said that unless he really starts seeing some
concrete action, he's not going to lift the sanctions. Why do you think
that all the pledges that the Chairman has made to Ross, to the Secretary,
to everyone in the region - why hasn't he been more aggressive in arresting
the suspected terrorist? And wouldn't this be - if he could just inch
toward that, that would be a great sign. He's not doing that. I mean, why
do you think that is? And what did Ross have to say - what was his report
on that? What was the tone he was left with, after speaking with the
Chairman?
MR. RUBIN: To protect myself and U.S. Government policy, I'm going to try
to not psycho-analyze other leaders, and I'm going to leave that to you and
to them.
We have made clear what our position is; and that is that we are not
satisfied that he is engaged in the kind of sustained and comprehensive
cooperation on security that we think he should. That is something that we
have made very, very clear to him. Frankly, we've told him that his
failure to do so only harms himself and harms the people in those areas.
He, we hope, by deciding to participate in the mechanisms we've helped
create, has made a decision in principle to begin the kind of cooperation
we think is necessary. But we will not know if that is true until we can
assess results from those meetings. They've only started.
Barry.
QUESTION: I'm sorry, this is just another thought on this. And I know
it's a general thought, but do you think it's ever going to be possible for
the Israelis to trust the Chairman as something other than a sometimes
terrorist/diplomat?
MR. RUBIN: What we think is that Chairman Arafat signed the accords for
peace; that he was met by the President of the United States in the Oval
Office; that he is our partner in peace; and that it behooves both sides to
develop partnership with the signatories of these agreements because it's
only through partnerships that peace can be made.
Barry.
QUESTION: Jamie, I wonder if you would agree that there's some difference
in emphasis between what you and the State Department say about the
situation and the reports from there. If you see the reports from Ross'
mission and from the Middle East, most of them seem cast in terms of
Netanyahu not doing enough - grudgingly giving a little ground on this
economic front or another, but essentially a picture of a recalcitrant
Israel. If I'm not mistaken - I did come in a little late - your focus -
the State Department's focus seems to be a dissatisfaction with how much
Arafat is giving in the security area. Am I missing something? Or is
there a problem with both of them?
MR. RUBIN: Well, you were a little late, but so was I; so you're
forgiven, if you'll forgive me. I don't think there is a difference in
what I am trying to say and what Ambassador Ross and his party may have
said in the region.
There's no question -- I haven't been asked about this - that we believe it
was counter-productive for Prime Minister Netanyahu to withhold funds from
the Palestinian Authority; that that sends the wrong signal of punishment
to the people who we believe need to feel the benefits of peace. So we
have been working closely with Prime Minister Netanyahu to try to encourage
him to release those funds and to release or limit other aspects of the
closure.
Now, you may have heard more about that because that was the focus of the
reporting in Israel - as tends to be the case when the Israeli reporters
are focused on that aspect of it. But none of that reporting changes the
underlying fact, which is that the peace process will never get back on
track unless Chairman Arafat makes a decision - and implements that
decision - to have sustained cooperation in the area of security. That is
the siniquanon* as the Secretary said, for a successful peace process.
Yes.
QUESTION: Just one quick one - did you deal with the easing of
restrictions on travel in only two of the Palestinian area towns? Is that
inadequate?
MR. RUBIN: We --
QUESTION: I mean, you're talking about the repayments, the
reimbursements.
MR. RUBIN: Right.
QUESTION: But what about travel --
MR. RUBIN: We welcome the opening of some of the closure --
QUESTION: But just two --
MR. RUBIN: -- in Hebron and Ramallah today. We are not going to - we're
going to be very careful about what we declare to be security-related
closure and non-security steps that we regard as counter-productive. A
example of a non-security related step that we regard as counter-productive
was the failure - the withholding of funds.
Yes.
QUESTION: You mentioned in his report he was talking about the progress
and lack thereof. Is progress that he made - was it the mechanism, this
tripartite security commission? Is that it?
MR. RUBIN: Well, if that's it. If it works, that will be a lot.
QUESTION: Nothing else?
MR. RUBIN: Well, there are different ways in which information can be
shared and information can be worked on by professionals. That is one way,
and there are other ways. It doesn't only have to go through those
channels. Over time, we would of course like to see greater direct
cooperation between the Palestinian Authority and the Israelis themselves.
