Browse through our Interesting Nodes of Greek Associations & Organizations Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923)
HR-Net - Hellenic Resources Network Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Thursday, 28 March 2024
 
News
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  Announcements
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Hosted
  Mirrored
  Interesting Nodes
Documents
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  Constitutions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Other
Services
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts
  Tools
  F.A.Q.
 

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #118, 97-08-18

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>


1001

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Monday, August 18, 1997

Briefer: James P. Rubin

ANNOUNCEMENTS/STATEMENTS
1            Daily Briefing Schedule for Late August

ARMS CONTROL 1-4 Landmines: US to Participate in Ottawa Process Negotiations

MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS 4-7 Israel's Decision to Release a Portion of Palestinian Revenues 4,5-7 Palestinian Information Related to Explosive Devices in July 30 Bombing 8 November Economic Conference in Doha 9 Reports Chairman Arafat to Convene Meeting of Palestinian Factions

LEBANON 8 Current Fighting in Southern Lebanon

CYPRUS 9 Prospects for Ambassador Holbrooke to Travel to Greece, Cyprus and Turkey 13 US Assessment of Cyprus Talks

BULGARIA/SLOVAKIA 10 Reports SS-23 Missiles Stationed in Bulgaria and Slovakia

NORTH KOREA 10-12 Groundbreaking Ceremony for First Reactor Built in North Korea by KEDO 11 Contributions to KEDO

BOSNIA 12 SFOR Action in Banja Luka 12-13 Ambassador Gelbard's Travel Plans

MEXICO 13 U.S.-Mexico Anti-Narcotics Cooperation

CHINA 14-15 ACDA Report Re China's May 11 Commitment on Cooperation with Un-safeguarded Nuclear Facilities

PANAMA 14-15 Implementation of the Panama Canal Treaties

ARGENTINA 16 Falkland Islands Dispute

ARMENIA/AZERBAIJAN 16 September Elections in Nagorno-Karabakh


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #118

MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 1997 12:43 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. RUBIN: Good afternoon, welcome to the briefing. I have no announcements other than to say that we are going to try to give you a schedule for the next two weeks later this afternoon.

In response to the fact that it is August, and late August, we're going to shrink a little bit the daily briefing. I'm not sure which days we're going to be on and off over the next couple of weeks, but if you can stay in touch with the press office, we'll try to give you that information.

Barry.

QUSTION: Lots of subjects. Let me try you first on land mines. The White House is announcing - you know the White House is up in Martha's Vineyard, so you'll probably be getting a lot of questions that normally would go there, like this one. The White House is sending a team to Geneva on land mines. I wondered if you could go beyond their announcement and tell us, is the Administration happy with the pace of deliberations in Geneva?

Might you go a different route? I ask because the Administration's interest in curbing land mines is well known.

MR. RUBIN: Yes, as you know, Secretary Albright has talked for many years about this subject, and in her travels around the world has made a point of talking about the damage that land mines in an uncontrolled environment has done to millions of people, or hundreds of thousands of people around the world.

The White House announcement is an important statement, and it's very important. Let me try to go through it in some detail for you. The United States has decided to participate in the Ottawa Process. Now, what that means is our previous position had been that we were going to be an observer in the Ottawa Process and leave the negotiation of a treaty to ban land mines - ban their transfer, production, stockpiling - to the CD, the Committee on Disarmament, in Geneva.

So the trip that is being taken, led by Deputy Assistant Secretary Eric Newsom, including senior director at the NSC, Robert Bell and other officials to Geneva is not about the CD process; it's about the Ottawa Process. They will be meeting with some 17 countries, including Canada, Norway, South Africa, some of our allies - Germany, France and the UK - to discuss how the United States can propose changes in the agreement that is emerging so that as it is negotiated in the month of September, we can be in a position to support that agreement and sign that agreement.

So this is an important development and it shows that the President's continuing leadership on land mines is making a difference. I would point you to the fact that he made a decision some time ago to seek a ban on land mines. The United States has gone to extraordinary lengths to change its practices of the Pentagon so that the land mines that are known as dumb land mines - that keep on killing long after they were intended to be used - will be destroyed, and that we will spend extraordinary amounts of money to destroy those and make sure that any land mines we do deploy are those that self-destruct.

