U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #148, 97-10-14
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
830
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Tuesday, October 14, 1997
Briefer: James P. Rubin
ANNOUNCEMENT
1 Secretary to Visit Haiti, Oct 17; Sign-Up Sheet
LIBYA / TERRORISM
1-2 Proposal to Try Former US Officials for Role in 1986
Bombing of Libya / Attempt to divert Attention from Pan
Am #103 Responsibility
KOREA
2,6 Four-Party Talks & Process Update / US-ROK Cooperation / US
Policy on Election
2-6 Monitoring Food Aid in DPRK / Assessment Team / US $5
Million Grant to UNICEF for Medical Supplies/Numbers of
Monitors/Recipients of US Grant Aid/No New WFP
Appeal/Famine Continues as Major Problem
GREECE / TURKEY / CYPRUS
6-7,14 Allegations of Overflights / US Promoting Negotiating
Process / Amb Holbrooke's Trip to Turkey
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
7-8 Prospects for Trilateral Summit
CHINA / IRAN
8-9 Discussions on Peaceful Nuclear Energy / Nuclear
Cooperation with Iran Threatens US Interests/Assurances
Needed on Certification/International Safeguards
IRAQ
9-10 KDP & PUK Fighting / Meeting in Ankara to Defuse Situation
/ PKK Involvement
IRAN / IRAQ
10-11 Military Exercises in Gulf / US Enforcement of No-Fly Zone
/ Warning to US
SAUDI ARABIA
11-12 Hezbollah Involvement in Al-Khobar Bombing / Investigation
Continues / Concerns of Survivors, Families
INDIA / PAKISTAN
12-14 Visit by Under Secretary Pickering / US Position on Kashmir
CONGO (DROC)
13 US Team & Mission
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #148
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1997, 12:45 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) _
MR. RUBIN: Greetings. We have a skewed briefing room. All the reporters
are sitting on the left. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Let me start with an announcement. Secretary Albright plans to visit Haiti
on Friday, October 17, on her return from the President's South America
trip. This will be her first visit to Haiti as Secretary of State. The
Secretary's visit is intended to demonstrate our continuing interest in
Haiti and our support for Haiti's efforts to develop a democratic society
and to reconstruct its economy.
Haiti has made considerable progress since the restoration of democracy in
1994, but as is true in many parts of the world, much work remains to be
done. So that trip will occur on Friday. It will take up most of the
afternoon. For those of you who are interested in covering the trip, we
will have a sign-up sheet with regard to arrangements in Haiti and the
possibility of seats on her plane returning. But I don't want to make any
promises on seats; we're still trying to figure that out.
George.
QUESTION: Did you see the story from Libya? The Libyans want to try
Poindexter, North and others for their role in the '86 bombing of
Libya.
MR. RUBIN: I haven't seen the story, but it sounds like something I could
react to without any guidance.
(Laughter)
This sounds like a ridiculous proposal. The Libyan Government is under
international sanctions by the UN Security Council for its role in
terrorism. I gather one of the Scottish legal officials has now proposed
that international monitors be permitted at the trial. That should answer
any concerns that the Libyan Government might have had. We support that
proposal because it's consistent with the UN Security Council resolutions
applying here.
The idea of the Libyan Government's proposal to try Poindexter is a
ridiculous proposal designed to divert attention from their failure to meet
the requirements of the international community.
QUESTION: Jamie, do you have anything to say about a report over the
weekend, relating to our relations with South Korea? Apparently, this
reporter was suggesting that we were impatient with South Korean four-party
talks.
MR. RUBIN: I do have some information on that; let me provide it to you.
The premise that we have a problem with the South Koreans in pursuing the
four-party talks is incorrect.
Let me start by saying there are no new developments regarding the four-
party talks. That doesn't mean we're pessimistic. As I've said before, this
is a marathon, not a sprint. The four-party process remains the only
practical way to deal with the complex, difficult issues surrounding the
replacement of the armistice. We believe there will be progress, because
that is in the interest of all the parties concerned.