So that would be a signal that things were even better.
But that's it, yeah. We think that having that mechanism gives us an
opportunity to see whether there will be results. Without that mechanism,
we may not have had a chance for those results.
QUESTION: Can you talk about how the mechanism - is this commission or
committee always in session, or are they called when there's something to
talk about?
MR. RUBIN: The details of how that mechanism will work is not something
we wanted to be as public as it has become, because it makes it less likely
that it will work successfully. So I think we've talked plenty about the
way that mechanism will work.
Yes.
QUESTION: In Ramallah today, Chairman Arafat said that Ambassador Ross
would be returning soon to the region; that his work was not done. He
spoke, I think, in terms of a couple of days, maybe a week or so. Can you
shed any light on that?
MR. RUBIN: I just came from the meeting where Ambassador Ross met with
the Secretary, and he didn't look like a person who was getting another
plane ticket; he looked pretty tired.
I think that will depend on the Secretary's travel schedule - what
Ambassador Ross will do. But I wouldn't rule out another trip by him, but
I think any decision on that will be linked to when she decides she's going
and how best to either set that trip up or set it off after.
QUESTION: So he would go out in advance --
MR. RUBIN: Well, he might do that or he might stay afterwards. So that
will have to be decided.
QUESTION: Jamie?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: If I can try - because her trip isn't even announced. In a
sense, I'm asking you to jump ahead. But it would be interesting,
instructive and also newsy if you could give us some notion of what her
concept of her traveling in the Middle East is at this point. In other
words, we know the record; and the record basically is - I can't remember
Haig's time, particularly - but from Kissinger on, you start out on that
road and you spend an awful lot of time in the Middle East. Warren
Christopher spent half a lifetime trying to work out a Syrian-Israeli peace
agreement; and despite his best efforts, he didn't succeed.
Is the Secretary now have in mind a survey trip? Or can she see herself
beginning down that road of shuttle diplomacy if and when she goes?
MR. RUBIN: Let me answer the question this way -- the Secretary has not
traveled there before, as you know. She spent a lot of time on the subject
at the UN, and she traveled there as the UN representative. She met with
the previous Secretaries of State in the first few weeks of her time here
and tried to ascertain from them what their best advice was on how to spend
her time. That's probably the hardest decision she has to make - how to
not get a strategic view intercepted by tactical events and try to have a
plan and stick to it as best as you can, given the possibility of
crises.
So what I can say to you is this - the trip that she is envisioning that
will occur very soon - very soon - will be one that involves a component
focused - and the primary component focused on how to link accelerated
permanent status talks with implementation of the interim agreement. That
is a negotiating attempt. Then, if we are successful in starting that
process - and we don't expect to do much beyond starting it - decisions
about her participation will be made accordingly.
At the same time, she wants to be sure that her trip to the region - her
maiden trip, if I can use that word - was one that is broader than simply
an exclusive focus on the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. So I would expect
there to be a broader focus; and therefore, I would expect there to be more
stops than just Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
So as far as how that means the Secretary will behave over the next six
months, I'm sorry to say, it depends. It depends on how successful the
negotiating process is; to what extent the diplomats in the trenches think
that her presence makes a difference; and to what extent other events
intervene. But she's cognizant of, on the one hand, the need to engage on
a matter of this priority to the President of the United States and to her.
On the other hand, she's cognizant that if it's not done right, it will
interfere with other priorities that are major and important, like our
relations with Europe, NATO enlargement, Bosnia and Europe, our relations
with China, South Korea, et cetera.
So these are the calculations that she will undergo and when she's done
with them, you will probably be able to answer your own question as the
months go by.
David.
QUESTION: Jamie, you've mentioned that the U.S. believes that holding
back the money from the Palestinian Authority was not the right step for
Israel to take. What assurances, if any, was Ambassador Ross given that
they money will start to flow soon?
MR. RUBIN: As a result of his trip, if one wants to be an optimist - and
Ambassador Ross is an optimist by requirement - he believes that there is a
good chance that in the coming days, there will be the kind of security
cooperation that will enable the Prime Minister to take the steps or to
reverse the steps that you're referring to. But nobody knows the answer to
this. The answer is in the decisions of Chairman Arafat and his security
officials.
