U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #39, 98-03-30
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1007
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, March 30, 1998
Briefer: James P. Rubin
1 Statement: Travel by the Secretary to the Caribbean
1-2 Statement: Travel by the Secretary to Vermont and New
Hampshire
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
2-3,6 Secretary Albright's Conversation with American Jewish
Leaders Regarding the MEPP
3 Proposal for a Middle East Peace Process Summit held in
Washington
3 Option of US Disengagement from Catalytic Role in the Peace
Talks
3-4,6,16 Update on Ambassador Ross' trip to the Middle East
4,5,6 Next Steps in the Middle East Peace Process
4 Contact Between Sec. Albright and Former Sec. Baker
5,6,7 Public Comment by Sec. Albright on the "State of Play"
5 Speech by Sec. Albright at the ASNE
8 Secretary Albright's Conversation with Def. Min. Mordechai
in Regards to Lebanon
8,9 Negotiations between Lebanon and Israel
10 US role in discussions between Lebanon and Israel
10 Comments by the Iranian Foreign Minister Concerning Israeli
Withdrawal
SAUDI ARABIA
10-11 Update on the Khobar Bombing Investigation
IRAN
11 Opening of a Iranian Office in the Swiss Embassy for the US
PAKISTAN
11-12 Update on Security of the US Consulates and US Embassy in
Pakistan
TAIWAN
12 US Policy Update Regarding Arms Sales to Taiwan
JAPAN
12-13 US Reaction to Governor's Comments Regarding US military
Bases
GREECE
13 US Position on the Transfer of S-300 Missiles to Cyprus
13 Reports of Terrorist Attacks on the Turkish Military
Attache
IRAQ
14 Defections of PKK Leaders
MEXICO
14 Complaints by Tourists of Police Harassment in Cancun and
Acapulco
COLOMBIA
15 Update on the Kidnapping of American Citizens
CUBA
15 US View on the Threat Posed by Cuba to US National Security
RUSSIA
15 Status of Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission
UKRAINE
16 Update on the Parliamentary Elections
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #39
MONDAY, MARCH 30, 1998, 2:20 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Welcome to the State Department briefing. I'll try
to get here earlier in the future, so the crowd will be thinner.
I have two brief announcements on travel. Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright will travel to Haiti and Trinidad and Tobago on April 4-6. On
April 4, she will stop in Haiti to underscore the US Government's continued
strong commitment to Haiti's democratic and economic development. She will
express our support for efforts to resolve Haiti's nine-month political
impasse and for governmental and legislative steps needed to unblock large
amounts of donor assistance. Her visit will also point up our mutual
interest in strengthening Haiti's defense against drug trafficking and the
trans-shipment of narcotics to the United States.
The Secretary will then travel to Trinidad and Tobago. On April 5, she will
meet with the Trinidadian Prime Minister Panday. The following day, April 6,
in Trinidad's capital city of Port of Spain, she will meet with representatives
of the 15 nations who participated in the May 1997 Caribbean Summit with
President Clinton. This meeting grows out of commitments made during that
summit to maintain a regular schedule of US-Caribbean consultations.
In addition, on April 7, Secretary Albright will be visiting Portsmouth and
Nashua, New Hampshire, as well as Burlington, Vermont. She will be going
there visiting Steve Hurst, our former CNN correspondent -
(Laughter.)
-- and having a luncheon meeting, and I'll be giving you a readout of that
meeting afterwards. Or perhaps we'll let Mr. Hurst give the readout. I'll
give you more details on that trip to Nashua and Vermont.
QUESTION: Jamie, forgive me for laughing. Is there a speech involved?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, there will be speeches. She'll be giving an address at
St. Michael's College, as well as a speech in Nashua at the Nashua Chamber
of Commerce.
QUESTION: Any classroom activity? I won't use the phrase "town meeting,"
but will there be any classroom or any straight-up with students type
activity?
MR. RUBIN: I do not believe that is on the schedule at this time, but as
we have more details for you -- we wanted to give you some advance notice
of where we will go - we will be happy to do that.
QUESTION: Is this one trip or two trips?
MR. RUBIN: That is one trip to Portsmouth, New Hampshire and Vermont.
QUESTION: One day?
MR. RUBIN: One day on April 7; that will involve her returning on Tuesday
evening.
