U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #137, 97-09-18
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
828
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Thursday, September 18, 1997
Briefer:an James P. Rubin
DEPARTMENT/STATEMENTS
1 Shooting Incident in Albanian Parliament
1 Political Impasse in Cameroon
1 Helicopter Crash in Bosnia
12-13 Secretary Albright's Schedule at the UN General Assembly
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
1-5 Resolution of Situation with Settlers at Ras Al-Amoud
Housing Project in East Jerusalem
CHINA
5-7 Possible Certification of China Under the Peaceful Nuclear
Cooperation Agreement
7-8 Update on Return of Sun Microsystems Supercomputer
NATO ENLARGEMENT
8 Sen. Helms' Letter to the Secretary on NATO Enlargement
8-9 Update on the Cost of Enlargement
9-10 Extent of NATO-Russia Cooperation and First Meeting of
Permanent Joint Council During UN General Assembly
9-11 Secretary Albright Meeting with Secretary General Solana
NORTH KOREA
11 Frozen Assets
ARMS CONTROL
11 US Policy on a Landmine Ban
CYPRUS
12 Amb. Holbrooke Travel Plans
GREECE/TURKEY
12 Possibility of Foreign Ministers Pangalos and Cem Meeting
at UN General Assembly About Resolution of Disputed
Islands
PANAMA
13-14 Negotiations on Multilateral Counter-narcotics Center
MEXICO
14 Execution in Virginia of Mexican Citizen Murphy
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #137
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1997, 12:40 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Greetings. We have a statement today on Albania, on the
shooting in the parliament there. We have a statement on the impasse in
Cameroon. Those will both be posted.
Let me start by saying, on behalf of Secretary Albright, that yesterday we
were painfully reminded of the danger that brave Americans who dedicate
their lives to peace in Bosnia face. The crash that took the lives of five
Americans and seven international peacekeepers has left us saddened and
stunned.
Secretary Albright's sympathy goes out to the families of those outstanding
and courageous individuals who were tragically taken before their time. In
their memory and honor, let us work, in her view, harder to continue their
mission of peace and not let their mission fail. And we will not let their
mission fail.
The names have been put out by the White House. It's my understanding that
Ambassador Gelbard will be going to the region to return with the bodies,
and he may have some more information on that later this afternoon.
Questions. Yes. I don't know what to do. How about Sid.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about the apparent settlement in
Israel over the housing?
MR. RUBIN: The Israeli Government has informed us - your friend, Mr.
Moskowitz. The Israeli Government informed us that it has reached the
following solution to the Ras Al-Amoud situation.
The three families that were occupying the house will leave no later than
tomorrow. They will not be replaced by other families. A few people will
stay in the building to maintain it. There will be no new construction at
this site, and no movement to create a new neighborhood.
Prime Minister Netanyahu's intent, as we understand it, in reaching this
solution was that the result represent no change in the status quo which
existed prior to the move-in by the three settler families.
The Secretary regards it as good news that the families are moving out.
That is what is important. The act which provoked the negative reaction,
which could have been a lightening rod, has now been reversed. The families
are out, and they will not be replaced by other families.
Equally important is the fact that there will be no further construction on
the site, and no movement toward creating a new neighborhood. We hope and
expect that the status quo will not change.
Let me also be clear - any future developments which might alter the status
quo at the site would only recreate the lightening rod for increased
tensions, which we criticized yesterday. Such moves would be clearly
detrimental to the peace process and thus harmful to Israeli interests.
QUESTION: Does that include the adjacent side, as well?
MR. RUBIN: As I understand it, the only site that was occupied that will
now not be occupied is that one site. But I can check. It's a very
complicated situation, with regard to where the loan came from and who paid
off the loan and who actually owns the building. I don't think we are going
to be able to answer every one of your questions about it. But the news
that we have is that it was settled as I suggested.
QUESTION: But was the original - I wasn't here yesterday. Did you - do
you hold the Israeli Government accountable for what happened, or was it a
private action?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I know your colleague was here yesterday.
QUESTION: He's off today. We're taking turns.
MR. RUBIN: Yes. I guess you were getting your hair cut.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. RUBIN: Yesterday, I said that we believed that the Prime Minister
intended - and as I said today - that this not go forward and that was
seeking a solution which would not change the status quo. The fact that
this has now been resolved the way it's been resolved is good news to the
extent that the families are moving out. But we hope and expect that
nothing that happens in the coming days and weeks will have the effect of
changing the status quo.