We would, of course, prefer greater speed here. Even though it's a marathon,
we would prefer it to be going a little quicker. But we are in this for the
long haul; ups and downs are not surprising. It is difficult to speak with
confidence about what goes on in North Korea or the reasons for the
difficulty we've had in getting these talks started. But it does seem that
questions about the present hiatus in the talks should be directed at
Pyongyang, not Seoul. The timing of the election of Kim Jung-Il as General
Secretary may have been a factor.
There is no gap between the United States and the Republic of Korea. South
Korea and the United States have been working very closely with officials
at all levels discussing the various issues in play -- whether it's food
aid, whether it's what the long-term agenda should be in Korea; we've been
working closely and cooperatively on this initiative.
Both sides consult regularly, extensively and intensively with each other,
and it bears repeating that the four-party process came out of a decision
by Presidents Clinton and Kim from South Korea. So the idea that we and the
South Koreans are having some problem here that's exacerbating the delay in
getting these talks started is wrong. And the idea that we favor some kind
of opposition victory in South Korea is also wrong. We have been very
clear and firm and consistent that it is up to the people of South
Korea to make their decisions about their government, to select their
president. We don't favor any one candidate or another.
QUESTION: There was a little misunderstanding last week regarding food
aid. If you could just state what is the --
MR. RUBIN: Yes, I would be happy to do that.
QUESTION: If they don't meet our monitoring requirements, do we intend to
withhold aid?
MR. RUBIN: If you asked the question in principle, if we can't monitor,
will we send food? Of course not. But, has there been a change in that
policy as a result of any recent trip, no. There has been no change in our
policy regarding food aid to North Korea -- all of which is provided on a
humanitarian basis. We have always regarded monitoring as crucial to the
program. In fact, we are sending a needs assessment team to work with
the World Food Program and the DPRK to enhance its effectiveness.
That team should be sent very soon.
The present system that is in place, while not perfect and always requiring
improvements, has ensured that there has been no significant diversion of
American food aid. Nevertheless, we are always seeking greater transparency
with respect to distribution and assessment of need.
In other words, there is always a desire to have greater monitoring,
because of the fact that North Korea is so opaque. We would always look to
have greater and greater confidence in our assessments that the food is
getting to the right places. But the idea that some recent development has
shifted our confidence level in the World Food Program, the answer is no;
and therefore, our policy has not changed.
We are also announcing today a $5 million grant to UNICEF for use in North
Korea. This is designed to respond to humanitarian needs in North Korea.
Despite the current, temporary improvement in the food situation, we expect
the food crisis to deepen. And we are concerned about the vulnerability, in
terms of nutrition, of children. So this grant to UNICEF is designed to
make it possible for hospitals and clinics not stocked with adequate
medicines and other supplies to deal with health needs of vulnerable
groups. This grant to UNICEF will provide critical medical supplies
to clinics and hospitals as they deal with the health problems of
mothers and children, brought on by malnutrition.
So we are continuing to do what we as the United States feel we ought to do
to deal with a humanitarian crisis of this kind. We also, at the same time,
work closely with the private voluntary organizations and the international
community to try to maximize the extent to which any assistance we do
provide is monitored.
QUESTION: At the briefing last week, the official who led this briefing
said that while North Korea had agreed to let you have 17 monitors - that
was your agreement - they had only issued visas, or whatever the procedure
is, for seven. Now, the question is, you don't see any pilfering, but how
can you be sure there's no pilfering if you don't have the number of
monitors you think you need to police the distribution of aid?
MR. RUBIN: Like arms control, which Barry is very familiar with, the
critical issue here is confidence. We have confidence that there is no
significant diversion, using the monitoring system we have in place.
We always want more monitors so we have greater confidence that none of the
food is being diverted. So we do want more monitoring. We have had
discussions with the North Koreans on visa issues and others. But the idea
that this visa issue had crashed our confidence in our ability to monitor
the program is incorrect. Our policy hasn't changed. We still believe the
World Food Program's distribution network is sound. But we will have
greater confidence in that judgment and greater confidence if we ever need
to take additional steps if we have better monitoring.