QUESTION: Is she connecting the Caribbean trip and the --
MR. RUBIN: We'll stay overnight here on Monday night and then travel
there in the morning.
Whichever of the esteemed AP correspondents that wish to start out --
QUESTION: Can we take care of some loose ends on the Middle East?
MR. RUBIN: Sure.
QUESTION: Her telephone conversation has been portrayed various
ways.
MR. RUBIN: That happens.
QUESTION: Yes, it does. Well, it depends who you talk to afterwards. What
was her objective in doing this?
MR. RUBIN: Her objective, on a regular basis, she tries to consult with
American Jewish leaders about the state of play in the Middle East peace
process. If you look back, you will see often it is timed to a particular
step that we're taking, like Ambassador Ross going to the region or her
travel to Europe to meet with the leaders.
In this case, basically the message she delivered was the same message
we've been delivering publicly -- and that is expressing the deep concern
that we have about the state of the Middle East peace process: the fact
that it is in dire straits; that there hasn't been any movement for nearly
a year now; that there is no direct negotiation; there's no progress on the
multilateral track; there's no progress on the Syrian track. And there's
deep concern in the United States amongst President Clinton and Secretary
Albright that we need to work assiduously to get the peace process back on
track.
She obviously also values their counsel. She emphasized to the leaders that
we are working to try to get the process back on track. However, there is
no substitute for the leaders themselves making the tough calls. And I
think she made clear that in the absence of the leaders themselves making
the decisions, that she was at a loss to see how we could make progress. So
it was an analytical type of discussion, laying out the state of play,
the purpose of Ambassador Ross' mission, which I'm sure you're all
familiar with at this point, and to discuss with them the difficulty we
have.
QUESTION: There was a report that seems to have subsided, mostly from
Arafat's people, that you all are working on a Washington summit. I'm sure
it's a thought that occurs all the time, but is it any more than a
theoretical option at this point?
MR. RUBIN: Our focus is substantive, not procedural. In the event that we
were to be able to make a breakthrough and bring the peace process back to
life and remove it from the dire straits it's now in, it is normal and
appropriate that such steps would be accompanied by high-level meetings,
whether in Europe or in the United States, in Washington at the White House
- all of those are possibilities; they've always been possibilities. But
they're no more than possibilities precisely because we have been
unable to bridge the gaps on the hard questions: how much territory;
what kinds of security steps the Palestinians would take; et cetera. Until
we break the substantive logjam, any discussion of summits or high-level
meetings is premature in the extreme.
QUESTION: One last question, combining the two stories, it sounds like
that's the traditional view of summitry - you're not going to lock them in
a dungeon and try to get them to emerge with an agreement. If that's the
case, did she tell these Jewish groups - or is it her view that the United
States might just say, look, that's it; you haven't taken the decisions so
we wash our hands? No hard feelings - or maybe some hard feelings, but
we're not going to tread water; we give up.
MR. RUBIN: I think in any discussion of options at a moment when there
are not a lot of good options in the sense that we've worked very hard to
try to come up with credible, negotiating proposals that would bridge the
gap between the two sides, and in the absence of decisions by those leaders
to bridge the gaps themselves, that there isn't that much the United States
can do; that ultimately, like in any serious peace negotiation, whether
it's in Bosnia or in Northern Ireland or in any part of the world, at the
end of the day if the two sides aren't prepared to make the hard calls, the
catalyst can only do so much.
One option has always been for us to disengage from this kind of direct,
catalytic role; but it's not an option that the Secretary is advocating or
an option that we would like to see happen at all. Rather, what we're doing
and what Ambassador Ross is doing, is trying to see whether, by refining
our ideas and finalizing those ideas, that we can provoke progress. That's
what we've been trying to do and so far, we have not been able to do that.
Ambassador Ross is expected back here tomorrow, at which time he will
brief the Secretary and the President, and then we'll figure out where
to go from here.
QUESTION: Jamie, the reports about Ross' current mission to the Middle
East have been almost uniformly bleak. There's talk of no progress at all.
Are those accurate?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to be in a position of characterizing his
discussions prior to his report to the Secretary or the President. But
clearly, the peace process is in dire straits, and that was true upon his
departure. When he has a chance to meet with the Secretary and report to
the President, at that point we might be in a position to give you the
latest update from his latest meetings. I believe he's scheduled to have
some more meetings later today before he departs. So until his sessions are
complete, it would be premature for us to characterize what progress
he did or didn't make.