I believe yesterday I said that we were pleased that Prime Minister
Netanyahu saw, like we saw, this kind of a move as something that shouldn't
go forward, that could interfere with the trust and confidence that the
Secretary had been trying to rebuild. Frankly, in that regard, you know, we
have seen some steps in recent days. We saw the release of some of the
money. We saw the easing up of some of the closure. We've seen, at least
from the Israeli side, indications that they believe that Chairman Arafat
and the Palestinian Authority are moving in the right direction in
the fight against terrorism. We still have a long way to go, and they
are working on how to implement a comprehensive plan to that effect.
QUESTION: So you don't hold them accountable for what happened. In fact,
you think he was weighing in the way you'd like him to weigh in and moving
in. And so far as now reversing that, you credit the Israeli Government
with accomplishing that, do you?
MR. RUBIN: Well, again, we'll have to see how this plays out.
QUESTION: As it plays out.
MR. RUBIN: If there is no reversal of the status quo, then the cause that
could have led to a provocative or a lightening rod reaction on the part of
the Palestinians will have been prevented. But for now, we understand that
it was Prime Minister Netanyahu's intent that this result not change the
status quo; and that is our view, as well.
QUESTION: Have you heard from the Palestinian side? Did they find this as
an acceptable solution?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I've heard news reports that they don't, but you'll have
to wait and get an official response from them. We have not heard from them
directly.
QUESTION: Are you in touch with the Palestinians on this issue?
MR. RUBIN: We're always in touch with the parties on these matters, but
for now we have been working most closely with the Israeli Government to
try to get an outcome as close to our view as possible. We are pleased to
the extent that the settlers are out, but we hope and expect that nothing
will happen in the days and weeks ahead that will have the effect of
reversing the status quo.
QUESTION: Are they settlers to the US Government? You consider them
settlers?
MR. RUBIN: That doesn't mean we consider --
QUESTION: You used the word settlers. I'm giving you a chance to say
whether you meant what you said.
MR. RUBIN: Settlers in a housing project, yes.
QUESTION: You know what settlers means.
MR. RUBIN: I was not --
QUESTION: In Middle East vocabulary --
MR. RUBIN: Barry --
QUESTION: -- vernacular, were they settlers or are they just simply Jews
moving into new homes?
MR. RUBIN: Do you think it would be a good idea for you to take more or
less days off?
QUESTION: Look, Jamie, half the press calls them settlers, and the other
half doesn't. And the heck with what the press does. There are certain
rules for settlers and certain rules for Jerusalem.
MR. RUBIN: All right. People can settle in housing projects.
QUESTION: Are these people settlers?
MR. RUBIN: The people who are in the - we do not regard this, as you know,
the word that I'm not going to use. You can settle in a house. You can
settle in an apartment building. You can settle in a housing project. Or
you can settle in something larger than that.
QUESTION: Does this bear on any restrictions there might be that the
parties have agreed to, regarding settlements?
MR. RUBIN: What this bears on is the kind of issue that can undermine
trust and confidence.
QUESTION: So it's not a legal issue, it's a spiritual issue.
MR. RUBIN: I'm not sure we're making any progress here.
QUESTION: We are making progress, because now you've gotten off
settlers.
MR. RUBIN: Okay, if you think we've made progress, I'll take that as a --
QUESTION: I'm just asking you to define your terms, because it's a tricky
but very significant distinction.
MR. RUBIN: I agree, and I did not use the word that would have made it a
problem.
Yes.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on Jim's question?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: I mean, a Palestinian advisor to Arafat is quoted as calling
this deal a trick. What makes you confident that this will go down with the
Palestinian side?
MR. RUBIN: Well, again, we're not confident that it will be fully
accepted by all Palestinians. What I've said - and what I've tried to say -
is that we think that Prime Minister Netanyahu's intent in reaching this
solution is that the result not represent a change in the status quo.
If there is no change in the status quo, we hope that the lightening rod
effect of this possible moving of people into a housing project would be
alleviated. So we'll have to see how they react. We'll have to see how the
solution is implemented over time. But for now, we're pleased that the
government was able to come up with a solution that avoided changing the
status quo.
QUESTION: They're turning it into a religious - a Jewish center. Do you
think that isn't a way to still create a lightening rod?
MR. RUBIN: That's not my understanding. I believe that it was an
incorrect report. Our understanding is that those who will be in the house
will be there in a caretaker status only.