QUESTION: Or you could quote Mr. Reagan and "trust and verify".
MR. RUBIN: Well, that's what we're doing - trusting and verifying. And
we're not particularly trusting in this case.
QUESTION: The question I'm going to ask unfortunately may be seen as
inhumane or something. But this $5 million --
MR. RUBIN: No questions are inhumane; only answers.
QUESTION: Well, when you deal with starving people - the US has had very
defined lines; they've delineated who might be helped. They were children
under the age of six and they were people in hospitals - hospitalized
because of malnutrition. Now, without challenging whether that's where the
line should be drawn, or whether it should be moved - in the case of a
country that in the best of times can't provide half the food it needs -
aren't you widening the groups of people that might be helped?
The US does know that some of the assistance is being given to other people
who are working on disaster projects. Does this $5-million grant (go to) -
you're speaking of mothers with malnutrition - are these necessarily people
in hospitals? Or is the US getting a little more liberal, a little bit more
-- some people might say -- humane in where it's sending the food?
MR. RUBIN: This grant to UNICEF will provide critical medical supplies to
clinics and hospitals as they deal with the health problems of mothers and
children brought on by malnutrition. I can get one of our experts in this
to talk to you about this, but the assistance will provide measles
immunizations, cold chain equipment, technical assistance to hospitals and
clinics in 100 counties. The program will also provide supplementary food
for therapeutic feeding in hospitals and micro-nutrients to targeted
nurseries, kindergartens and orphanages.
In other words, this is targeted at those people suffering from the famine.
If one gets into the question we always get into here -- if you assist in
one area, you're limiting the responsibility of the government to assist in
that area, and then they can do other stuff with their assistance -- that
may be true in certain cases. But as the United States -- as a country that
has a humanitarian conscience and has demonstrated that over and over again
around the world -- we believe that to the extent that our assistance,
medical and food, is targeted and is monitored to ensure that it's going
there, it's worth the risk that it might alleviate some of the responsibilities
of the government and give them opportunities to do something else.
Because the bottom line is, we're confident that people are getting saved --
their lives are going to be saved, their health is going to be improved.
These are innocent little children who happen to have the misfortune of
being born in North Korea, and that's what we're focusing our -
QUESTION: When does this happen, by the way?
MR. RUBIN: The $5-million aid, I just announced.
QUESTION: No, I mean, it's going to go to work right away; right?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I can get you more details, but this is going to UNICEF,
and UNICEF will announce how it distributes the assistance.
QUESTION: Jamie, on the food monitors, am I correct in recalling that in
the past the only food monitors in North Korea were World Food Program
people; that the United States government had no direct monitoring
facility?
MR. RUBIN: Well, it depends on what you mean by monitoring. I don't
believe that's correct. But the important point is that there are a lot of
different officials from all over the world, from international programs,
US officials of different types who have traveled back and forth, and we
have relied upon the World Food Program's integrity as a way of assisting
the starving people in North Korea. But I don't believe they are the only
ones who monitor it, and we have our own ways of trying to be sure
the food gets to the right places.
But again, we can get you more information about the specific monitoring
that has occurred in the past and the extent to which this particular new
UNICEF grant affects the likelihood of other people benefiting.
QUESTION: You talk about you expect the crisis to deepen. Has there been
a new emergency appeal from the World Food Program?
MR. RUBIN: Not to my knowledge. We, as you know, have a very good record
of responding to appeals. I wouldn't rule one out soon, but there has not
been a new one.
QUESTION: You are expecting one in November, aren't you?
MR. RUBIN: That's what soon means, yes.
QUESTION: The crisis is supposed to deepen --
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you. On The Washington Post report, may I understand that
your comment on The Washington Post report is not correct on some US
officials' eagerness to see a change in government in South Korea?
MR. RUBIN: Without referencing any particular newspaper, the US policy on
the South Korean election is clear, firm and consistent. It is up to the
people of South Korea to select their president. We don't favor any
candidate over any other. We respect all of the candidates, and we would be
happy to work with any of them, as they are elected.