Now, they will be going to this meeting and participating in the discussions, beginning September 1 in Oslo, on the treaty text with the goal of seeking to achieve our humanitarian international objective to ban land mines and ban their use and protect innocent children and innocent people from their effects. At the same time, we are the United States; we are a global power; we have global interests. They will be seeking to reconcile our humanitarian objectives which are real and profound with our national security objectives which are also important. Those include a geographic exception for anti-personnel land mines in Korea.

Korea is a place where the United States deploys forces in response to the fact that the war that went on there for a long time, our defense treaty with South Korea, the fact that North Korean forces are on a high state of alert and there is always a risk of attack from North Korea. Our planners, our defense officials, believe that anti-personnel land mines are required in order for us to fulfill this, frankly, United Nations' responsibility to protect the Korean Peninsula.

So that exception we will seek, and we hope that other countries understand that when you seek a ban and you want to achieve a ban, you have to be logical and thoughtful about what the exceptions might be. It strikes us as a perfectly reasonable exception, as one where you have a United Nations- generated force in a unique situation where there are unique dangers and that anti-personnel land mines at this point are the only tools that our officials, our Pentagon and our military believe can protect us from that genuine danger in the Korean Peninsula.

We will also be seeking to improve the treaty's verification provisions, particularly in the area of information exchange. The long and the short of it is that we are now going to be working very hard in this group led by Deputy Assistant Secretary Eric Newsom and including Bob Bell from the NSC to try to put the pedal to the metal and see whether we can negotiate the kind of treaty that will meet the humanitarian concerns the President and the Secretary have and also reconcile them with the important national security interests of the United States.

QUSTION: On the exception - is that the only area of exception?

Somehow Cuba is in my head, but maybe I have it confused.

MR. RUBIN: I am not aware of a Cuba exception. We also will be trying to ensure that the land mines that are banned are anti-personnel land mines, and that there are no provisions that prevent - in the treaty, the definition of the treaty - that would apply to systems whose primary function is something else, such as protecting a particular location from jeeps or tanks or things like that.

So we will be looking to have an exception in the definition - not an exception --

QUSTION: Geographically?

MR. RUBIN: Not geographically, but an exception that will ensure that the anti-personnel land mine ban is about anti-personnel land mines. We will not be seeking an exception - contrary to a lot of reporting on this - for so-called smart land mines. We are seeking a treaty that bans land mines, anti-personnel land mines; and we're not seeking an exception for self-destructing, so-called smart land mines.

Yes.

QUSTION: But Jamie, like many of President Clinton's proposals, it looks good at first blush but once you peel back the covers, it turns out to not be at all what he was talking about. This is not a ban on land mines; this is a ban on land mines that the United States doesn't want to use anymore. How would you defend that?

MR. RUBIN: Well, first I would categorically reject your characterization of President Clinton's habits and proposals.

But getting to the specifics, we believe that the United States has taken a leadership role on land mines. We do not believe that U.S. policies - the U.S. land mines that we produce for these purposes - are the ones that have caused the damage around the world that we've seen about on television, in newspapers and in the reports that the government has put out. It's not our land mines that are causing the grave damage to the limbs and lives of little children around the world; it is the land mines of other countries.

So in thinking about how to approach an issue like this, we have to bear in mind where the problem is. The problem isn't American land mines; the problem is land mines in other countries. Now, because that's the problem, we are taking the high ground and offering to give up a weapon that we do not believe has caused the problems that we all know about and gone to extraordinary length to pay the cost to adjust our policies so that we have a greater chance of getting other countries - the ones whose land mines are exported, or whose weapons are the ones that have caused many of these problems.

I'm not saying this is going to be an easy negotiation. I stated quite clearly that the exception for Korea is one we believe very strongly in, and it is an exception. But we believe the situation on the Korean Peninsula is such that having an exception like that is justified by the fact that -- let's remember why we're there. We're there in support of an international mandate from the United Nations. That strikes us as a reasonable exception to a treaty that is designed to prevent land mines from exploding years and years after they were used for a military operation in Angola or in Mozambique or in Cambodia or Bosnia.