QUESTION: And will they be Jews or Palestinians or - the caretakers?
MR. RUBIN: I suspect - I don't know who exactly was going to be there,
but I think we could all guess their religious identification.
Yes.
QUESTION: Can you be anymore forthcoming on the Secretary's involvement
in talking to either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister than you
were yesterday, about the outcome of this? Just in terms of --
MR. RUBIN: We've been in very close touch with the Israeli Government,
and I'm still not in a position to report any specific contact, other than
to say that I think the Israeli Government was well aware of our views at
very high levels.
QUESTION: Has there been any contact of Dr. Moskowitz?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say this - Secretary Albright has worked very hard in
the Middle East the last week. Those of you who were on the trip know that
it was an exhausting trip. She worked very hard to see whether there were
ways to rebuild trust and confidence on both parties.
Certainly, as the U.S. Government and she and the President are working to
do that, we think it's irresponsible for others to take actions that have
the effect of undermining that. As far as any direct contact with that
gentleman is concerned, I'm not aware of any.
QUESTION: On China, has the Administration told Congress that it is
preparing to certify, under the '85 Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreement?
MR. RUBIN: I think that sounds pretty premature to me. I think there have
been discussions on the Hill of the current state of play in our effort to
work with the Chinese to achieve the standard Congress has set out -- which
again is not assisting non-nuclear weapon states to become nuclear weapon
states. We are looking for clear and unequivocal assurances that they
are doing so.
We have been working for two years on his project. There are some areas
where we've seen movement. The Chinese, as you know, in May 1996, agreed to
a binding statement not to provide assistance to unsafeguarded nuclear
reactors. They have put forward internal controls. On September 10, they
issued a nationwide export control system which we are studying. Earlier
this year, in May of 1997, they issued a directive to government ministries
and non-government entities providing guidance on what can and can't be
transferred.
In the multilateral area, they told Secretary Albright -- the Chinese
Government has told us through Secretary Albright -- in Kuala Lumpur that
they will join the Zangger Committee -- the NPT nuclear suppliers committee
-- and they will attend the first meeting of that on October 16 in
Vienna.
In addition, throughout our conversations with the Chinese on nonproliferation,
we have made clear to them that even though Iran does have safeguarded
facilities, it is a country that poses such a great danger that all nuclear
suppliers should refrain from providing assistance to Iran. That is a
subject where we think they are taking our concerns very seriously, and I
suspect it will come up in greater detail next Tuesday in New York,
when the Secretary meets Foreign Minister Qian Qichen.
So the short answer to your question is, I think that we haven't made that
kind of a determination, nor have, to my knowledge, we signaled that we
intend to make that kind of a determination. However, we have been working
this problem very hard, and we have seen some signs of substantial progress
that I just mentioned to you. When we're in a position to make that
certification -- which hopefully we will, because that will signal a
significant movement, a breakthrough in our relationship with the
Chinese on nonproliferation -- we will let you know. But I don't believe
we've reached that threshold yet.
QUESTION: A couple of questions on that. Percentage-wise, could you sort
of estimate how close you are to achieving the PNC? Some people say 60
percent. Is it that close? When you say substantial progress, can you
quantify it?
MR. RUBIN: Well, you know, I asked that question, and they were resisting
mightily any numerical analysis. Although I can say this, if you look at
the words we use over time, the word significant is a word we sometimes
use; substantial is a word we sometimes use. I think substantial is more
than significant.
QUESTION: So there is a chance that the PNC certification could be the
centerpiece of the summit?
MR. RUBIN: That would be our hope. As far as the centerpiece of the
summit, that would be an editorial comment. I mean, from our perspective,
we have three major areas we're trying to pursue with the Chinese
Government where we're seeking progress -- trade, human rights, and
nonproliferation. If, indeed, we are able to make additional progress in
this area and able to make that certification, it would certainly be a
substantial component of the summit.
QUESTION: On export regulations. I mean, you've been working this issue
for a long time, and I'm just curious as to why you haven't come to some
conclusion yet as to how effective you think the ones that they published
are. Do they cover dual-use items?
MR. RUBIN: I will try to get you some specific answers to those
questions. It is very hard to judge export control mechanisms in countries
like China because of their combined state and para-statal and non-state
entities. So you try, you know, after examining them very carefully, to see
whether you think it meets standards in countries where you know how to
make that measurement, like Western Europe. We have not reached that
conclusion yet. I am advised by our experts that we're still studying them.