QUESTION: Assuming that this remains in dire straits, is there a Plan B?
Is there something that the United States would be prepared to do in the
future to break the logjam some way or another?
MR. RUBIN: Well, again, I think it would be premature to describe next
steps until we've had a report from the ambassador who's conducting the
negotiations, has had the discussions, and see whether he believes that any
of the refinements he brought or any of the discussions he had yield new
fruit that can be eaten.
(Laughter.)
And then we can see whether there are next steps in the negotiating track
or other next steps. But I'm not going to be in a position to preview those
next steps until we have a report from him.
QUESTION: Has the Secretary spoken to former Secretary Baker in the last
week?
MR. RUBIN: I don't believe so. But she does stay in regular contact with
him, and I don't always know every phone call. But she hasn't told me about
a particularly salient discussion with former Secretary Baker in the last
few days. I do know that she talks to him a lot about a lot of different
issues, but I don't have anything for you on that.
QUESTION: You said there isn't much the US can do in the absence of the
decisions by those parties. But certainly the experience in US diplomacy in
the Middle East over the last 20 years suggests there's all sorts of
different approaches you can take, and some of them have not been taken by
this Secretary of State, but they've been taken by others - sometimes
successfully, sometimes not. I'm kind of puzzled that you seem to see
yourself at the end of the road.
MR. RUBIN: I specifically didn't say we were at the end of the road. I
specifically said that we were waiting to get a report from Ambassador
Ross. In response to a question, I said that one option was to recognize
that there's not a lot the US can do. There are many options, and one
option has always been to disengage on the theory that it is up to the
parties to make these decisions. I was not signaling that that is a likely
option, that is a preferred option, that is the best option. I was
merely pointing out the obvious, which is that it's an option.
QUESTION: Well, is it even a realistic option? I mean, I've never heard
of the idea that the United States would disengage from this --
MR. RUBIN: Well, to the extent that if the parties don't demonstrate a
willingness to make these decisions - and again, the United States can't
make decisions for them. These are decisions that the parties themselves
have to make, and for us to recognize that it's there decision is a
recognition of reality. I am not signaling that we are going to disengage.
I specifically didn't say that, and I hope that the questioner didn't hear
that either. All I said was that that's always an option, and it has long
been an option. Whether it is a selected option is an entirely different
situation.
QUESTION: Well, I think the Secretary herself has said that in the event
of an impasse, at a certain point, she will say who's responsible for
it.
MR. RUBIN: I don't believe she's used that formulation. I believe she
said that she would tell it like it is, that she would say what the state
of play was. I think that you're reading into new reports in finding a
quote that saying that she would say who is responsible, and I don't recall
her making that statement.
QUESTION: Doesn't telling it like it is imply that you're saying who's
responsible?
MR. RUBIN: You can make that jump, but you are asserting a quote that I
don't believe exists.
QUESTION: I'm thinking of Geneva last December, I guess it was -- where
she said she would level with the public about -
MR. RUBIN: The state of play, but the formulation you used I just don't
believe it exists on the public record.
QUESTION: Is she nearing that point and maybe would it come this
week?
MR. RUBIN: We are nearing the point of finalizing our proposals in the
form of ideas to bridge the gaps. Ambassador Ross is refining those
existing ideas and finalizing them. So to that extent, we are saying that
it's not obvious to us what other steps that we can take in the diplomatic
track to convince the two parties to adjust their positions sufficient to
bridge the gap. If we decide that we have reached the end of the road and
we tell the parties so, we will tell you so; but we haven't reached that at
this time.
QUESTION: Jamie, is she giving a speech this week -- the one at the ASNE,
or - what do you call it?
MR. RUBIN: She is making a speech at the ASNE, yes.
QUESTION: And is it on the Middle East?
MR. RUBIN: I doubt that that would be the exclusive subject of such a
speech.
QUESTION: The Jewish leaders came away from their conversation under the
impression that the Secretary had told them that she would not go public
with whatever it is - the plan, the proposal, the refinement, whatever it
is. Can you comment on that in any way?