That doesn't mean that this is going to be easy. There are a lot of other countries that will have their questions about this.

But the purpose of sending this team over there is so that we can explain to them that we have made the decision to go for an early ban on land mines, even though many of the countries that we're concerned about - such as China and Russia and India and Pakistan and others - are not part of the Ottawa Process. They are in the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva.

Originally what we had said was because those are the countries whose practices caused the most risk, that we ought to focus on those efforts. Now, that is going slowly and in order to try to advance the process and make it quicker and earlier that a ban on land mines takes place and make it less likely that people's little children's legs are going to be blown off around the world, is for us to move the focus of attention to Ottawa and see whether the kind of treaty that we think fits our national security interest can be negotiated.

QUSTION: Just to clarify, the U.S. will not be seeking an exception for self-destructing land mines?

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

QUSTION: Okay.

MR. RUBIN: Any other questions on land mines.

QUSTION: On another subject?

MR. RUBIN: Yeah.

QUSTION: Do you have any comment on the Israeli decision to release about 30 percent of the appropriated tax funds which were being withheld?

MR. RUBIN: We welcome this decision. We believe this is a step in the right direction. As I spoke to the Secretary this morning, and I think she is comfortable with me saying to you today that we feel a little better today than we did yesterday about the prospects of getting the peace process back on track.

The fact is that we believe that there is now a process in place.

Palestinian and Israeli security officials met on Sunday night with U.S. Government participation and discussed a variety of security issues. We understand the Palestinians turned over information related to the explosive devices in the July 30 bombing of the Jerusalem market. This is a positive step. We're moving in the right direction. There's a lot more that needs to be done in order to re-establish the confidence on the part of the Israelis that the Palestinian Authority is doing all it can and should do to fight terrorism and to cooperate on the security area.

But there has been follow-through on the mechanism we established, and that's important. We want to see more progress and the more progress we have in that area, the greater the chance that we're going to be able to move forward on the tough political decisions.

QUSTION: But what kind of information did the Palestinians have about the types of bombs used?

MR. RUBIN: I do my best to try to get you enough. I push the edge of the envelope from our experts to try to get you something that's real. When I get to a level like that, they tell me I can't talk about it from here, so I can't talk about it.

QUSTION: And are you pressing the Israelis to release the other 70 percent?

MR. RUBIN: We have made clear that we do not believe that measures unrelated to security, such as the withholding of funds from the Palestinian Authority, is a wise step. We believe that that is counter-productive. We would like to see them lifted, and we have made that clear to the Israeli Government.

QUSTION: Jamie, I know that you say push the envelope.

But did they - can you tell us if the Palestinians discovered this evidence, this information, what they know about devices after the bombs went off and didn't know about it beforehand?

MR. RUBIN: In order to get into that question in any intelligent fashion, I need to talk on the basis of intelligence, which I can't do.

QUSTION: I know it's sort of intelligence. But the whole area is intelligence. And when the Secretary demands destruction of the infrastructure and Dennis works out some cooperative arrangement, the question is whether we are in a quid pro quo on both sides now. In other words - first of all, do you want - is it the State Department's position that the Israelis should release all the tax payments? Or is it all right with you that they make partial release in response to movement on security?

And secondly, how can the Palestinians discover this new information and not have had it before? Are they going to come clean on terrorism only to get something?

MR. RUBIN: Let me try to do the best I can with those questions, Barry. On the first question, we have made clear since the announcement was made that Israeli Government was going to withhold tax revenue from the Palestinian Authority that we thought that was not a wise move. We thought it was counter-productive.

We still believe it is counter-productive. Therefore, we think the money should be released.

Now, we think that that is not the best way to encourage cooperation.

But let's bear in mind the reality. The reality is that the Israeli Government has a different view, and the process that we have now helped put in place seems to be working -- that there is cooperation that Israeli Government believes is significant enough for it to choose, under its own policies, to release the 30 percent of the funds. We, as I said before, would like to have seen that money not taken in the first place - or not suspended in the first place.