Maybe as the days and weeks go by and we see what effect they have,
then we'll be in a better position to judge their value.
QUESTION: But how could the President certify that China is complying
with the requirements that it must comply with if all they've done so far
is publish these regulations and there isn't a track record to prove that
they are, in fact, implementing them in a way that's effective?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I will get you a copy of the relevant laws. There are a
lot of them, and there are a lot of different words that are used. But I
asked them to summarize for me what the basic standard is. The standard is
that they are not assisting non-nuclear weapon states to become nuclear
weapon states and that we have "clear and unequivocal assurances" to
that effect.
That is the standard, and we have to make that judgment. It's a tough call.
If these were easy to make, you wouldn't be hearing so much about them; you
would just make the decision. It's not going to be an easy decision to
make. You have to take into account all the relevant factors and come to a
judgment as to whether the assurances are clear, are they unequivocal,
whether the effect of all this is that they really aren't going to be
assisting non-nuclear weapons states.
We certainly believe that since May 1996, they have followed through on
their commitment not to provide assistance to unsafeguarded reactors. But
there are other components to this that I went through with you. So one can
make judgments, but they're not easy to make and I don't know that I can
give you any more thinking behind what will go into that decision when it
comes.
QUESTION: Just one other sort of related question. The other day the
State Department reacted positively to the fact that China had told you it
would return the supercomputer to Sun Microsystems because it had been
illegally diverted and they were caught in the act. I've since learned that
apparently this computer doesn't have to leave China at all, and that Sun
Microsystems could, in fact, decide to give it to some other Chinese
commercial enterprise. And I just wondered - if that were to happen,
China would - it's a win-win situation for China. They get the public
relations benefit of supposedly giving up something they diverted and yet
they could keep it anyway.
I'm wondering how you can argue that that's an assurance that they are
willing to play by the rules.
MR. RUBIN: Again, at the risk of making a mistake here, I was out of town
when that happened. It's my understanding that the issue is whether the
supercomputer was diverted to a purpose that it was not originally intended
for.
So the issue is not whether there can be computers sent to China, but
whether their use is consistent with their intended use. So you could still
have it used for its intended purpose and not be violating the purpose of
preventing it from being diverted for its non-intended use.
QUESTION: Can I try you on Helms' letter to the Secretary today?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Giving conditional support to NATO expansion.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: But you know how he is - he likes to know certain things, like
why you're expanding NATO, what's the threat, will the allies pay their
fair share? He had about ten questions, and inviting her to kick off the
hearings on October 7th. Are you ready with any response on any of those
things you can tell us about?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I suspect the forum for discussing the Senator's
questions will be the Senator's hearing. But I can say that we welcome
Senator Helms' expression of support for NATO enlargement in his letter. We
are pleased that he has decided to support NATO conditionally on these
questions being answered, and his view that this is a worthwhile endeavor.
We look forward to further discussion of NATO enlargement with Senator
Helms, addressing his concerns on the issues in the coming days and weeks.
I suspect the place where all those specific issues will be hashed out will
be at the hearing on October the 7th, I believe it is.
QUESTION: Yeah, it's the 7th. Is there any upgrading of that lowball
figure the Pentagon gives for the cost of NATO expansion? The figure that
nobody finds credible. Can you give us the latest figure, because now you
know the three countries - those figures were based partly on some alleged
uncertainty who you would be taking in. You now know who you plan to take
in, so do you have - if you don't have it here, fine.
MR. RUBIN: I don't have a number, and I'll try to get it for you. I know
that those numbers were ballpark numbers to begin with.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. RUBIN: I can tell you on the subject, however, that Secretary General
Solana was here; that he met with Secretary Albright for roughly a half an
hour - or I guess about 45 minutes this morning. They talked about the full
agenda the alliance has this fall, including the beginning of accession
talks with Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. They discussed the NATO-
Russia subject, NATO-Ukraine, the development of the Euro-Atlantic
Partnership Council.
They also discussed the fact that the Alliance has begun initial accession
talks with the three countries invited at the Madrid Summit. Those talks
should continue through October. We expect NATO will sign the accession
protocols at the December North Atlantic Council ministerial and will hold
detailed discussions on issues such as military preparedness.
They also agreed that next Friday, September 26, in New York, NATO and
Russia will meet in the first ministerial meeting of the NATO-Russia
permanent joint council. They talked about the agenda for that meeting,
which will include Bosnia, next steps in the NATO-Russia relationship,
peacekeeping, and other practical cooperation between NATO and Russia.