MR. RUBIN: I didn't get a direct readout of that part of the call. But I
think that we always make clear that we do not believe in surprising either
party in terms of putting forward something publicly that we haven't spoken
to them privately about -- at least we in Washington don't do that.
With regard to whether, at some point down the road, the Secretary of State
would give a speech in which she would talk about the Middle East, I
wouldn't rule that out and that is always a possibility. For those of you
who were here last summer, you saw her give a speech about the problems in
the peace process and the extent to which the process was frozen and the
reasons why it was frozen and the steps that needed to be taken to unfreeze
it. So, I wouldn't rule out such a speech in the future; but again, we are
not now at the end of the road. And if we are and we tell the parties
so, I will try to tell you as soon as thereafter unless they tell you
before I can.
QUESTION: I mean, it's the idea that if she does decide that there has to
an American proposal, that Dennis Ross or somebody would go there to the
region and brief the leaders on it -
MR. RUBIN: There are numerous modalities for doing that and I wouldn't
assume one is the definitive modality. It could involve her traveling, it
could involve Dennis traveling, it could involve phone calls, it could
involve letters. I mean, there is no one form of doing what you're
presuming that we're going to do, that we certainly haven't decided we're
going to do.
(Laughter.)
Let's stay on this. Go ahead, Lee, and then we'll go over here.
QUESTION: So far - two questions. So far as a result of Ambassador Ross'
trip, have you heard anything that would cause you to change the characterization
that the peace process is in dire straits? And secondly, if Ambassador Ross
doesn't come back with any sort of agreement and, thus, the peace talks
remain at an impasse, would the United States want to publicly lay out
its ideas on what would have been the way to resolve that impasse?
MR. RUBIN: My characterization of the peace process being in dire straits
is based on some objective realities. There is no progress in the interim
issues - the airport, the seaport, the industrial park. There is no further
redeployment. The Israelis believe that Palestinians have not done all they
could on the security front. There are steps that both sides are taking
that we call unilateral steps that prejudge the final status, the
permanent status, the ultimate negotiation. There are no multilateral
negotiations of significance going on. There is no Syrian-Israel peace
track that's got life in it; same with Lebanon.
There's no progress on the whole battery of ideas that were designed to
bring the Middle East together economically, politically. That whole
process of bringing the people together has been frozen. There is a growing
disillusionment amongst the people about what peace can bring. The
permanent status talks haven't begun; they're scheduled to end in a year.
These are excruciating issues that are going to take a long time to
negotiate. That is why I characterized the peace process in dire straits.
As far as what Ambassador Ross heard from the leaders and what his report
will be tomorrow to the Secretary of State in his meeting with her, and
ultimately a report to the President, I am not going to prejudge here
today.
QUESTION: But is there anything as of now that would give you any more --
MR. RUBIN: I think that would prejudge what he did or didn't find. I mean,
all I can say is that the objective factors that I just listed - the six or
seven of them - are still here today, and they were here yesterday and
they've been here basically for the last many months. And that hasn't
changed.
If there is an ability to bridge the gaps and we are able to breathe life
into all those parts of the peace process, then we'll be in a different
situation. We're clearly not in there today.
QUESTION: And about the idea of laying the ideas out publicly - the ideas,
publicly.
MR. RUBIN: I think I explored that with Roy and Sid.
QUESTION: Not as directly as I would have liked.
MR. RUBIN: I see. Well, I'm not sure I will ever explore that as directly
as you might like, Lee; but let me try it again. It's always been a
possibility that if the peace process reaches the end of the road, as the
Secretary herself has told you, that she would publicly describe the state
of play in a speech or in some other public forum. That is a possibility.
She has not decided to do that; she hasn't asked me to set up a forum for
such a speech. I haven't seen a speech text, contrary to what I read in the
newspapers about such a speech, other than that there are always speech
texts in the Department.
If we gave you every copy of every draft speech, you wouldn't even know
what to make of it because they usually have competing people writing them
or proposing them or drafting them or putting outlines to them or editing
them. But there is no speech planned as of today, Monday, March 30, to do
what you're suggesting.
QUESTION: Elsewhere in the Middle East?
MR. RUBIN: Any more on this directly?
QUESTION: Yes, one more.
MR. RUBIN: Really, there's more?