So they must believe that progress has occurred. Again, at the end of the day, the progress is about not only the hard, cold reality of deterring and preventing terrorism, but the confidence that is created by security cooperation. I think it's fair to say that today we are better off than they were yesterday.

As far as your second question, I am sorry. I think you are going to have to repeat it.

QUSTION: Well, you know, if you can't answer it because of some intelligence consideration, there's no point beating on it. But I'm wondering if the Palestinians have discovered something new that they are willing to yield --

MR. RUBIN: Oh, yes --

QUSTION: -- in response for something from the Israelis?

Or have they been able to help the Israelis all along and didn't choose to help them?

MR. RUBIN: As I understand this information, and I am treading on some tricky territory here --

QUSTION: Right.

MR. RUBIN: -- what we are talking about is the investigation of what happened on July the 30th, not any --

QUSTION: On generic material.

MR. RUBIN: So the Palestinians, as you know, felt that in light of the steps that the Israelis had taken were reluctant to provide the cooperation that we had urged from this podium and that the Secretary had urged. But it is our understanding that information related to the explosive devices that went off and killed so many innocent people on July the 30th has now been exchanged and that signals a willingness on the part of the Palestinian Authority to provide the kind of information that the Israelis believe is the bare minimum needed to get the process moving.

QUSTION: But you can't rule out that they knew that information two weeks ago?

MR. RUBIN: After the bombing?

QUSTION: After the bombing but not - I mean, before Saturday, or whatever?

QUSTION: How could they have known about - anything about the bombing since the explosion since all the parts of the bomb are in the hands of the Israeli investigators?

MR. RUBIN: Again, to answer these questions - and I think if you look back and look at stories about investigation into bombs, you will see that the question is not just what material but who else has such material? Where does that material come from? Who is commonly the owner of such material?

So you could have a situation in which the Palestinian Authority wasn't in possession of the actual explosive material that was used in the bombing, but would have information related to the explosive material that might be useful.

QUSTION: Jamie?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUSTION: Would you say that since these funds have been sort of released to the Palestinians - even though it's not - it seems to be on an incremental basis - would you say that the Palestinians are moving down a path to a more aggressive cooperation on security now?

MR. RUBIN: What I would say is that we welcome the decision to release the funds. We welcome the fact that the process and the mechanism we put in place seems to at least be beginning to work. We think things are moving in the right direction, both in terms of Palestinian cooperation on security and the Israeli willingness to return some of the funds.

QUSTION: But security is not supposed to be dependent on - the Secretary said in her speech security should be paramount, no matter what's going on in the region.

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

QUSTION: And that the Palestinians need to focus on that.

But it seems as though since a little bit of the money is released, they're going to take a more aggressive approach on security.

MR. RUBIN: On the contrary, I think if you look at the situation, it's the Israeli decision to release the money that followed from the Palestinian Authority's decision to provide information and work through this mechanism. The Israeli position, I can assure you, is as ours - that there is no linkage between the two.

Yes, Sid.

QUSTION: Is there any truth that the Palestinians moved towards economic embargo on Israeli products?

MR. RUBIN: We think over the long term, that peace would best be achieved by commerce and economic interchange between the peoples of the region. We do not want to see a situation develop where the peace process gets to such a point that the basic elements that make peace viable - that is, improving the lives of the people - start to be affected.

We don't have a specific position on this decision other than to say that it obviously reflects the Palestinian concerns about the steps the Israelis have taken, and hopefully this whole issue will become moot in the coming days as the security cooperation increases.

QUSTION: (Inaudible) the fact that the Yemenis have withdrawn their observer ambassador from Israel in protest of what's going on with the peace process. There's indications that other countries that have established such a presence in Israel are going to do the same thing. They're supposed to - the Islamic nations are supposed to meet in the coming weeks to agree on a unified position about the economic conference in November. Can you comment on either of those?

MR. RUBIN: Well, Secretary Albright, as the able Nick Burns announced some weeks ago, is intending to lead the U.S. delegation to the Doha Summit. We believe that that summit and other multilateral activities of that kind are the way in which a future for the people in the region can be secured - a future that includes not just the absence of war, but the prosperity of peace.

