U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #157, 97-10-31
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
933
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Friday, October 31, 1997
Briefer: James P. Rubin
STATEMENTS
1-2 Announcement of Greg Craig as Special Coordinator for
Tibetan Issues
10-11 Chinese Response
CHINA
1 Pres. Jiang's Comparison of Tibetans and Southern Slaves in
the US
10 Alleged Comments by Qian Qichen on Campaign Finance Scandal
and Intelligence Gathering in the US
10 Taiwan Issue and the US-China Summit
11-12 Chinese Assurances on Stopping Nuclear Cooperation with
Pakistan
ARMS CONTROL
2-3 US Efforts to Stop Production and Exportation of Landmines
by Other Countries/Time Frame
IRAQ
3-4 Update on UN meetings on UNSCOM and Butler/Iraqi Right to
Control Nationality of UNSCOM Inspectors/UN Options/
Reactions from Other Countries
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
4-7 Israeli-Syrian talks in Washington, D.C. on Golan Heights/
Amb. Ross' Participation
7-9,12 Venue and Agenda of Israeli-Palestinian Talks in
Washington, D.C. Next Week/Secretary Albright's
Participation
MEXICO
11-13 Assassination of Enrique Camarena and Fernando Velez
BOSNIA
12 Length of US Troop Presence
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #157
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1997 1:10 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: We have a lot to get through today. I'm sorry for being
perceived as rushing through. We do have another announcement today about a
personnel issue.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has designated Mr. Gregory B. Craig
as Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues. This responsibility will be in
addition to his continuing role as Director of Policy Planning. Consistent
with our overall objective of promoting the protection of human rights in
China, as the Department's Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues,
Mr. Craig's focus will be to advance this objective in Tibet, and to
preserve the unique religious, cultural and linguistic heritage of
Tibetans. A central objective will also be to promote substantive dialogue
between the Chinese Government and the Dalai Lama or his representatives.
Questions?
QUESTION: Did you consult with Senator Helms on this appointment?
MR. RUBIN: Yes
QUESTION: Is he satisfied?
MR. RUBIN: You'll have to ask him for his views. But he is fully aware of
this appointment, yes.
QUESTION: Also on that. Yesterday, in his speech in Washington President
Jiang compared the Chinese takeover of Tibet to the liberation of black
slaves in this country. Do you have any comment, reaction or ideas about
that?
MR. RUBIN: Well, without getting into an historical debate with the
president of another country, we obviously don't see it that way. As
Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues, Greg Craig will obviously have a
lot of work to do in explaining the differences between the United States
and what may or may not have gone on in Tibet in the past.
QUESTION: Does Mr. Craig have any special expertise in this, in his
background? Or is this just someone that the Secretary has confidence
enough in to make the appointment?
MR. RUBIN: Well, in two respects - first of all, the Secretary wanted
someone who reported directly to her and who could apply a broad policy
perspective to the issue. He is, in his current capacity, in contact with
the Chinese on a regular basis on a number of matters. So this was a way to
make sure that the person doing this job was part of the diplomatic game.
Greg, I also know, was Chairman of the International Human Rights Law Group
when he was in the private sector. So he has a lot of experience in
bringing to bear the rule of law and international human rights law to
problems such as those the people of Tibet face.
QUESTION: What specifically will Greg Craig be doing? I mean, is it
mainly a dialogue sort of activity? Or are there some things that can be
done, outside of the context?
MR. RUBIN: Well, he will seek to advance our overall human rights
objectives with respect to Tibet. He will seek, in particular, to advance
our policy objective, to preserve the unique religious, cultural and
linguistic heritage of Tibetans. He will also promote substantive dialogue
between the Chinese Government and the Dalai Lama or his representatives.
The US believes that this dialogue should begin as soon as possible. There
are a lot of staffing issues that need to be determined still on a question
like this. But he will be a coordinator of policy objectives in this area,
and as appropriate, could involve travel abroad. He will certainly be
interested in speaking with Tibetans in the United States and abroad an in
traveling to Tibet.
QUESTION: He will - you're saying he will go to Tibet?
MR. RUBIN: I could try it again, but --
QUESTION: No, I just wanted to clarify.