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: You mentioned Lebanon. Did the Secretary mention the word
Lebanon and withdrawal to Defense Minister Mordechai? And has Ross --
MR. RUBIN: I would be very surprised if, in a meeting with Defense
Minister Mordechai, the issue of Lebanon didn't come up. All I can tell you
is what our position is, that we said on Thursday and Friday, that we want
to see the resolution fulfilled; that we, as a matter of policy, want to
see all foreign forces out of Lebanon.
QUESTION: Follow-up on that - because the Israelis and others, including
the Lebanese, are very puzzled by the United States sitting on its hands on
the various signals out of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, saying that Israel is
ready to withdrawal. And we don't seem to be acting as a catalyst or a
mediator or anything else.
MR. RUBIN: I remember specifically not sending any signals on the
Lebanese issue. So there will always be puzzlement in the Middle East;
that's the nature of the region, I think. We have stated our view; our view
is that we want as many discussions going on as possible between all the
leaders in the region; that we want to make progress on whatever track we
can make progress on. And certainly, if there is ever to be a full and
complete peace between Israel and Lebanon, there needs to be discussion.
With regard to the withdrawal issue, the resolution calls for withdrawal
without necessarily having negotiations. You know that's one of the
issues.
The primary focus of our Middle East diplomacy, however, is what Ambassador
Ross has been doing; which is to see whether, through American ideas,
through refining those ideas, finalizing those ideas, that we can break the
impasse that has bedeviled the Israelis and the Palestinians for the last
year.
QUESTION: Are you insisting on negotiations, then, between Lebanon and
Israel?
MR. RUBIN: I thought I just answered it as carefully as I could in this
forum; which is that in order for there to be a comprehensive peace, in
order for there to be a full peace between Israel and Lebanon that meets
the security needs of both sides, that covers all the issues - not just the
withdrawal issue - that it would be natural and expected for them to
talk.
QUESTION: So you're not encouraging withdrawal and the closing of that
frontier?
MR. RUBIN: No, at the same time, I specifically said - and you've heard
this, I hope - is that we do support the implementation of the resolution,
which calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces.
QUESTION: Without conditions.
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
QUESTION: And without a comprehensive peace --
QUESTION: And without negotiations, necessarily.
MR. RUBIN: Not necessarily. And as a practical matter, we also have said,
realistically and practically, that something like that is unlikely to
happen without some form of discussion. Whether it constitutes the kind of
negotiation that one side or the other side wants, we'll have to see.
We want the resolution to be implemented. We want it --
QUESTION: Would the United States --
MR. RUBIN: Excuse me, if I can finish my answer, then maybe I can
communicate to you. The United States has two goals: the resolution calling
for the withdrawal of Israeli forces; we support that. We also support a
real, full and comprehensive peace between Israelis and Lebanese. That
would be something that would increase the security of both sides, create
ties between the two countries and be to the benefit of both populations.
Those are our two goals, and I don't know how else to say it other than
that.
QUESTION: Jamie, just to clarify, but it is conceivable that there would
be an Israeli withdrawal and negotiations about security issues, short of a
comprehensive peace. You could envision that?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, I think in this very same room, just five days ago, I
said that as a practical matter, even though it may not be required by any
resolution, it's hard to envisage a withdrawal without some form of
discussion.
The kinds of negotiations that I'm talking about - direct negotiations
leading to a full peace - is something that we do think would be useful and
wise if the Israelis and the Lebanese could have, so that we could close
the circle of peace, so we could include the Palestinians. We could include
the Lebanese, we could include the Syrians and ultimately, some day, other
countries in the region. That is a comprehensive peace; that's what we want
to see happen.
With regard to the withdrawal question, we support the resolution's call
for immediate withdrawal. As a practical matter, we've pointed out it's
hard to envisage that happening without some form of discussion. Whether
discussion becomes negotiation in the Middle East context is obviously a
major issue, and so all I'm saying is some form of discussion.
QUESTION: Is there some reason the United States is not taking the lead
in --
MR. RUBIN: I thought I really nailed this one.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Is there some reason the United States is not taking the lead
in trying to foster this very discussion that you say is necessary for the
withdrawal to occur?
MR. RUBIN: As we've said, we would like to see peace in all the tracks:
the Palestinian track, the Syrian track, the Lebanese track - all the
tracks. Right now, we're having enough problem focusing on the one track
where there has been a proven track record of peace - the Palestinian track
- and we're focused on that primarily. But that doesn't mean that the
Syrian track, the Lebanese track and the other aspects of the peace process
are not available to be worked on if there was a reason to do so.