There are always anonymous officials who are prepared to say just about
anything in order to anonymously be quoted. But that is the position of the
United States.
QUESTION: I understand your comment. But have you any intention to detect
some US officials?
MR. RUBIN: To detect them?
QUESTION: Detect, detect them.
MR. RUBIN: I think our monitoring system would have to be much, much
better to be able to do that.
QUESTION: Different subject.
MR. RUBIN: Are you still on Korea?
QUESTION: Yes, I'd just like to --
MR. RUBIN: We'll do it one more time. We're up to question 15 on Korea;
I've been counting them.
QUESTION: Well, maybe the question has been asked, then, Jamie. Does the
US Government view, as does the World Food Program, that the famine has
been contained or arrested? Is that our view?
MR. RUBIN: No, the famine is still a major problem. There may be a
temporary alleviation due to the harvest, but we expect there to be major
shortfall and we would expect to see another appeal from the World Food
Program shortly.
QUESTION: As you probably know, the last two days, a very dangerous game
between Greece and Turkey over the Aegean is going on. Do you have any
reaction on that?
MR. RUBIN: There have been a lot of allegations back and forth. As you
know, who cover this issue, I don't like to get into a situation where I
have to comment on every single statement or claim made by one side or the
other.
It's been a long weekend, and there have been a lot of statements and a lot
of claims. But I can make a few general points. First, the United States
Government is working hard and closely with Greece, Turkey and both
communities on Cyprus to promote a negotiating process that can lead to a
constructive resolution of the Cyprus problem. Ambassador Richard
Holbrooke's meetings in New York and his trip this weekend to Ankara were
part of that long-term effort.
Second, we have long urged all parties to the Cyprus problem to avoid steps
that complicate or detract from efforts to promote dialogue and negotiation.
In this regard, we think fewer military activities are better than more
military activities. We were very supportive of Greece, Turkey's and
Cyprus' separate and independently arrived at decisions not to have
military over-flights of Cyprus, which we announced May 9.
Clearly, over-flights have now resumed. But we would certainly hope and
urge that all sides appreciate the benefits of reinstituting a complete
open-ended moratorium on over-flights of Cyprus by Greek and Turkish
military aircraft at the earliest possible time. We also urge all sides to
show restraint for the remainder of the exercises by the Greek side and the
upcoming Turkish exercises.
There is a spate of exercises going on, and that is unfortunate in light of
the desire for an over-flight ban. But hopefully when these exercises are
completed, then one can get back to the situation where we can work on
trying to prevent needless over-flights from complicating what is already
one of the most complicated situations.
QUESTION: Did anybody fire on anybody, as far as the US --
MR. RUBIN: I don't have any information to suggest that, but it does look
like there were significant over-flights.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, all right.
MR. RUBIN: I don't have any information on firings. That doesn't mean
there weren't some aircraft games going on in the air.
QUESTION: Well, your statement seems rather even-handed. Is that a proper
deduction - that the United States finds equal fault with both sides? Is
equally alarmed by their equally provocative activities, or do you see one
side maybe being a little bit more provocative than the other?
MR. RUBIN: If we did, we don't think this is the right place to
communicate that.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about the report out of the Middle
East that President Clinton is trying to arrange a trilateral summit,
beginning November 17 with Netanyahu and Arafat?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I'm always amazed at what comes out of the press in that
region. I'm not aware of any --
QUESTION: Radio --
MR. RUBIN: The press is broadly defined. I think of press as the media. I
don't have any information about a planned meeting of that kind. I
understand that Prime Minister Netanyahu may be coming to the country
around that time. But as far as any meetings with the Secretary or meetings
with the President or planned trilaterals, I don't have any hard information
on that.
There is always a level of speculation on these things about where people
are and what could happen. But as you saw last week in the Middle East,
often meetings can happen without any trips to the United States or anybody
being in the same city at the same time, if the leaders have the desire to
have such a meeting. But I have nothing for you on that - especially since
it's a matter involving the President's decisions.