MR. RUBIN: Certainly, he will be interested in speaking with Tibetans in
the United States and abroad and in traveling to Tibet. Any more on this
subject?
QUESTION: Land mines, can I ask a question?
MR. RUBIN: I hope I know the answer since all the experts have left the
room. Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. Two quick questions. One is, some of the countries like
China, Iran, Finland, Russia - in these countries, the land mines are still
being manufactured and exported. Is the United States going to take any
initiative? If so, what, that is, for stopping these countries to
manufacture, as well as the export of land mines? That is one question.
And the second question is, do you have any time frame with which all these
mines will be - the demining process will be completed? I understand even
in Cambodia, they say Cambodia itself will take at least 300 years with the
present technology we have to demine all these mines there?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, the answer to your two questions - your first, it is our
hope that many of the countries that are part of the problem - and like
some of the countries you mentioned, that is the countries that produce and
export land mines that are directly related to the problems around the
world where little children are getting their legs blown off and others are
suffering from this danger, that those countries that are part of the
problem like the ones you mentioned, will stop the export of their weapons
and will join the work that's going on in Geneva.
Ideally, we'd like them to be able to sign the Ottawa Agreement. So the
more countries that agree to not produce or export these mines -- and
especially those whose mines are the cause of the problem, like the
countries that you mentioned -- we would very much want them to join the
international regimes and stop manufacturing and producing land mines that
don't have the protective devices that some of ours do.
Secondly, the specific initiative - and I would urge you to take a look at
your fact sheet - spells out the year 2010 as the objective for cleaning up
the land mine problems around the world. That is 12 years from now - 12 and
a half years from now -- and that is the goal. That is why it's called the
2010 Initiative.
QUESTION: On Iraq, could you talk a little bit about what is happening
today? What the back and forth is? And what specifically Iraq must do in
order for this crisis to be over, be concluded?
MR. RUBIN: First of all, as far as what is going on today, the Security
Council is going to hear later this afternoon from Ambassador Butler, who
is the Chairman of the Special Commission. He will lay out exactly what is
going on the ground; exactly what risks he believes his personnel face;
exactly what plans he has for future inspections; and exactly what his
recommendations would be. At that point, the Council would be in a position
to react.
It is our view that what Iraq needs to do is make clear that it does not
intend to put at risk any American or any other personnel from the UN
Special Commission, and make clear that they intend to comply with the
requirements of the Special Commission and that they are not going to try
and pick and choose who in the Special Commission they intend to deal with
or whose safety they intend to protect. Once Iraq has made clear that it
will return to a mode of cooperation with UNSCOM, rather than confrontation
with the United Nations, then this crisis will be eased.
QUESTION: Sort of a technical question on that point. Does Iraq not have
the leeway as a sovereign nation to choose which - for all intents and
purposes - diplomats or foreign officials are allowed into its territory?
MR. RUBIN: I'm sure Iraq believes it has certain privileges under
international conventions to choose who can and can't come into its country
as a diplomat. That's not the issue here. The issue is, if Iraq wants to
comply with the United Nations, it has to comply and accept the United
Nations' rules as to who is part of the UN delegation.
If they want to say not to the United Nations, then they can continue to
say that Americans are not welcome. If they want to say yes to the United
Nations, then they are accepting the UN rules about who the UN hires to do
the job that the UN is trying to do, which, let's remember, is designed
specifically to make it possible for sanctions to be removed.
So Iraq cannot pick and choose what nationality UN inspectors are.
QUESTION: American officials keep saying, reiterating that all options
are open, including Secretary of Defense Cohen a few minutes ago - all
options are open. However, the Russian Government has already decreed this
morning they will not support any military action against Iraq.
MR. RUBIN: I's always very tricky to quote the Russian Government's
official statements. We believe that the Security Council authority exists
for very firm action by the international community in this case. It's not
a surprise to us that the Russian Government, like us, would prefer that we
don't get to a point where any stiffer measures are needed. Certainly we
hope that Iraq gets the message - the united message of the world, the
international community, the Russian Government, the French Government -
about the importance of complying with the UN and accepting the UN's rules
of the game and not trying to change those rules of the game mid- stream.