We would encourage direct negotiations between the sides. We'd encourage
direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Syrians. We've played a
role in the past in trying to bridge the gaps between the existing Syrian
position and the existing Israeli position. We will continue to do that on
all these tracks. But what I'm simply pointing out is, as a practical
matter, our focus has been on the Palestinian track; and even there, we
have been unable to see a breakthrough.
QUESTION: But there is a practical reason to push ahead, which is that
the Israelis say they want to pull out. I mean, that's a change of
position; that's a change of policy.
MR. RUBIN: Right, and we support discussions to the extent they're
necessary; or having the resolution implemented, which means immediate
withdrawal without negotiation. So that isn't for us to say.
QUESTION: One more on Lebanon - are you aware of comments reported today
by the news agencies from Lebanon of the Iranian Foreign Minister saying
that if Israel were to withdraw from Lebanon, that would accomplish the
goal of the resistance people in Southern Lebanon? Are you aware of that?
Any comment on it?
MR. RUBIN: I haven't seen those comments. I certainly - one would hope
that if there were a withdrawal of Israeli forces, that would include a
recognition that the border between Lebanon and Israel would not be the
subject of cross-border attacks from people inside Lebanon. Yes, we
certainly would hope that, at a minimum.
QUESTION: The Saudis say that their investigators have come up with all
of the details on the Khobar bombing, and that they're not ready to reveal
what they found, but will announce it at the proper time. So the question
is, have they shared any of this with the US; and what is the proper
time?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I don't know what has or hasn't been shared between
Saudi law enforcement investigators and American law enforcement investigators.
As far as we're concerned, the investigation is still wide open. We do not
believe it's over. We are continuing to pursue it, and believe that at the
end of the day, those responsible will need to pay a price. But I don't
have any comments on the specific information passed between Saudi Arabia
and the United States, as your question indicates, indicating a termination
on their part. I don't have any specifics on that, other than to
say to you that as far as we're concerned, the investigation is not
over.
QUESTION: Does that mean - if the US thinks it's still wide open, does
that also mean that the US has not drawn any conclusions of its own,
independent of whatever the Saudis may or may not be doing?
MR. RUBIN: This particular investigation, when I first took this job, was
one where I felt like not only were both arms tied behind my back, in terms
of public comment, but I thought they were tying my legs together. Other
than to say that it's an ongoing investigation and that it's up to our law
enforcement authorities to make public at the appropriate time any of
the conclusions, or people in this building, but until the investigation
is completed and judgments have been reached, public comment about it is
not going to give me a lot of fans in the government.
QUESTION: Jamie, has the US asked Iran to open an office within the Swiss
Embassy for the US - a cultural office or other kind of office?
MR. RUBIN: I saw some reference to that. It didn't ring a bell with most
of the people who - this is our having a visa officer in --
QUESTION: Some kind of officer of some sort.
MR. RUBIN: Yes, it sounded to me like the reporter was talking to someone
who wasn't in the know.
QUESTION: Because the Iranians seem to be reacting to something. I don't
know whether - in other words that we're considering something. So I wonder
--
MR. RUBIN: Well, perhaps they read the newspapers; I just don't know.
When I saw that story, I asked the people who do know and they indicated to
me that particular proposal was not on the table.
QUESTION: Was not?
MR. RUBIN: Was not.
QUESTION: Jamie, can you update on the very tight security of the US
consulates and US Embassy in Pakistan? Also, are these real threats to the
US diplomats in Pakistan?
MR. RUBIN: We have taken additional security precautions at our missions
in Pakistan. Although we do not discuss security measures in detail, we
constantly review our security postures and take additional measures when
needed.
We did receive some information regarding a possible threat to our
diplomatic missions in Pakistan. We receive threat information on our
diplomatic missions all the time, and all threat information is taken
seriously. We take precautions to counter those threats, to ensure the
safety of our personnel and the security of our facilities. That is what we
have done in this case. We did send some consulate employees home in
Karachi, as part of a security precaution.
Again, we don't have any specific threat information directed against
American citizens in Pakistan, but rather had some specific information
which we thought might put at risk or greater risk our diplomatic operation
in Pakistan.