So we would like to see that kind of conference take place. We would like to see the peace process get back on track sufficient for that kind of conference to be a success. As far as the question on the ambassadors is concerned, the Secretary was quite clear - we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East. One of the aspects of that crisis of confidence has been the break down in bilateral negotiations and the suspension of Israeli success in developing a more normal relationship with its neighbors. That's not something that we want to see happen. It's part of the reason that the crisis exists - is that there are actions and counter- actions by each of the parties. But if tomorrow is as good as today, as opposed to yesterday, we will be in a position where we're moving closer and closer to restoring the necessary pre-requisite - security cooperation - for the Secretary's trip to go forward in a way that can achieve movement towards re-establishing the political discussions, without which none of these subjects can successfully be achieved.

Yes.

QUSTION: New subject?

MR. RUBIN: One more.

QUSTION: One more in the Middle East.

MR. RUBIN: Yeah.

QUSTION: Have you seen the report that several rounds of artillery fire fell on the town of Sidon*. I think there were eight people killed.

MR. RUBIN: Yes, we've seen the reports of the fighting in Lebanon. What we can say about them is that we're tracking them very closely. We condemn these kind of attacks on civilians.

We urge the parties involved to go to - to act with maximum restraint and to not let civilians be the result of these military conflicts.

We want them to return to the April 1996 understanding. We hope there will be a meeting, and we think there will be a meeting of the monitoring group this week, which has been successful in the past in diffusing these kind of situations.

QUSTION: The Lebanese think that the artillery rounds originated in the area held - the Israeli-occupied part, which is mainly populated by the SLA. Does that track with what you have?

MR. RUBIN: We're still trying to determine the exact location, but it seems - repeat what you said.

QUSTION: The Israeli-occupied zone, but in a portion of that zone which is held by the SLA.

MR. RUBIN: I got in a lot of trouble last week when I made what seemed to me like an obvious point about something violating that agreement. Apparently it caused an extra two hours worth of negotiating in Lebanon for us to have pre-decided something that seemed obvious to anybody. So I'm going to duck that question.

Thank you.

One more on the Middle East, yeah.

QUSTION: There are some disturbing reports from the BBC wire service and also in The Washington Post about the increase of the popularity of an organization such like Hamas, and the disappointment of the Palestinians, especially in Gaza, with Arafat not delivering statehood and prosperity as promised by the Oslo and Madrid accords. Do you have any comment on this?

MR. RUBIN: Well, we want to emphasize that our objective is to see that the promotion of the economic well-being of the Palestinians is kept in mind. It's an unfortunate fact that economic hardships create a climate that extremist groups can exploit.

That group in particular is one that we do not believe is a supporter of the peace process, that we do believe is a terrorist organization.

So it can't be a good thing for peace for the opponents of peace to gain strength.

QUSTION: On that point, Chairman Arafat is getting ready to convene a meeting of all the Palestinian factions. And apparently he intends to invite both Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The Israelis aren't very happy about that. How do you all feel about that?

MR. RUBIN: We understand the need to try to keep the Palestinian people on the side of peace. We don't have a lot of detail on what that meeting is designed exactly to do. But we don't see that it can serve the cause of peace to have the enemies of peace there.

Yeah.

QUSTION: On Cyprus, I'm wondering that Mr. Holbrooke stated that he is not going to visit Greece, Cyprus and Turkey in the first days of September. Do you have anything on that?

MR. RUBIN: Well, it's the middle of August and I have not heard that he has an imminent trip planned. So if the question is not before September 1, that sounds about right to me, yes.

QUSTION: There's a story in The Washington Times about SS-23 Soviet missiles still being stationed in Bulgaria and Slovakia.

It quotes UN reports. My question is, can you tell us something more about the response of these governments to the U.S. request to destroy these missiles? And are you confident they will be destroyed? And will the response of Slovakia and Bulgaria have any bearing on the application to join NATO?

MR. RUBIN: Missile non-proliferation is a top priority of this Administration. As that reporting indicated, we pursue energetically many different ways to reduce the threat of proliferation.