If Iraq gets that message, the question of next steps will become moot. But
there's no question that in the past we have seen Iraq turn around, and we
hope that they are wise enough to do so in this case.
QUESTION: Do you see any cause and effect between the Iraqi
discrimination against American inspectors and the four abstentions in the
vote last week?
MR. RUBIN: It's long been our view - and it's very hard to get into the
mind of Saddam Hussein and to try to assert what exactly his thinking was
on any one issue, since he's made so many miscalculations in the past --
It's long been our view that Iraq responds most clearly and most positively
to a unanimous Security Council. The more unanimous the Council, the more
clear the message, the less likely Saddam Hussein is to misunderstand and
miscalculate. But he is the only one who can answer the question of why he
would shoot himself in the foot again.
QUESTION: Jamie, to put the question again that I asked of the Secretary
this morning. How long does Saddam Hussein have to turn around on this?
MR. RUBIN: Ambassador Butler, who will be in New York, will report about
what his inspectors' plans are, when the next inspection is planned, what
the next activities of UNSCOM are that he would normally have taken, in the
absence of this intervention. Then you can begin to assess what timeframes
Iraq has in which to permit UNSCOM to do its job.
Let's just say, hypothetically, that they wanted to do an inspection some
number of days down the road, and that they were not going to accept Iraq's
rules that those inspections could not be conducted with Americans
present. That would be a day in which if they failed to change their
policy, that inspection would not take place; and UNSCOM would not be able
to do its job. Then we would have to see what the next steps were.
So there are on-the-ground operational issues of what UNSCOM's next steps
are. As far as we're concerned, the Council has said that he should change
course immediately.
QUESTION: New subject?
MR. RUBIN: Any more on Iraq? Okay, yes.
QUESTION: Is that a new subject?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: The same question I asked the Secretary on talks between Israel
and Syria here in Washington?
MR. RUBIN: I would urge you to be more specific about the report you're
referring to, and it might help me answer the question. If the question
is, are there secret Israeli-Syrian military talks going on in the United
States, is that true? -- my answer is no.
QUESTION: Okay, well, why don't you take out the word military?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of discussions of secret Israeli- Syrian talks
of that kind.
QUESTION: Take out the word secret.
MR. RUBIN: All right, now we're going to play 25 questions.
QUESTION: No, we're not. I would be easier if you guys 'fessed up' and
told us what Dennis Ross, who's a rather furtive fellow is up to, because
we always - and, frankly, if these talks are so sensitive they have to held
in secret, or semi-secret, you wonder what value an agreement might be if
it's so - if you're so nervous about it you have to hang around in dark
alleys --
MR. RUBIN: Let me try to answer the question.
QUESTION: Look, it's not unusual for foreign governments to have their
representatives in Washington talk to each other. It's a little bit more if
the United States is assisting in this, or providing some input. Are the US
and Syria and Israel, in any informal, back-channel way, trying to find a
way to get something going on the Golan Heights?
MR. RUBIN: What happens here often is that people hear about things that
in one context would seem quite normal and in another seem like a big
secret. It should not come as a surprise to any of you, or any people in
the world, that we have been trying to get the Israeli-Syrian track
restarted. The Secretary of State went to Damascus and met with the Syrian
leader precisely for that purpose.
From time to time, Ambassador Ross has met with Israelis, and he has met
with Syrians with the specific goal of trying to see whether we can find a
formula to restart those talks. That should not come as a surprise, and
that certainly has taken place.
QUESTION: Here? In this area?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to give you a 365-day-a-year schedule for
Ambassador Ross. What I am telling you is that he has met with Israeli
officials in recent times, often, in recent months. He's met with Syrian
officials from time to time in his work. During the course of those
discussions, of course, he is seeing whether there is something we can do
to promote the chance of the Israeli-Syrian track being revived.
What happens here is there is often a hyped-up version that comes out in
different publications, and then people think there is some big secret. One
of the other issues that might help you understand this is we have had a
continuous exchange of views with the Israeli military on a variety of
issues pertaining to security. At the moment, an Israeli military
delegation is here, preparing for the annual Joint Assistance Planning
Group, which will be held next week. The delegation is also preparing for
the visit of Minister of Defense Mordechai, which will take place next
week.