New subject? One more on this subject from the back, and then we'll
change.
QUESTION: Palestinians say that what the Israelis are holding is the tax
money from the Palestinians who are living in the West Bank. They are
saying that this is 80 percent of their budget. Are these figures
accurate? And what's your understanding of how big is this money that's
being withheld?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have the Palestinian Authority's budget in front of
me, nor the specific amounts of the VAT that the Israelis have in the bank,
so I couldn't possibly answer that question. But clearly, it's a major
problem for them and we think that withholding these funds is not the best
way to encourage the cooperation that we think is necessary, regardless.
So clearly, it's a major problem, but I don't have those numbers.
Yes.
QUESTION: Jamie, a congressional delegation just came back from North
Korea. They saw evidence, they say, that the food intended for starving
children may have wound up on the plates of the North Korean military.
Does the State Department have an assessment?
MR. RUBIN: We have no indication that there has been any significant
diversion of the assistance we have provided. As far as we are able to
judge, nearly all our assistance thus far has been directed at helping
young children - particularly children under six.
We believe the World Food Program, with experienced in-country staff, has
been carefully monitoring the distribution of assistance. We believe that
that assistance has gone to the right places. We of course are watching
this very carefully and monitoring it very carefully. If we thought that
there was a significant diversion of any kind, we would want to work
closely with the World Food Program to make sure that any loopholes or
problem areas were resolved. But we don't have any such indication at this
time.
QUESTION: -- come from the World Food Program?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I can't get into, in this forum, exactly how we know
what we know - especially in a place like North Korea. But I can say that
our experts are confident that there is no significant diversion of the
assistance we have provided.
Carol?
QUESTION: When you say significant diversion -- there's no significant
diversion - I mean, that's an important choice of words. So, do you think
that there is at least some diversion of food aid to the military?
MR. RUBIN: If it's not significant, it's hard to pick up. And
significant is a term you normally use in analysis. You can't be sure,
when you analyze a situation, that you know ever fact and know every piece
of information. I do not believe - because I asked this question - that
this particular word was chosen by our experts to indicate that
insignificant quantities were being diverted. But it's certainly a
possibility; and an insignificant quantity could be quite small - it could
be one meal. But what we are saying is we care a lot, as Americans, about
starving children, no matter where they are.
So long as we think the food we're providing is going to them and that
there is no significant diversion, we're going to continue to trust the
World Food Program to deliver the goods.
Yes.
QUESTION: So does that mean that their observations or speculations won't
affect future food aid?
MR. RUBIN: Whose observations?
QUESTION: The congressmen's.
MR. RUBIN: We'll obviously talk to them and try to ascertain that they
know something we don't know, and act on it if that information proves to
affect this judgment. But for now, our judgment is that the World Food
Program's food - or the assistance we provide to the World Food Program
goes to the needy children and there is no significant diversion.
Yes.
QUESTION: Do you know, Jamie, when the next tranches of aid, which the
U.S. pledged - when this food will leave this country?
MR. RUBIN: We will get that information for you. I don't know the answer
to that.
Yes.
QUESTION: Perhaps the food aid from other sources in the World Food
Program is being diverted. Do you know anything about that?
MR. RUBIN: We can check whether we think there is food aid going to
international organizations that's being diverted. In the past, we've had
situations where the North Korean regime has diverted international
assistance - or in the case of oil, we thought there might have been some
misuse, and we've talked to them about it and tried to adjust it. But I
don't have any specific information whether we can confirm that non-World
Food Program food aid has been diverted. We can try to answer that
question.
QUESTION: Can we go to Cambodia?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: There's a story today which raises questions about the visa
status of this wealthy Cambodian who's a friend of Hun Sen's and who
bankrolled the coup attempt last month, and who also has alleged ties to
narco-traffickers. Do you have anything on his - I forget his name - do
you have anything on his visa status?
MR. RUBIN: I do, I do, when I can get to it. One moment please. We're
referring to a gentleman named - and I'm going to mess this up, so please
forgive me - Mr. Bunma. We have decided that, based on information we
have, we will revoke his visa.