We believe that the kind of missiles involved here are missiles in the so- called Category I missiles, under the MTCR. We believe they're inherently capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction.

So we have discussed with a number of foreign governments - including Bulgaria and Slovakia - the importance of eliminating such missiles.

These discussions have been conducted as part of our normal bilateral security and non-proliferation dialogues. We think these kind of steps we've taken in the past have resulted in success in other cases like Hungary and Argentina and elsewhere.

I'm not in a position to state the responses of these governments, and that's - I welcome you talking to those governments and seeing what they say about it. But from our standpoint, this is an action we're taking with friendly governments. We're prepared to be of assistance in trying to destroy these systems that have this inherent capability. So you'll have to get from them what their view of it is.

QUSTION: But the Bulgarian Government initially has not been very friendly. They've rejected it as an interference in their national sovereignty. So where do we go from here?

MR. RUBIN: We have worked successfully in the past with many different governments in trying to stop nonproliferation.

Sometimes the first word is not the last word.

Yes.

QUSTION: Korea?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUSTION: There is a groundbreaking ceremony in North Korea to begin construction of a light water nuclear reactor. Can I assume from this event that the United States and its allies in KEDO are satisfied that North Korea is living up to the agreed framework? Particularly in regard to the destruction of spent fuel?

MR. RUBIN: We believe that tomorrow's ceremony is an important milestone in our efforts to achieve the de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We have worked closely with Japan and South Korea on this for a long time. We think that it increases the chances that North Korea's nuclear program will stay frozen and ultimately be dismantled. This ceremony is occurring against a backdrop of major progress and significant progress in the other areas of the agreed framework.

North Korea continues to maintain the freeze on its nuclear facilities -- that freeze is monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency -- and is nearing completion of a project with the United States to safely store its spent nuclear fuel, which would otherwise be available for the production of weapons-grade plutonium. In short, this bargain that we struck with North Korea is working.

We have stopped the possibility of a major nuclear program breaking out in the dangerous Korean Peninsula.

The groundbreaking for the light water reactor is a milestone in that effort. However, I would remind you that the key components to make those reactors work - the key nuclear components are not going to be provided until we believe that North Korea has come into full compliance with the safeguard agreements with the International Atomic Energy (Agency). In short, that it has resolved or sought to resolve the discrepancy that has existed between what they have done in the past and what the IAEA thinks they might have done. That is the trigger for them to be able to have the components that would make these light water reactors functional. Those key components will not be delivered for some number of years as this project moves forward.

During that time we hope we will be as successful on these other areas of compliance as we have been on the freeze and on the canning of the spent fuel.

Yes.

QUSTION: On that topic.

QUSTION: Go ahead.

QUSTION: Since the Secretary asked Brunei and the other ASEAN nations to contribute to KEDO has there been any money forthcoming?

MR. RUBIN: I will have to get an answer for you on that.

Can we get a formal answer to new KEDO contributions since the Secretary's trip?

Yes.

QUSTION: Can we move to the Balkans?

MR. RUBIN: Any more on North Korea?

QUSTION: Is this strictly a bilateral ceremony? Will the U.S. be involved in any way?

MR. RUBIN: I believe it's - KEDO is an international organization that includes many other countries besides the United States, so I would expect those countries in addition to the North Koreans to participate in some way. But we can get you the details of who is in and who is out.

Yes.

QUSTION: I was wondering if there has been any additional information concerning the stand-off yesterday in Banja Luka and reports that the UN claims to have found evidence of human rights abuses, as well as some information that the constitutional court ruling on Friday was rigged?

MR. RUBIN: Was?

QUSTION: Any evidence - was rigged? That the --

MR. RUBIN: Right. I do not have new information on those last two points. I can say that we understand that the SFOR troops did intervene, that a confrontation had developed between police loyal to the elected government and they were taking action to investigate reports that evidence was found that Mrs. Plavsic's telephone communications were being tapped by forces loyal to Pale. We believe that any of the acts of violence and intimidation surrounding this incident or the attack on a judge who was involved in the court ruling are outrageous and that they only demonstrate that were are still some people in this part of the world who haven't got it yet -- that as long as they continue to pursue these tactics, they and the people they claim to represent are going to suffer.