Those discussions will cover a wide range of bilateral and security issues
and from time to time also deal with the issues of Israeli security as it
relates to the pursuit of peace; namely what Israeli security needs might
exist in the context of an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement, or a further
progress in the Israeli-Palestinian track.
QUESTION: That's helpful. We weren't - I wasn't - nobody was asking for a
365-day. Dennis Ross goes to the Middle East sometimes --
MR. RUBIN: Right.
QUESTION: -- by himself, with his group, sometimes with the Secretary of
State, and naturally enough he holds talks there.
MR. RUBIN: Right.
QUESTION: What is intriguing here - and you seem to be very concerned how
it's cast in the story, whether it looks super secret or surreptitious, you
know --
MR. RUBIN: No, I'm not concerned.
QUESTION: We're just asking if --
MR. RUBIN: Excuse me. I'm not concerned about how it's in the story. I'm
trying to make sure that it's accurate. That's what I'm trying to do.
Q: All right, so to make sure it's accurate, the basic question - I don't
know what the newspaper specifically - how they wrote it - the point is
that - the question is, whether those talks, and whether they were
three-way at any point, are being held here on this side of the ocean? From
time to time, frequently, whatever. Time to time -- with the Syrians and
frequently with the Israelis.
MR. RUBIN: I certainly wouldn't want to rule out that in meetings in the
United States Dennis Ross has met with Israeli officials and talked about
how to restart the Syrian track. I wouldn't want to do that.
QUESTION: Yeah, but sat down with the two of them together?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of that, no.
QUESTION: All right, what is this - okay, please, what does this tell you
- or tell the US about the notion that the Prime Minister of Israel isn't
interested in negotiating peace agreements? The Palestinians are coming
here. There are going to be talks next week. There have been talks about
the Syrian track. Does the US conclude anything from this as to whether
Israel is in a negotiating frame of mind, or as it's commonly depicted,
stubborn, uptight?
MR. RUBIN: Again, one of the premises --
QUESTION: Unwilling to yield?
MR. RUBIN: One of the premises of your question is that this is a new
development, this discussion --
QUESTION: No, it's not a new development.
MR. RUBIN: -- on the Syria track. What I'm suggesting to you is that for
many months now, in many different forms -- whether it's the telephone,
whether it's in a meeting, whether it's in a meeting in the Middle East,
whether it's in a discussion here -- Dennis Ross is always trying to see
whether in his discussion with relevant officials he can unlock the mystery
of what it will take to restart the Israeli-Syrian track.. That is going on
and has been going on and there is no secret about that fact that we're
trying to do that.
QUESTION: Well, what kind of a reception does he get? Does he get people
willing to talk about the --
MR. RUBIN: We are still not optimistic that we are on the verge of being
able to do that.
QUESTION: Do what? Get an agreement?
MR. RUBIN: Find a formula.
QUESTION: Find a formula.
MR. RUBIN: By which the Israelis and the Syrians can restart the
negotiations.
QUESTION: And you said there was no three-way? It hadn't reached that?
MR. RUBIN: As far as I am aware, there have not been three- way meetings
of that kind.
QUESTION: Speaking of secrecy and the peace process, do you care to
comment on reports that the talks next week will be held at the Foreign
Service Institute in Rosslyn, Virginia?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I guess there's no secret about that. Yes, any other
questions?
QUESTION: No, same subject.
QUESTION: Same subject, let me just - let me just follow up. Why is it
necessary -- and all the parties say this is a Clinton Administration deal
- - to keep the location secret? Don't you think it sort of engenders
suspicion that already surrounds this on all sides?
MR. RUBIN: Well, you know, every one has got their business in life.
Those of you in this room's business is to report what happens regardless
of whether it's good or bad for the policy; regardless of whether it
imposes risks or not for the policies; regardless of whether it will help
or hurt peace -- that's your business.
Our business is to try to determine what's good for the peace process. It
has certainly been our experience over the years in many different fora
that negotiations without the glare of publicity and without the spotlight
of international cameras and without the difficulties of answering your
legitimate questions are more likely to succeed.