QUESTION: I guess you should mention that because the one last question I
had for you maybe doesn't require a whole lot of - doesn't have to wait
until October 7. One of his points -- he's concerned about the extent of
Russian involvement in NATO deliberations. Do you have a flat, unqualified
statement to make on that?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Because here we go. Here is Russian involvement, beginning
Friday.
MR. RUBIN: Again --
QUESTION: Not beginning, but on Friday.
MR. RUBIN: Right. And that council is designed to be a consultative
mechanism by which Russian concerns can be taken into account and thought
about and discussed, and matters of European security. But none of that
interferes with the sanctity of the North Atlantic Council's decision-
making process.
For those of you who lived through the Bosnia experience with us here, you
know that there was a model in which NATO and Russia discussed matters
relating to Bosnia. They tried to agree on things related to Bosnia. But at
the end of the day, if the 16 members of the North Atlantic Council felt a
decision needed to be taken, they took that decision.
So the model that was created in Bosnia is one that will hold in this new
NATO-Russia joint council; and that is that the sanctity and the decision-
making power of the North Atlantic Council, the 16, will not be diluted or
affected in any way. That doesn't mean that the Russian views won't be
known, but frankly, in the current circumstances, even without such a
council, the 16 members are often quite aware of Russia's views on a
subject. But that doesn't mean that Russia will have a veto or a decision-
making role in the North Atlantic Council's decisions.
QUESTION: The concern is sort of the mirror image of that. The concern is,
hypothetically - but not entirely hypothetically - suppose the U.S. and its
allies thought certain military action should be taken to correct a
situation, to change a situation. You would have to share that information
with Russia, presumably, if you have this consultation; and Russia is not
an ally.
MR. RUBIN: Well, again, I used the Bosnia example for very good reason.
It's a pretty good model.
QUESTION: It is.
MR. RUBIN: Because there was a time when military decisions were being
contemplated by the North Atlantic Council where Russia had concerns about
the subject. And I remember times at which Russia felt that, being not a
member of the North Atlantic Council, they were not privy to certain
military facts. These decisions about the extent to which one preconsults
with Russia are ones that are going to be made on a case-by-case basis.
But in Bosnia, we had a case where NATO used force and Russia was informed
about certain aspects of it and not informed about other aspects of
it.
QUESTION: -- did affect the action in any substantive way, significant
way.
MR. RUBIN: Correct, so that is the model that shows that it can
work.
Yes.
QUESTION: Korea talks -- can you give us a --
QUESTION: Stay on NATO.
MR. RUBIN: Let's just stay one more on NATO.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary and Solana discuss the latest Turkish
decision, which they, Turkey, withdraw from the latest NATO military
exercise?
MR. RUBIN: If they did, it was brief, because it wasn't included in the
read-out I got from her about the meeting. So I'm not ruling out that it
was touched upon, but it certainly wasn't the central focus of the
discussion or even a secondary focus.
QUESTION: How about the Aegean problem?
MR. RUBIN: Again, they focused primarily on NATO enlargement. On Bosnia,
they discussed the municipal elections, the next steps in SFOR, and things
of that nature.
Yes.
QUESTION: Can you give us an update on the Korea talks?
MR. RUBIN: I don't think I have much new on Korea. They're just supposed
to start today and we don't have a read-out yet on what happened.
I can provide you with answers to the questions I didn't have yesterday on
the assets, but I think that's probably overtaken by events.
QUESTION: Do you have a dollar figure?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, I do have a dollar figure for you. Now, be careful about
that dollar figure, because some day we may end up playing from the podium,
Barry, and that would not look good.
The Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control currently
holds approximately $14 million in North Korean assets.
QUESTION: Could we have an agreement that if the policy on land mines
changes, you'll volunteer it; we don't have to ask every day?
(Laughter)
Because I'd hate to be taken by surprise, you know. It's changed twice, and
you've had the duty of explaining it each time. I don't want to make you go
through this every time, you know.
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think that this --
QUESTION: You think this is it for a while now?
MR. RUBIN: Yesterday President Clinton made a tough call, and that's why
he was elected President. That is to withstand the pressure of the rest of
the world, who participated in Oslo, trying to push for us to agree to
provisions that we thought would harm our ability to conduct our global
responsibilities. I'm not aware there's any serious review going on about
any of those decisions. So if there's not a serious review, hopefully that
means there won't be the kind of discussion that might lead me to not
have informed you in advance about a change in negotiating posture..