If the formal request comes from our embassy in Phnom Penh, we will not
allow him to travel to the United States. He's a prominent businessman who
we believe - there is reliable reporting - has been involved in drug
trafficking. We take the possible drug trafficking of this kind very, very
seriously. We believe that he has said that his support for Hun Sen
assisted an effort and events that we have condemned quite strongly.
So the combination of the reliable reports on drug trafficking has made us
decide to revoke his visa. We certainly would condemn any individual's
involvement in or financial backing for the events that occurred in Phnom
Penh some weeks ago, because it was bad news for the people of Cambodia, it
was bad news for democracy in Cambodia. The fact that a drug trafficker is
claiming to have these connections is a major problem for us and we think
that Cambodia has a major drug trafficking problem that needs to be
addressed vigorously. We've urged the government to do so, and we will
continue to urge the government to do so.
Any more on Cambodia?
QUESTION: Yeah, actually, this week the U.S. apparently gave Cambodia a
designation under the GSP system that allows them to export 6,000 goods
without tariffs or something like that. I just wonder how you reconcile
that kind of economic gesture with withholding aid to the government.
MR. RUBIN: Well, I asked that question as well, when I saw that report.
(Laughter.)
The answer is, there's a difference between assistance to a government and
trade. Trade is - this is a preference that's linked to their labor laws
and how they treat their workers, and making sure that some commerce can
grow there.
We're trying to not harm the Cambodian people. We've made a decision in
our direct assistance program - again a tariff is a trade matter - that we
do not want to take steps that harm the average Cambodian people. They've
suffered too much already. They've suffered from genocide and they've
suffered from the loss of democracy. So our programs are adjusted to
ensure that we don't provide assistance directly to the government, but we
do provide assistance that helps the people there.
We think that a preference like this that encourages better labor treatment
for the people who actually have to do the work, is appropriate, given that
general policy framework.
Yes.
QUESTION: Different subject?
MR. RUBIN: Well, let's go to a new subject. I hope I have something new
to say.
QUESTION: What you can tell us about this Secretary meeting with the
Central American ministers? I also have another question. Today the
U.S. Coast Guard arrested 69 Asian immigrants on the border with Mexico.
This is a report from the Mexican Government that the State Department is
right now working with the Mexican authorities trying to give these Asian
immigrants to the Mexican Government in the way that they have to deport to
their countries, like a few months ago.
MR. RUBIN: We do have a statement from the Coast Guard about this
intercept. I'll have to try to get you more information. I'll post that
statement afterwards; that will hopefully provide you some information.
I'm sorry, the first question --
QUESTION: It was about the meeting of Secretary Albright with the Central
American --
MR. RUBIN: This is a follow-up to the summit that occurred in Costa Rica.
It was designed to encourage the maximum amount of cooperation between the
law enforcement authorities in the various regions.
Secretary of State Albright and Attorney General Reno and Drug Policy
Director Barry Caffrey met with law enforcement, public security and drug
ministers from all seven Central American countries. It's a follow-on to
President Clinton's May 7th meeting in San Jose, at which time the leaders
agreed in the declaration that they would try to develop an action plan for
dealing with crime and drug challenges.
Topics for discussion at this meeting include extradition, drug demand,
supply reduction, money laundering, asset forfeiture, training and
administration of justice. Secretary of State Albright opened the
conference at the plenary session this morning. If it's possible, I may
try to get a copy of her statement released for you.
Yes.
QUESTION: On the subject of drugs and Latin America --
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: The Colombian constitutional court today that provides for the
forfeiture, seizure of assets of convicted narco-traffickers. Do you have
a comment on that?
MR. RUBIN: I thought I did, but I do not. Let me try to get you
something on that.
QUESTION: Jamie?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: On Bosnia, just real quick - is the United States --
MR. RUBIN: Sorry, before you go, I just want to let you know that we do
have a special guest here who I want to get to in a few minutes, who are
going to make an important announcement about an award offering that we
have for a bombing case related to, as you know, one of your colleagues'
offices was the subject of several letter bombs Al-Hayat offices in New
York and elsewhere. We're going to have an important announcement on that,
so let me try to get to them quickly, if I can.
Yes.
QUESTION: Okay, I'll make it quick. Is the United States, with the help
of NATO forces over in the region, exploring aggressive options to capture
Karadzic? An attempt to remove him from the region?