QUESTION: It's just mighty strange. You have just finished talks with the
biggest country in the world, talks there is a lot of suspicion and
skepticism about, about such incredibly important issues as nuclear weapons
- right -- human rights, in the glare of publicity, with a lot of people
thinking you're on a weird track with them, and you don't try to hide those
talks. Why always, when you're trying to cajole the Israelis and their Arab
partners into reaching some agreement, there has to be this pulling and
tearing all the time?
MR. RUBIN: Barry, there's nobody in this room who's been covering
diplomacy longer than you that I can see. Therefore, you know that in many,
many different circumstances being able to negotiate behind closed doors,
without the glare of publicity, without a lot of discussion, without a lot
of reporters to ask the difficult but legitimate questions that reporters
ask, that often the success ratio increases.
Our business is success; your business is openness. It will not always be
the same.
QUESTION: I will not make a comment about how successful you've been so
far.
(Laughter.)
MR. RUBIN: I will not make a comment about how successful you were in
writing about Dennis Ross' meeting.
QUESTION: No, but you say success depends on secrecy. You haven't got an
agreement, and you're not even near it. But here's a question about the
Israeli-Palestinian track. An Israeli official anonymously had a session
with a newspaper - we don't name them anymore, do we?
MR. RUBIN: We don't.
QUESTION: All right. Now, you last week spoke of wanting the Palestinian-
Israeli talks to center on those four points. They include accelerating
final status talks. Does the US have an opinion whether interim discussions
should await a response or some sort of agreement, if possible, between the
two sides, or whether to jump into final status talks? In other words, if a
way can be reached to get them to talk about those rock-bottom very
difficult issues, in the US view, is it still necessary to proceed
immediately with interim measures? And you know what they are, of course.
MR. RUBIN: It is still the US view that the best course for the peace
process would be to marry the completion of the remaining steps of Oslo
with an accelerated timetable for permanent status.
QUESTION: This is very complicated, that's why - what I'm talking about,
negotiations. According to this account, the Israelis are coming here to
negotiate final status. Should that be a non-starter? They're ready to talk
about interim measures. How do you feel - how does the US feel about that?
MR. RUBIN: Let me try one more time, and then let's go to another
subject.
QUESTION: Okay. You're talking about what's supposed to happen in the
end. I'm talking about the negotiations per se.
MR. RUBIN: On the four-part agenda, which covers both the question of the
time-out, security issues, accelerating the permanent status and further
redeployment, which is an interim matter - as well as the other interim
issues that you're familiar with.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. RUBIN: Those are the topics for the meeting that will begin next
Monday at whatever location Sid Balman said they would be at.
QUESTION: But, see, you're not answering the question -- we'll see what
happens. See, you don't have to; the Israelis have a strategy, and the US
is not taking the position publicly on what that strategy is.
MR. RUBIN: Right, we want to talk about those four issues, yes.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Thank you, Barry, for your lead-in to my China question.
MR. RUBIN: How did I do that? I don't know.
QUESTION: Well, he was talking about the visit of the Chinese and the
transparency of all the baloney.
MR. RUBIN: Thank you, Barry.
QUESTION: I would address that, as well. Mr. Qichen, when asked about
Chinese Government intrusion into the United States Government, and also
about espionage or intelligence gathering in the United States, Mr. Qichen
said that this was completely false, as the Chinese have said about most of
the issues that we brought up. This is all false and it was the United
States that was intruding into the government and internal affairs -- that
was the term - of China. How does the State Department view this Chinese
perspective? And how do you deal with the allegation?
MR. RUBIN: Well, frankly, I haven't seen the allegation. I'm completely
unfamiliar with it, but I would be happy to get you an answer for the
record, because I just have no information yet.
QUESTION: But what about the issue - wait a minute, just let me finish.
What about the issue of the intelligence gathering and possible intrusion
of the internal affairs of the United States?
MR. RUBIN: Well, you have given me my secret answer to the question,
which is every time you say intelligence gathering, I get to say, we don't
comment on that from this podium.
QUESTION: Well, let's say political intrusion --
MR. RUBIN: Thank you. In the back.