QUESTION: Are you calling the US ambassador for consultations in this
regard to Washington?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware that we've had a meeting here. I think this
would be something that would be discussed in the region between our
ambassador and his people and the government there.
Wow, so many options, so little time.
QUESTION: There has been speculation that the US may be changing its
policy regarding arms sales to Taiwan. Could you clarify on that,
please?
MR. RUBIN: There has been no change in our long-standing and consistent
policy with regard to arms sales in Taiwan. In bilateral meetings, the
Chinese frequently raise their concern about US arms sales to Taiwan, and
we respond to those concerns when they do so. But nothing in those
discussions signals in any way the fact that we are changing our policy. In
fact, US arms sales to Taiwan remain in accordance with the Taiwan
Relations Act, and are consistent with the August 17, 1982, Joint US-
PRC Communique.
QUESTION: Would you go on to say that there will be no consultations with
Beijing prior to US arms sales to Taiwan?
MR. RUBIN: Prior consultations is a term of art in the diplomatic and
congressional business that means the other side has some input into saying
no. Certainly that has not been what happens in our meetings, and it is not
our intention to change our existing practices. Rather, often the Chinese
side raises concerns that it might have, and we respond to them. But our
policy will be based on the Taiwan Relations Act and the joint communique.
QUESTION: On Japan, in Japan today the Governor called for residents of
the Japanese mainland to share the burden of US military bases with the
island - (inaudible) - in Okinawa. What's your reaction?
MR. RUBIN: We'll have to get you something on that. I don't have anything
on that.
QUESTION: Mr. Rubin, what would be your reaction to press reports that S-
300 missiles may end up being deployed in Greece? Is this a development the
US would favor?
MR. RUBIN: You mean as opposed to Cyprus?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. RUBIN: In lieu of Cyprus?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. RUBIN: This, again, sounds like a trick question to me - although
most of these do.
QUESTION: Most of the answers are tricky, too.
(Laughter.)
MR. RUBIN: I do the best I can. The position of the United States on the
danger associated with the transfer of these air defense S-300 missiles to
Cyprus has not changed. We think this would be an escalation. We do not
want to see this happen; we've made that clear to the various parties. As
far as any new report about the missiles not going to Cyprus, to the extent
they're not going to Cyprus, that would meet the concern we have.
But whether they would be somewhere else and then could be moved and
therefore wouldn't meet the concern would depend on the specific report,
which I haven't seen.
But certainly, our objective is to convince those involved not to send
those missiles to Cyprus, nor for Cyprus to receive them.
QUESTION: The problem will be half solved as far as --
MR. RUBIN: No, I didn't say that because I don' t know the report you're
referring your question to. I have no clue what that means, and I would
prefer to wait and see what the specific report you're referring to says
before making an official judgment.
But in principle, to the extent that missiles we're concerned about don't
go to the place we're concerned about, with regard to that place, it will
be better. But it could be worse if they go somewhere else, and the overall
effect could be worse than if they went to the original place, depending on
what the specific proposal was.
(Laughter.)
Therefore, I'm going to wait - (laughter) - I'm going to wait until I see
the specific report.
QUESTION: The Kurdist terrorist organization, PKK, two of the high-level
officials from the PKK surrendered in Iraq - Iraqi Kurdish groups. And also
we heard that the large number of the guerrillas also started surrendering.
Does this mean that this terrorist organization is falling apart or
dissolving?
MR. RUBIN: I haven't seen anything of that level of drama, but I have
seen reports that Semdin Sakik, a member of the PKK leadership has defected
to Masud Barzani's KDP - Kurdistan Democratic Party - in Iraq. There are
also reports of a second defection by Cemil Bayik, another PKK terrorist
leader, who I'm not sorry if I mispronounced his name, since he's a
terrorist leader.
(Laughter.)
We are assessing how such defections, if true, may affect the PKK.
Secretary Albright designated the PKK as a foreign terrorist organization
last October, pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996. The United States still considers the PKK to be an active and
dangerous terrorist organization.
So all I have is those two defections.
QUESTION: Also, in Athens, several terrorists attacked the Turkish
military attache. Do you have anything on the subject?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have any information on that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: No, we've got some more.
MR. RUBIN: A couple more.