MR. RUBIN: Secretary Albright said yesterday - and by the way, I include
this because I was stunned by some of the reporting. I don't think she
could have more clearly denied the report Mrs. Plavsic made that she had
offered, somehow, Karadzic a free ride of any kind. I think her words were
quite strong and quite clear. So I was rather surprised to see some of the
coverage still saying it wasn't a specific denial.
So if there's anybody in this room or anybody who's listening who didn't
think it was a specific denial, it was a specific denial. No such offer
was made. The Secretary made her position quite clear that Mr. Karadzic is
an indicted war criminal; there is no statute of limitations on war crimes,
as we've seen in the fact that World War II-era war criminals are still
being prosecuted; and that he belongs in The Hague. There's no wiggle room
in that position of the United States in that regard.
As far as your question is concerned, let me say that there's been a lot of
reporting talking about planning and training. To the extent it's true, it
makes more difficult to conduct such an operation. I am not suggesting
that there is such planning or training. I'm not saying what is or isn't
going on. I would refer you to the Pentagon on that.
What I can say is that ever since the review that President Clinton
ordered, we have taken the public position that I will repeat, which is
that we are looking at options to strengthen the War Crimes Tribunal, and
looking at those options very seriously.
Yes.
QUESTION: Have you gotten a visa request for Gerry Adams and decided
what to do with it?
MR. RUBIN: The Secretary did approve a visa request for Gerry Adams this
morning. He applied for a visa on August 11th in Dublin. She approved
that this morning. He has been granted visa waivers in the past, based on
a cease-fire. So there is a cease-fire in place, and she granted that
waiver this morning.
QUESTION: How long is it for? And are there any restrictions on it?
MR. RUBIN: Well, with regard to the restrictions on fundraising, which is
usually the question, there are none. We, of course, will watch it very
carefully, though, and monitor his activities in that regard because of the
obvious reasons.
As far as how long he is going to be there, I don't think we have a
specific answer to that. But I will get it for you shortly.
Now, it does so happen that we have a reaction to the Colombia decision.
We applaud the ruling yesterday by the Colombian constitutional court,
upholding retroactively asset forfeiture. The ability to seize the
ill-gotten gains of traffickers is a key tool in combating international
drug trade. This ruling should improve Colombia's ability to cooperate with
the international community against trans-national crime.
All right, let's take one more on the Middle East, and then I would like to
get to our special guests --
QUESTION: One more question. Yes, thank you.
MR. RUBIN: -- if I could, yes.
QUESTION: The Israeli Ambassador Elissar Ben Eliahu said yesterday in a
statement that Syria is preparing for war. Do you agree with that
assessment, first of all? Secondly, he accused - or he criticized the
Clinton Administration of the lack of the same sense of urgency that we
have, as he says. What do you have to comment on that?
MR. RUBIN: I have not had a chance to study closely his remarks. We do
not believe that Israel has lost its qualitative edge, with respect to
Syria. We have worked very hard to ensure that it retains it qualitative
edge and we will continue to do so.
QUESTION: Do you see them preparing for war?
MR. RUBIN: I have not seen any such suggestion in anything that I have
looked at. I don't have any way of judging that. I am not going to make a
practice of getting into from this podium what every judgment we, as a
government, have. But I haven't heard anyone --
QUESTION: Because he is accusing you of --
MR. RUBIN: I haven't heard anyone getting together for an emergency
meeting because there is going to be a war.
QUESTION: That is what he is saying. He says you have - you lack the
sense of urgency that they have.
MR. RUBIN: We believe that Israel has every reason and every right to
fear the possibility of war. It lives in a very dangerous neighborhood,
and over the course of time it has suffered many, many attacks on itself
where people were trying - governments in the region were trying to destroy
it. So if they have a slightly higher sense of urgency than the United
States, I think that is understandable and justified. But I am not aware
that there is any emergency meeting in the United States Government in
which we believe anything of that kind.
Maybe if you all could come up. And let's get to this --
QUESTION: But first, I want to ask as a follow-on to that, and tying it
-- is the broader aspect of the Secretary's trip to the Middle East, would
that include Syria and the Israel-Syria track?
MR. RUBIN: When I have an itinerary or a decision on an itinerary that
has been made and to be announced, I will do so. I don't at this time.
(The briefing concluded at 1:25 p.m.)
|