QUESTION: Jamie, in the last few days, the President and the Secretary
have met with Jiang Zemin. I'm sure one of the issues that was raised is
Taiwan. From this podium we haven't really heard about what in those
meetings did - what kind of specific assurances did the United States make
on its position towards Taiwan; especially towards Taiwan independence? And
I do have another question.
MR. RUBIN: We certainly made clear that we have a one-China policy; that
we don't support a one-China, one-Taiwan policy. We don't support a two-
China policy. We don't support Taiwan independence, and we don't support
Taiwanese membership in organizations that require you to be a member
state. We certainly made that very clear to the Chinese.
QUESTION: The second question is, are the Chinese going to hear about Mr.
Craig at the same time as we are, or did they get --
MR. RUBIN: I think they've been informed about this, and that they're
aware of it.
QUESTION: How did they respond to this?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have a response on their behalf, but you can certainly
ask them.
QUESTION: Since Sunday, L.A. Times has been reporting a serial of
stories that the DEA is trying to review, in the case of the assassination
in Mexico of Enrique Camarena. They mentioned that the former President of
Mexico, Miguel de la Madrid, he gave the order to the assassination. Do you
have any response to that?
MR. RUBIN: We are aware of more than a dozen current and former senior
federal law enforcement agents and prosecutors who have been
assassinated. Is that what you're talking about? In Mexico, in the past 18
months.
QUESTION: No, I'm talking about the case of Enrique Camarena, who was
kill --
MR. RUBIN: In Colombia?
QUESTION: In Mexico in 1995, DEA.
MR. RUBIN: I don't have any information on that.
QUESTION: To follow up on Mexico --
QUESTION: Can I follow up on China?
QUESTION: Excuse me, ma'am, new subject.
QUESTION: Fernando Velez, the former prosecutor for the --
MR. RUBIN: Let's go here and then I'll come back to you.
QUESTION: Okay, thank you.
QUESTION: Mr. Rubin, as part of the assurances that China has given on
nuclear cooperation -- stopping nuclear cooperation with Iran, do they
include written assurances on Pakistan? Because there was an implication
yesterday --
MR. RUBIN: We haven't commented on the record, any of us, on the question
of the form of any assurances.
QUESTION: But could you answer in general whether there were any new
assurances on Pakistan - stopping cooperation with Pakistan?
MR. RUBIN: I'll try to get you an answer for the record on that.
QUESTION: You have only spoken - the government has only spoken of Iran,
but said it involves plural countries. So maybe you could answer --
MR. RUBIN: We're going to be having a briefing later today by the expert
on this subject.
QUESTION: Good point, good point.
MR. RUBIN: And I hope you all who have questions will attend the briefing
and pose your questions at that time.
QUESTION: Can we go to a Bosnia question I've had for a couple of days?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: There was a story in a publication a couple days ago which
stated that the Clinton Administration had decided to leave troops in
Bosnia past the deadline. Could you comment on that?
MR. RUBIN: Without referring to any publication, I don't believe that's
exactly what it said. But my only comment on that story would be as
follows. We believe that with US leadership in Bosnia, there's been
significant and dramatic progress; especially when you consider they were
at war for 46 months, and we have been working at peace for half of that
time.
Maintaining this continued progress is our focus. It is imperative that
such progress continue, and we have always said that a long- term
international presence and commitment to Bosnia will be necessary. We have
indicated as well that we would expect that commitment to include a
diplomatic, economic and humanitarian component. However, there has been no
decision as to what military role if any the United States will have in
Bosnia at the conclusion of SFOR's mission next June.
That decision will be reached through a process of close consultation with
Congress and our allies. Clearly, there is active discussion ongoing about
that; but there has been no decision.
QUESTION: Jamie, we don't get enough of a chance - it's Friday
afternoon. The talks Monday in the morning, and will the Secretary indeed
convene the talks?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have an answer for that, but I'll try to get you one
before you go home tonight.
QUESTION: Is she at the kick-off?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, on both aspects. Let's take one more in the back.
QUESTION: Two issues on Mexico - the former prosecutor for the drug
enforcement of Mexico, Fernando Velez was killed --
MR. RUBIN: If you don't mind, I would like to get Mr. Foley to answer
that question for you, because I don't have any information on it.
(The briefing concluded at 1:30 P.M.)
|
