U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #155, 97-10-28
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
300
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Tuesday, October 28, 1997
Briefer: James P. Rubin
DEPARTMENT
1 Names of American Religious Leaders Invited to China
COLOMBIA
1 Alleged Link of Presidential Candidate Serpa to Drug
Traffickers
CHINA
1-2 Definition of US-China Strategic Cooperation
2-3 Possible Agreement on Nuclear Non-proliferation Cooperation
BOSNIAN FEDERATION
3-4 Train and Equip Shipment Delivered to Ploce
HAITI
4 Sen. Helms' Letter to Secretary Albright on US Military
Presence in Haiti
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #155
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1997, 1:50 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Thanks. Just to give you the names again in case they were
read too quickly, Don Argue the President of the National Association of
Evangelicals.
QUESTION: How do you spell it?
MR. RUBIN: Argue, just the way we do every day. The Most Reverend Thomas
McCarrick, M-c-C-A-R-R-I-C-K, the Catholic Archbishop of Newark; and, Rabbi
Arthur Schneier, S-C-H-N-E-I-E-R, President of the Appeal of Conscience
Foundation.
If there are other questions, I am here to take them; otherwise, we can
adjourn. Yes.
QUESTION: The Colombian presidential candidate, Horacio Serpa challenged,
in a letter today, the US to present the evidence that he is involved with
drug trafficking. What is your reaction to that, and does the Secretary
plan to present such evidence any time soon?
MR. RUBIN: Well, this all presumes that the United States officially made
such a charge, and I specifically said yesterday that we were watching this
issue very carefully and didn't make such a charge.
QUESTION: I asked Secretary Albright on strategic cooperation, what are
the potentials? What are the limits of strategic cooperation with China?
What does the term mean?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think what it means is that the United States and
China are large powers. The United States has global interests and the
Chinese have increasing influence around the world as a result of the size
of their economy and their position in East Asia. If you look at things
like oil supplies in the Persian Gulf; if you look at issues like the
environment where you are talking about China's critical role in coming to
some agreement on climate change; if you talk about the drug trafficking in
the area of that part of the world where there has been evidence of
traffickers coming in and out and using China occasionally to export drugs,
they have worked with us on that. We need to work with them more.
So if you look at these so-called trans-national threats - proliferation,
drugs, terrorism, financial crime, corruption - these are the kind of
threats that are very hard to grasp in the same way that we used to grasp
threats in the Cold War. But they are very important to the well-being of
the American people; and a relationship with China in which we are working
together to solve those problems is, therefore, in the national interest of
the United States.
I could go on. The Middle East peace process is something the Secretary and
Foreign Minister Qian Qichen have begun to discuss in their bilateral
meetings. The Chinese have interests there. So as a major power, a growing
power, their role is increasingly important. They are a permanent member of
the Security Council and, to the extent we want to get business done in the
Security Council, they play a key role. I don't think anyone should
soon forget the Chinese non-opposition to the Gulf War resolution
and their support since then for sanctions on Iraq and the fact that
Iraq must comply with the UN because of the danger that Iraq poses to the
region. That is a strategic issue for the United States and China to
continue to discuss.
Finally, just one final point, the subject of Iran has come up and the
United States, Secretary Albright and others, have made clear to the
Chinese that we see dangers emanating from Iran, and we believe that their
acquisition of various weapons as a problem, and we have explained why we
think that is a problem. The Chinese have indicated they are going to take
our concern very seriously in this area, and so that is another area
where you might call it strategic cooperation.
QUESTION: But strategic usually refers to, dealing with dangers from
countries or specific disputes. How can you do this in Asia, when the
Chinese have so much of a different stance than the United States does on
some key issues -- for example, the US relationship with Japan and the US
relationship with Taiwan?
MR. RUBIN: Well, again, as the Secretary pointed out, there are going to
be areas of agreement and there are going to be areas of disagreement in
our relation with the Chinese. The hope is to increase the areas of
agreement. I think it is very much a strategic issue to obtain Chinese
cooperation in the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. There is no priority more important to the Secretary and the
administration than preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons of
mass destruction. Without Chinese cooperation, that objective would
be very hard-pressed to be met and, therefore, that's a strategic
issue.
That doesn't mean we are going to agree on everything. I think we have made
clear to the Chinese that the specific US-Japan defense guidelines
modernization was not directed at them, and we have seen less concern
expressed as a result of the explanations we have made.
QUESTION: Speaking of non-proliferation, do you expect tomorrow that an
agreement will be signed at the White House that would allow US firms to
sell nuclear power technology to China?
MR. RUBIN: Well, let me turn the question around. If any agreement is
signed tomorrow, it would be an agreement that would be the result of clear
and unequivocal assurances from the Chinese Government that they will not
be assisting non-nuclear weapon states to get nuclear weapons. If such an
agreement were to be signed, it is about stopping the spread of nuclear
weapons, obtaining new and clear and unequivocal and credible assurances to
make sure that China does not participate in the spread of nuclear
weapons.