QUESTION: Can we ask you about Iran and China, if we're done with the
Middle East?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: One of the newspapers, The Washington Times, leading the paper
with a story about the possibility of some sort of trade-off. You probably
know the terms of the story, so I won't recite the story, but is there some
possibility that China can be induced to curb its proliferation of
technology in exchange for access to computers and other technology that
I'm sure there are many, many American industrialists who would be very
eager to sell to China?
MR. RUBIN: Let me put this in perspective again. What we're talking about
in this agreement is peaceful nuclear energy -- not so much computers and
guidance systems and things of that nature. What we're talking about is
American know-how in the area of nuclear power, which we are prohibited
from providing to China unless the President has certified that China has
made clear and unequivocal assurances that it will not provide assistance
to non-nuclear-weapons states' efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
That is a very high standard, and our negotiators and Secretary Albright
have been working on this problem for some time. We would like to be able
to get to a point where China has made a sufficient number of commitments
and we have reason to believe those commitments can be implemented, so that
we can state that clear and unequivocal assurances have been provided.
Let's remind ourselves why. We believe a nuclear-armed Iran, in this case,
that was mentioned in the story, would threaten US interests as well as
regional and international security issues. For that reason, we have
continuously opposed nuclear cooperation by all countries with Iran, even
to safeguard the nuclear programs that are permitted under the IAEA, such
as the one with which China has been involved. We have made our position
clear to the Chinese.
In other words, we want to close down any possibility, however permitted
under the international guidelines, that Iran will gain knowledge in its
pursuit of nuclear weapons. During these negotiations with the Chinese, we
have made substantial progress towards meeting the standard that I have
described -- clear and unequivocal assurances - but we're not there yet. We
need additional confidence that China's statements and actions will be
sufficient for us to defend a certification of that kind.
This is a very important subject. There's no subject to which the President
and the Secretary give greater attention than nuclear nonproliferation,
especially to a country like Iran. So we want to be sure that we've done
all we can to obtain the maximum level of cooperation from China on this
subject.
When we've done so, we will sit down and make a judgment as to whether
those commitments and that information we've been provided and our
understanding of their export control system is sufficient to make the
judgment. We're not there yet. We still have time. We're still hopeful that
one of the things we will be able to do is obtain the commitments necessary
to make that judgment.
QUESTION: Do you think you can get there in about two weeks, maybe?
MR. RUBIN: We're hopeful.
QUESTION: Also, how important is it in the US calculus that any
technology go to an internationally-supervised area? You say no know-how
that would help a country like Iran develop nuclear weapons. What about
safeguarded? If it goes to internationally-monitored areas and it's
questionable, would that be good enough for you?
MR. RUBIN: In the case of Iran, we think the risk is too great, even when
it's safeguarded. Because this is a country that has proven its willingness
to violate all norms of international behavior, going back as far as the
taking over of the American Embassy, whether it's international terrorism,
whether it's opposition to a peace process that everyone supports.
We think it's too risky, even when there are international safeguards, to
help them, because some residual knowledge or some residual information or
some residual technology might escape that safeguard system. The risk is
too great, because the danger of the result is so great.
QUESTION: Same area?
MR. RUBIN: Same area? I'd like to see the jump.
QUESTION: Okay, it seems like in Northern Iraq, the KDP and PUK are again
fighting. Do you have any reading on the situation on the ground?
MR. RUBIN: Northern Iran, did you say?
QUESTION: Iraq.
MR. RUBIN: Oh, Iraq, oh.
QUESTION: Same area.
MR. RUBIN: Same geographic area. We have seen evidence of significant
fighting, but we cannot confirm independently press reports on details of
some of the clashes. We were in touch with both of the parties - the KDP
and the PUK -- as well as the other co-sponsors of the process here, the
British and the Turkish Government yesterday to try to halt the fighting.
Our message to the parties was clear. Both the KDP and the PUK have
committed themselves to observing the cease-fire arranged last October.