So we reject the decision of the court. We agree with the High Representative Westendorp that her action was clearly legal and that the constitutional court was subjected to intimidation and politicization, including the beating of a justice in that police station indicates. So there are still a lot of problems in that part of the world. But we believe that Mrs. Plavsic, the elected president of the Bosnian Serb Republic, is making clear that she is on the side of those who want Dayton implemented. She is on the side of those who want prosperity and a return to Europe for their people. The opponents of that, the people who are conducting these kind of attacks and using violence against judges who are trying to bring some semblance of a rule of law to Bosnia, should be rejected.

QUSTION: Do you know yet if Ambassador Gelbard is to meet with Mrs. Plavsic? Or if you have any more of his itinerary?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, he is in Sarajevo today. He has planned meetings with General Shinseki, the commander of SFOR, with the High Representative Westendorp, with the - I forget what this gentleman - the person in Brcko, I think he's called the mediator, or the adjudicator or one of those two names, his name is Ambassador Farrand, and with the Joint Presidency - President Izetbegovic, President Zubak, President Krajisnik.

On Tuesday, he will attend the dedication of the memorial for the three American diplomats who died on Mount Igman. On Wednesday he will travel to Banja Luka to meet with President Plavsic and attend a meeting of the Federation Forum at the presidency in Sarajevo.

Same subject, any more?

QUSTION: Cyprus?

MR. RUBIN: Cyprus, I think we did that. Let's go to - yes.

QUSTION: Mexico.

QUSTION: One more.

MR. RUBIN: Okay, we will do one more. Sure.

QUSTION: One question. Over the weekend, Turks and Greeks exchanged accusations over what they perceived to be a failure in Cyprus talks. Last week we were told that the State Department found these talks useful. Do you have a new assessment with the hindsight now?

MR. RUBIN: We still believe the talks are useful. Talking is good. We want to see the talks resume at the appropriate time.

We expect an assessment on the talks from the special representative to the Security Council later in the week.

Yes.

QUSTION: Besides the cooperation of Mexico and the United States on the war of drugs, in the last few weeks, Mexico has been - there has been an increased violence related to the narco-traffic.

Last Saturday was killed the brother of the treasury minister of Mexico. The State Department has really believed that the government of Mexico is working hard trying to arrest at least the narco-traffickers that have been named in these assassinations - political assassinations. And still the military involved in this war in Mexico has been full of reports about corruption inside of the military. Does the United States trust the military fight in Mexico against narco-traffic?

MR. RUBIN: We trust the intentions of President Zedillo to cooperate with the United States in its fight, our joint fight against drugs. President Clinton made his certification on the basis of his conclusion that President Zedillo is determined to do so. There are a lot of problems in the Mexican system and many different institutions. I am not going to detail them all from here. They have been done in the past by our officials who work on drug issues.

There is not a new, major assessment that I'm aware of that one institution is better or worse than it was last week, last month, six months ago; other than to say there are problems in the institutions in Mexico that we are going to work with President Zedillo to help fix.

Yes.

QUSTION: Question on China. The ECD report - without mentioning --

MR. RUBIN: I'm glad you asked that question. This is going to be fun.

QUSTION: Well, without mentioning the State Department's favorite reporter, Bill Gertz, could you comment on whether China's commitment to not sell nuclear arms technology to Pakistan - are you satisfied with their commitment to this and the measures they've taken to prevent arms sales? Do you believe they've continued to sell arms? In 1995 the State Department would not institute sanctions against China because it did not believe that the PRC actually had anything to do with these arms sales. Do you have a different position on that now?

MR. RUBIN: Lee, do you have that report for me?

MR. MCLENNY: No, I don't. I'm sorry.

MR. RUBIN: Oh, well, there was a story in Saturday's Washington Times that fundamentally misquoted an ACDA report and completely got it 180 degrees wrong. The reporter is not someone I have a view on one way or the other, I'm just starting to learn about him.

(Laughter.)

But clearly in this case, he made a boo-boo. The report says that our current information does not provide a basis for concluding that China has acted inconsistently with that statement - that statement being not providing assistance to un-safeguarded reactors.