The Secretary said that she was hopeful that that agreement would be able
to be signed, but it will depend on final details that need to be worked
out, and the President has to make a decision about that. But, again, there
has been a focus on what the Chinese get from this agreement, and that is
access to nuclear energy technology. I emphasize the word "energy." But
what we are talking about here is an agreement that would move us
one step closer in our fight to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
QUESTION: Do you see anything as blocking such an agreement right now?
Would you see anything imminent --
MR. RUBIN: I'm really not going to be able to move the so-called ball
down the field any further than we have. We are hopeful; there are details
still to be worked out. The President has to make a decision about this.
The Chinese President is scheduled to arrive later this afternoon. The
Secretary will be having a meeting with him later this afternoon and then,
obviously, the full-blown agenda for tomorrow where this subject will come
up. But as the Secretary said, we are hopeful.
QUESTION: Coming back to the issue of strategic cooperation on nuclear
issues, I mean, at the moment it seems like there is a standoff, I mean,
and there has been one, and the Chinese are the ones who have been, if
anybody, violating or have been accused of violating the principles of non-
proliferation. So how can you go from this position of, maybe not
confrontation but certainly strong public disagreement to cooperation
overnight? It just seems rather fast.
MR. RUBIN: Well, Roy, I would dispute the premise of your question. If
you look over the last six years - I will use the number today, rather than
five years - what you have seen is a China that was outside all of the
international regimes on non-proliferation move inside those regimes; and
those regimes have consequences. They affect behavior -- whether it is
chemical weapons, whether it is the comprehensive test ban, whether it is
the non-proliferation treaty, whether it is the commitments they have made
to us on the missile technology control regime. They were outside
before; they are inside now. That involves major changes in their
behavior that have taken place over a multi-year period.
So it is simply incorrect to assert that yesterday the Chinese were
violating all sorts of agreements or spreading all sorts of weapons and
today they are our partner. We have been working this government steadily
and in a determined fashion over the last six years to obtain changes in
Chinese practices and their policies on non-proliferation, and we believe
we have succeeded.
And if we have received the assurances that we believe are necessary to
meet this high standard envisaged in this law, then the President will be
able to make a certification. But it will only be moving farther down a
road of increased Chinese cooperation on non-proliferation that has been
marked and different over the last several years. It is not been overnight;
it's been over time.
QUESTION: Some of the weapons that were being held up that were to be
delivered to the Bosnian Croat Federation Army have been delivered today.
Is this all of the weapons? Have they all been released? Are there more to
come?
MR. RUBIN: I will be posting a statement on that, but I can say the
following. US military equipment destined for the Bosnian Federation Army
arrived today aboard the US ship MV American Condor just outside the
Croatian port of Ploce. The United States is donating this equipment under
authority provided by the US Congress as part of the US-led Train and Equip
Program. This shipment - here is the word - substantially completes the
delivery of equipment promised by the United States to the Federation.
My understanding is that weather is preventing the unloading of that
shipment, and it may unload tomorrow. There are a whole array of weaponry
on that ship, and that will be apparent from the statement, including
transport helicopters that are being delivered as well as 155-millimeter
Howitzers, artillery simulators, a number of other armored personnel
carrier equipment, spare parts -- a whole series of equipment that
substantially completes the delivery of what we promised to the Federation
as part of our Train and Equip Program.
QUESTION: So there is still a little bit more to go?
MR. RUBIN: Well, usually words like "substantially" are put in there for
a reason. I wouldn't rule out that there are still a few odds and ends to
go, but I think this is the bulk of it.
QUESTION: Senator Helms' office has publicized a rather lengthy letter
that he has written to the Secretary on the subject of Haiti. He thinks
that the US troops there are not just there to build roads and bridges, but
have some kind of quasi-security role and thinks it's time for them to
leave. Do you have any reaction to that?
MR. RUBIN: We have not seen that letter. Surprisingly, from time to time,
letters get in your hands before they get in our hands. We have not seen
that yet, but I can say that from the Secretary's visit to Haiti that she
met with the troops that were there. She participated at the opening of a
school that our troops had built there -- and I can assure you that school
wasn't a secret training base for Haitian children; it was a school
for Haitian children.
And so the mission that they are performing are engineering tasks. They
often have these civilian benefits like schools and roads and other
projects like that. It is her impression, the Secretary's impression, from
talking to the soldiers there that they find these kind of missions very
valuable because it helps them in their training, and obviously the Haitian
Government finds it valuable to have help in this area.
So I have not heard any suggestion from her trip that we would want less
rather than more. I think the feeling is that these visits by the
engineering units are a benefit to the units and a benefit to Haiti.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
(The briefing concluded at 2:00 p.m.)
|