They need to follow through on these commitments and step back from this
fighting. We will continue to work with the parties to continue to diffuse
this situation. We do not believe - although the reports are still sketchy -
that we're at a level where we were last Fall when Iraqi forces chose to
intervene. It does not appear, from the information we have, that
outside parties are involved at this point.
But obviously, we want to diffuse this situation. We hope the Kurdish
parties themselves recognize they have a strong interest in preventing
Iraqi adventurism -- or in fact, adventurism by any country in the region,
including Iran -- that has happened in the past when this fighting has
broken out.
The group created to solidify the cease-fire and encourage political
reconciliation in Northern Iraq has met in Ankara today to discuss the
current situation. That includes the KDP, the PUK, along with the US, the
UK and Turkey.
QUESTION: Do you have any information if PKK is fighting on the side of
PUK?
MR. RUBIN: I'm aware that there are reports that some believe the PKK and
the PUK are cooperating. I do not have any hard information for you on
that.
QUESTION: Can we go back to Iran?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Just today, I believe it was, Iran has accused the US destroyer
and some of the other ships in there of spying, and has sort of asked them
to leave - I think, told them to leave. You said last week that this is not
a threat to Iran, and we know these military exercises go on. But it
appears it is definitely causing tension.
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think our spokesmen for the fleet have commented on
this extensively, and I would refer you to their comments on the details of
the incidents.
As far as our general view is concerned, the Iranian exercises are
regularly scheduled exercises. Our ships have been sent there for the
reasons stated - to send a strong signal to Iraq that violating the no-fly
zone would be a mistake. That appears to be working, to the extent that the
frequency of action by Iraqi planes in the no-fly zone has greatly
decreased. That's the purpose of our sending our warships there.
The fact that the Iranian side is accusing the United States warships of
one thing or another is not a surprise to us, considering the state of our
relationship. They accuse the United States of just about everything that
goes wrong anywhere. So as far as the specifics of the incident is
concerned, I believe our spokesmen for the military, who have detailed
knowledge of where the ships are, what incidents might or might not have
occurred, will be in a position to respond directly to those incidents.
QUESTION: Right. But in terms of overall, from a diplomatic perspective --
MR. RUBIN: I think I just answered.
QUESTION: -- is this an increase in tension? You were saying this is not
an increase in tension?
MR. RUBIN: I'm saying that it doesn't surprise us that the Iranian
Government would accuse American war ships in the Gulf of doing things
wrong.
QUESTION: Wasn't that accusation coupled with a warning, or at least it
had the tone of a warning?
MR. RUBIN: We're going to continue to deploy our ships in the Gulf,
pursuant to our desire to enforce the no-fly zone, and I don't believe any
of the events that are more about press releases than military events are
going to change that.
QUESTION: No, but - I didn't see the Pentagon comments either- the point,
specifically, is whether the Kinkaid has left Bahrain or is being
intimidated into staying in Bahrain by an Iranian threat?
MR. RUBIN: I can't imagine that the ships would be intimidated by Iranian
press releases.
QUESTION: Another one on Iran?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: The relationship is the strong suspicion that Hezbollah was
involved in the Khobar bombing.
MR. RUBIN: Sorry. What?
QUESTION: This is Hezbollah, the relation of Hezbollah --
MR. RUBIN: Right. Okay.
QUESTION: -- the Iranian Government-sponsored terrorist organization's
complicity in the Khobar bombing, Jamie. After hearing from Mr. Hani Asayar
on Friday, several members of the Khobar survivors group had these
questions, or brought these issues up, and I'd like your comment.
They said Mr. Joe Asanti, of Khobar victims group, said, nobody's telling
us about this case, and he said, further, that nothing is happening on this
case. Now, he was speaking for all of the people in this loose association.
Can you speak to that?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. Let me say, first of all, when you're dealing with
families of victims of terrorist actions, we have to take great weight with
what their concerns are, and we do, and I'm sure those concerns have been
passed on.
Let me just be clear. We are taking the Khobar investigation very, very
seriously and have been since it began. It's a very sensitive issue. It's a
law enforcement matter that the FBI is heavily involved with, and it is a
matter where President Clinton has made clear that the United States will
get to the bottom of this and we will take care of our own.