QUESTION: Okay. Then I'll ask a Holbrooke question. When does he go to
Cyprus; do we know yet?
MR. RUBIN: I can't believe that Barry beat you to the Cyprus question.
That's pretty impressive.
QUESTION: We got such a strong feel for the story by being in the airport
lounge, you know.
(Laughter)
QUESTION: When is he going to - when will he be weighing in? Or is there
some - honestly, is there some change in the original notion? It wasn't a
full-time job, but is there any change? I mean, is more being assigned now
to the special assistant?
MR. RUBIN: Although you did only get an airport hangar or tarmac
discussion of Cyprus, it's my understanding that Ambassador Holbrooke was
in regular telephone contact throughout Tom Miller's negotiating exercise
that led to these discussions or agreement to have these discussions. He
certainly called me, and I spoke to him several times about that event. So
he's engaged. As far as his travel plans are concerned, I don't have
anything new for you.
QUESTION: Another question.
MR. RUBIN: On Cyprus, yes.
QUESTION: Alas, I don't have anything on Cyprus. I have a different
question. Did the US ever ask the mediation of Greece to get in touch with
Serbia during the civil war in the former Yugoslavia? According to today's
Los Angeles Times, an individual named Larry Wallace was involved to this
effect and even passed some information to the Department of State.
MR. RUBIN: I don't have any information on that.
QUESTION: Any comment on reports that Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright is pressing for a meeting between the foreign ministers of Greece
and Turkey - Pangalos and Cem -- with her participation, in New York City,
on Imia issue?
MR. RUBIN: I know that Secretary Albright was pleased about the efforts
that she made in Madrid to try to establish these principles that were a
step forward. And I certainly know that she would like to see improvement
in that relationship and resolution of the issues like the one you
mentioned. Whether there is enough movement or resolution to justify a
meeting of that kind, it's premature for me to say. But I think we would
always like to be in a position to have a meeting between two allies and be
able to have them resolve issues between them.
QUESTION: Jamie, apparently yesterday you said the schedule wasn't ready,
but can you give us just the rough high points of at least her first week
in the UN?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. I will tell you --
QUESTION: I know you have Israelis and Syrians and Palestinians and maybe
even Lebanese coming. So, you know, which are the days and --
MR. RUBIN: You're on a roll today.
QUESTION: Well, you know, I know all these things are thrown together in
the last five seconds -- like the move into Lebanon, which involved about
six million people, except the press.
(Laughter)
Can you give us some idea? The Chinese are Tuesday, the President is
Monday. I mean, surely she has a vague idea who she's seeing Wednesday and
Thursday. Would you share it with us so we can make plans?
(Laughter)
QUESTION: You know, we really don't believe this stuff comes together a
minute before you get on an airplane.
MR. RUBIN: Right.
QUESTION: We really don't.
MR. RUBIN: We're getting on the airplane on Sunday.
QUESTION: Good.
MR. RUBIN: Today is Thursday. I will endeavor, by tomorrow, to give you
something resembling a concrete schedule, to outline week one of Secretary
Albright's time in New York.
QUESTION: Great.
MR. RUBIN: Thank you. One more? Sure.
QUESTION: On Panama, what you can tell us about the negotiations with
Panama on the anti-narcotics multilateral center that is taking place?
MR. RUBIN: A Panamanian delegation headed by Dr. Jorge Ritter, arrived in
Washington yesterday to continue our talks on creating the MCC in Panama.
They will be meeting with the U.S. delegation, headed by Ambassador Thomas
McNamera. The talks are scheduled for today and tomorrow, with a possibility
of a Saturday meeting.
These talks have been positive and have been conducted in an atmosphere of
friendship and mutual respect. This MCC is a novel concept of the president
of Panama. A rough idea of how an MCC might be organized and what functions
it might perform has been developed in previous meetings. Now we're trying
to work on the specific details. The final version will depend on the
outcome of these talks.
QUESTION: Was there contact with the Mexican Government last night about
the execution of the Mexican citizen? The State Department had said that it
was a violation of the Vienna Convention.
MR. RUBIN: The Department of State extended, in a diplomatic note, on
behalf of the United States its most profound apology for the apparent
failure of the competent authorities to inform Mr. Murphy that he could
have had a Mexican consular officer notified of his detention.
(The briefing concluded at 1:15 P.M.)
|