QUESTION: A group of Maryland college students, just returning from
Cancun, Mexico, are complaining of rough police treatment while they were
there. They say that they were - one claims to have been beaten repeatedly
by police. A couple have claimed that they were robbed at gunpoint by
police. Are you familiar with these claims? And are you getting increasing
complaints from college students or tourists in Cancun and Acapulco about
rough police treatment?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have any information on that, but I'd be happy to have
Lee McClenny get that for you right after the briefing.
QUESTION: Jamie, on Colombia, there are four American citizens that were
kidnapped last week in Colombia. The guerrillas have announced that they
are going to kill them if they have been working for any American agency.
Could you comment on this, please?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, obviously those kinds of threats are horrific. These
people are, as far as I know, innocent people who were simply trying to go
to Colombia for tourist reasons. Our embassy in Bogota can confirm that
four US citizens were kidnapped by the FARC, March 23. Our embassy is
working vigorously to secure their immediate and safe release.
We're keeping the next of kin of the four citizens informed of any
developments, and we're unable, for a variety of reasons, to give you the
names of the people. But those kinds of threats are obviously outrageous.
QUESTION: Do you have any portrait of the people who they are - what
kinds of jobs they were doing?
MR. RUBIN: I can try to get you - they have, under our system, there is a
privacy waiver that's required for us to give out public information about
them. But the information I had last week was that they were there on a
bird-watching mission. It would be hard to imagine a less dangerous group
than bird watchers.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: They don't work for the US Government?
MR. RUBIN: Again, I've told you what I know, and we'll try to get you as
much information as we can.
QUESTION: Does the State Department share the opinion of the Defense
Department that Cuba is no longer a threat to the national security of this
country?
MR. RUBIN: Cuba is certainly a threat to its own people - the Cuban
Government. I mean, they won't allow their people to have basic democratic
freedoms, to have basic rights - religious, human rights, freedom of the
press, freedom of religion. So the Cuban Government is a threat to its own
people. With regard to alleged intelligence documents, I wouldn't be able
to comment on that.
QUESTION: Were you asked last week - and if so, forget it, but if you
weren't, the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, how's it going to do without
Chernomyrdin?
MR. RUBIN: I was not asked, but I can say that for those of you who chose
to travel with the Secretary of State to Bonn and saw Foreign Minister
Primakov at the press conference talk about the Gore-Chernomyrdin
Commission, he made very clear that these were national, governmental
decisions that had not changed at all; the work that had been done by the
Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission was going to continue. And as far as what our
next steps are to operate, well, first of all this tends to be an operation
between Vice President Gore and the Prime Minister. And they still
have an acting prime minister, so it would be wholly premature to
try to identify the new interlocutor; other than to say that at the
government-to-government, at all levels, we continue to operate as if those
decisions are operative.
QUESTION: Jamie, do you have anything on the Ukraine's election; was it
carried out properly?
MR. RUBIN: We saw some reports of some irregularities, but in general, we
--
QUESTION: The parliamentary election.
MR. RUBIN: Right, the OSCE had some observers there. They issued a
positive preliminary assessment of the conduct of the voting. They also
noted serious shortcomings; in particular, reports of violence, arrests of
candidates, abuse of public office and some restrictions on press
freedom.
The OSCE is - other than that, of course - the OSCE is in a position to go
into greater detail, but this is a preliminary report and that's all we
have at this time.
QUESTION: You don't have anything of your own, no?
MR. RUBIN: No.
QUESTION: One more back to the Middle East, if you don't mind, please,
Jamie. Your comments today, your pretty bleak assessment were based on the
situation that existed before Ambassador Ross went to the region, and not
on any interim progress reports that he may have relayed to the Secretary
since he arrived in the Middle East; is that correct?
MR. RUBIN: I think that's a fair assessment except to say that if there
was a dramatic breakthrough in the sense that there were going to be
discussions at the interim level, between the Israelis and the Syrians - I
mean, all the things that I listed to you are not going to transform
overnight. And so even if there were progress in any private discussions
he's had, the situation today still is that all those things haven't
happened. So it's still in dire straits.
So even any positive indicators that he had would still be just that -
positive indicators, not the kind of concrete progress in the seven or
eight points that I mentioned to you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. RUBIN: Thanks.
(The briefing concluded at 3:10 P.M.)
|