As far as what specific information has or has not been transmitted to the
families, let me say that in these cases, the information is extremely
sensitive and is extremely closely-held because of the sensitivity of it.
So it doesn't surprise me that they are as frustrated as sometimes I am
when I am told what I can and can't say about this investigation. But
that's the nature of this kind of an investigation. In order to do an
investigation like this seriously and to pursue it to its conclusion, one
often has to withhold information as one's developing it, so that one
can get to the bottom of it.
QUESTION: Would the State Department be interested to meet with those
families to assure them of this?
MR. RUBIN: I don't know what specific requests have been made, but if
there were requests from the families opposed to coming through the media,
I'm sure that meetings would result.
QUESTION: Apparently, Under Secretary Pickering is going to India and
Pakistan tomorrow, I think. Do you have any information on that, comment on
that?
MR. RUBIN: I believe we will have a background briefing on that that
you're welcome to attend, for some of the regional journalists this
afternoon. But essentially, Under Secretary Pickering is going as a prelude
to Secretary Albright's trip this November. I don't have any more details
of the dates of her trip, other than to say that she intends to have an
interesting trip. She has some personal interest in the subject - it was
her father's first diplomatic assignment for the Czech Government.
As far as the US position is concerned on this subject, we want to be very
careful that we state it clearly, and let me say that. We believe that the
Kashmir issue, which is obviously going to be central to any trip, is one
that must be resolved through negotiations between India and Pakistan which
take into account the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
There have been occasional suggestions of why the United States doesn't
mediate or something of that nature. Again, we want to be helpful to the
parties, but it's something they really have to do together. She is not
going to India and Pakistan to mediate, but to urge both sides to
negotiate. But we will have some more information for interested members of
the media later this afternoon - a backgrounder with one of our top
assistant secretaries.
QUESTION: Have you made any progress on naming a team to go to the
Congo?
MR. RUBIN: The answer, in terms of me naming a team publicly, is no. I
may have some more information for you soon on that. But again, it's
something that the Secretary is focused on directly because we are very
concerned that without some change in position by the government of Mr.
Kabila, he just continues to put himself farther and farther outside the
bounds of normal behavior in the international community. So we want to
break the impasse. I may have more for you soon, but I don't have anything
more for you today on a specific mission or specific names on that
mission.
QUESTION: Let's go back to Kashmir for a second, because I haven't heard
it worded quite in that way before.
MR. RUBIN: I hope you have.
QUESTION: Maybe it's just me, but you're --
MR. RUBIN: I was trying to word it exactly the way it's supposed to be
worded.
QUESTION: Okay. I mean, if it can wait for the briefing, we can wait. But
the idea that the people of Kashmir should have a voice in the settlement --
MR. RUBIN: -- resolved to negotiations which take into account the wishes
of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. That's standard. I can assure you that,
in fact, next to that sentence is a starred bracket that says the word,
"mantra". So there is no intention to say anything new in that sentence.
QUESTION: Maybe we just haven't heard it for so many years, like
Jerusalem.
MR. RUBIN: Well, I urge you to ask our able assistant secretary when he
does his briefing.
QUESTION: Okay, thank you.
MR. RUBIN: In the back, one more.
QUESTION: What is the overall evaluation for Mr. Holbrooke's contact in
Ankara with the Turkish officials?
MR. RUBIN: The overall assessment?
QUESTION: Yes, or evaluation.
MR. RUBIN: All of Mr. Holbrooke's trips are successful, as you know. So
we think it was very helpful in meeting the expectations which he set,
which were quite low -
(Laughter)
-- which were to discuss the issue with the Turkish officials as part of a
continuing discussion. But it was not a negotiation; it was a discussion.
QUESTION: Can we say that you are satisfied with the Turkish side's
answer?
MR. RUBIN: I can't say that, but I can say that we're satisfied with the
modalities of the discussion.
(The briefing concluded at 1:25 P.M.)
|