So he wrote the opposite. He wrote that the report says that we have information does not provide a basis for concluding that China has acted consistently with that statement; meaning that we couldn't prove they were living up to it.

The document in question says that - and I wanted to read this because I thought this was so much fun. Page 90 - "on May 11, 1996, China stated that it would provide no assistance to un-safeguarded nuclear facilities. Our current information does not provide a basis for concluding that China has acted inconsistently with that statement." In other words, we believe that China has taken no actions that we have been able to confirm to violate the commitment it's made on May 11 of 1996.

That does not mean, however, that we are fully comfortable with this whole area. We've received a number of reports, disturbing reports, in recent weeks and months. We are always looking into those reports, because the matter of nuclear proliferation or missile proliferation is a matter of highest possible concern to the Secretary and to the President.

But at this point, our view - unlike the view quoted and attributed to the United States Government - is that we believe that China has taken no action to violate that commitment.

QUSTION: Jamie, can I follow up on that?

MR. RUBIN: Yeah, one more.

QUSTION: In 1995, there was the case of two ACD imports.

I mean, there are drafts of this report that gets massaged along the way. Could there be some fire where there is smoke, in this case? Has some massaging of terminology here --

MR. RUBIN: It is our view, and we work this very, very carefully to make sure a position of the United States Government on a matter of this importance is carefully stated. That's why we were troubled by the misstatement by 180 degrees in the newspaper.

We do not believe that China has taken actions to violate the commitment it made on May 11th.

One more on China, yes.

QUSTION: Jamie, in The Washington Times this morning, there's a report that amplifies previous reports that the Panama ports of Balboa and Cristobal - primary ports to service the Panama Canal - have been leased by the Hutchinson-Lampoa Corporation, which is very closely tied to the PRC, especially the PLA.

The United States is pulling out of Panama, according to the treaty, and leaving a military as well as a political vacuum there. My question is, why doesn't the U.S. take the Panamanians up on some of these lease offers to retain a presence to counter the potential --

MR. RUBIN: We're working with the Panamanians on many aspects of the departure of American forces and implementation of the Panama Canal treaties. I would tell you that both we and the Panamanian Government, pursuant to those treaties, intend to ensure that the Canal is open for passage. So none of the activities that may or may not be going on there is going to affect our national security.

We have been working with the Panamanians in a variety of fora - talking about different ways we can cooperate on matters like drugs and other activities. At this point, all I can say is that we do not believe that the report you are referring to casts any doubt or any concern with regard to us being able to use the Canal.

QUSTION: Would you deny, though, Jamie, that the PRC is in various ways getting its hooks, business wise, into the Panamanian economy and into the government? Is there a threat there of PRC -- ?

MR. RUBIN: If I'm not mistaken, the PRC at various times has had a lot of trouble with the Panamanian Government with regard to its relations with other entities like Taiwan. So I am not really all that concerned that there is some new military alliance that is going to emerge between those two countries that will affect American security.

One more. Yes.

QUSTION: Argentina?

MR. RUBIN: Argentina. Let's do Argentina.

QUSTION: I just wondered if there had been any formal request from the Argentinean side to get the United States involved in a mediation effort with the Falklands?

MR. RUBIN: During that meeting we discussed the issue.

We have made clear that we want the two to work it out together, and we would involve ourselves only if the request was made. There was no such request at this time.

Yes, one more question. Yes.

QUSTION: My question about Armenia and the Azerbaijan conflict. On the first of September, presidential elections are scheduled to take place in the so-called Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh.

What is the State Department position on the conduct of the this election?

MR. RUBIN: I'd like to get you a very detailed answer to that to avoid - I know that conflict is one where a word here or a word there can cause a lot of concern amongst a lot of people.

So I don't want to make a mistake on the words, other than to say that we would like to see a peaceful resolution of this dispute.

Thank you.

QUSTION: Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:28 P.M.)


U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
Back to Top
Copyright © 1995-2023 HR-Net (Hellenic Resources Network). An HRI Project.
All Rights Reserved.

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.01a run on Monday, 18 August 1997 - 22:04:42 UTC