U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #40, 98-03-31
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1046
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Tuesday, March 31, 1998
Briefer: James P. Rubin
1 Statement: Tribute to Mayor Elias Freij of Bethlehem
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
1-2,4,5 MEPP Update by Sec. Albright Following Amb. Ross' Return
from the Region
2-4 Key Issues in the Peace Process
5-6 Next Steps in the MEPP
6-7 Contact with Domestic and World Leaders by Sec. Albright
Regarding the MEPP
SAUDI ARABIA
7-11 Status of Al-Khobar Bombing Investigation
8 US Assessment of Iran-Saudi Arabia Relationship
9-10 US-Saudi Cooperation in the Al-Khobar investigation
CYPRUS
11 Integration of Cyprus into the European Union
ARMENIA
11-12 Update on Election Results
CANADA
12 Pacific Salmon Talks Resume between US and Canada
SERBIA-MONTENEGRO
12-15 Sec. Albright's Conversation with FM Primakov Concerning
Kosovo
12-15 Assessment of Effectiveness of Arms Embargo
13 Status on Negotiation Process with Pres. Milosevic
JAPAN
15-16 Okinawa Presses for Relocation of US Bases
CUBA
16 Update on US Policy Toward Cuba
IRAN
16 Citizen Exchange between US and Iran
16-17 Prospects for Direct Dialogue between US and Iran
COLOMBIA
17 Update on the Kidnapped American Citizens
INDIA
17 Status of Hostages in Kashmir
DEPARTMENT
18 Upcoming Speech by Sec. Albright
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #40
TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1998, 1:45 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Welcome to the State Department briefing. Let me start by
reading a statement.
We learned with great sadness of the death of former Mayor Elias Freij of
Bethlehem on March 29. Mayor Freij also served as Minister of Tourism and
Antiquities in the Palestinian Authority. He was a man of peace, and we
wish to express our deepest condolences to his family and the Palestinian
people. The United States, the Palestinian people and the Middle East peace
process have lost a friend and partner. Mayor Freij's moderation and wise
counsel will be sorely missed by all those who strive for the just,
comprehensive and lasting peace that the peoples of the Middle East want
and deserve. His commitment to that peace will be long remembered.
QUESTION: The Secretary's remarks this morning on the Middle East at the
White House were very much in sync with what you said yesterday and last
week with one noticeable exception; suddenly the word "progress" has
surfaced. And I wondered if the fact that they didn't kidnap Dennis and put
him in a cave -
(Laughter.)
-- what is the basis of this progress? I don't know if you briefed after
the very last round of talks, so perhaps something happened at the very
end. Could you elaborate on what - you were ticking off the most innocuous
issues as being as unsettled - comparatively innocuous; airports, seaports -
those weren't hot issues. Where's the progress?
MR. RUBIN: First of all, I'm very pleased to see that you think what the
Secretary said and what I said are in sync; that's pleasing to me.
With regard to that point, obviously Secretary Albright has now had a
chance to be briefed in full by Ambassador Ross on the work that he has
done in the region; and again, what is that work? That work is to see
whether the ideas that we are refining can help the parties overcome this
previously unbridgeable gap on the questions of the further redeployment,
the necessary security steps the Palestinians would take, the time out and
the path to final status/permanent status negotiations. Those are the
four areas.
In addition, as always, we would like to see progress on the airport and
the seaport and the industrial park. We want to see progress on those areas
because they could demonstrate to the Palestinians that this peace process
brings them genuine benefits which, so far, they obviously feel they have
not received. The objective of all of these steps is to breathe life back
into a process that has not been thriving.
With regard to the phrase "some progress," what Secretary Albright was
making clear is that Ambassador Ross' work has improved the situation to
the extent that in the various areas where there have been gaps, some
indications now exist that some of those gaps can be bridged.
But Secretary Albright also made clear that those gaps that remain are
substantial. So we are not in a position to be able to bridge the gaps, and
we are significantly short of being able to bridge the gaps necessary to
restart the peace process. That means get an agreement on how to move to
final status; that means pursue a further redeployment; that means the
Palestinians taking the steps they need to take on security; and that means
both sides not taking the steps that we believe destroy the atmosphere
for peace - the unilateral steps that Secretary Albright talked about
in Israel when she called for the time-out.
So what Ambassador Ross was able to achieve was some progress; but not
nearly enough to enable us to say that the peace process is back on track.
On the contrary, the peace process is not on track and the gaps have not
been bridged, and Ambassador Ross and the Secretary will now determine what
the next steps will be.
QUESTION: I notice you're not using "dire straits" anymore, but let me
let that pass, because you don't have to use exactly the same words every
day.
MR. RUBIN: Thank you.
QUESTION: But when did some indications become manifest? Was that in his
last round of talks?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, when Ambassador Ross reported to the Secretary of State
on his work.
QUESTION: No, no, what I'm saying is, in your briefing yesterday, you
gave no suggestion of progress. So I'm just wondering if the last - were
they grabbing him by the ankle and saying, hey, wait a minute, let me tell
you that we are willing to consider a or b? Was it a farewell hint of
progress, or what?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to be in a position to get into describing to
you which particular meeting led him to say that there were some, but not
enough, progress. As a result of his trip, as a result of the series of
meetings that he had, Secretary Albright believes that there was some
modest progress - but well short of what is necessary to bridge the gaps.
The time is running out. There are decisions - hard decisions - that need
to be made. And there is a feeling on our part that greater urgency
needs to be appreciated by the parties.
QUESTION: One last question - would you change your description of those
three issues yesterday as being unresolved?
MR. RUBIN: Which?
QUESTION: Airport, seaport, industrial zone. You volunteered those, and
we all know those aren't quite as important as the future of Jerusalem.
MR. RUBIN: Again, I'm puzzled by your focus on those. What I did
yesterday was --
QUESTION: Well, these are threshold issues.
MR. RUBIN: No, no.
QUESTION: If you can get those knocked over, you can move - presumably
you can ratchet up to what -
MR. RUBIN: Let me try to explain what I was doing, and that was listing
for you all of the areas in the Middle East peace process -- not just those
three - the further redeployment, the time out, the Palestinian steps on
security, the move to final status talks, the Syrian track, the Lebanese
track, the multilateral negotiations. I listed for you the seven or eight
elements that constitute the Middle East peace process and told you that
none of them are on track. That is still true today.
QUESTION: I noticed that you were careful to say that none of the gaps
have been bridged, but that there was a feeling that the gaps can be
bridged. What - I know you can't give details, but what lead Ambassador
Ross to think or to report that the gaps can be bridged? Is it a sense of
earnestness on the part of the parties that wasn't there before, a sense of
willingness to work hard on the issues? I'm a little mystified.
MR. RUBIN: I'm sure you will remain mystified after my answer. Other than
to say that we don't make judgments about some progress based on mood or
the tenor of meetings. We're in the negotiating business; we're in the
substantive diplomatic business of trying to see whether if one party is at
point A and the other party is at point D, are we closer to point B
1/2?
(Laughter.)
The alphabet may not tolerate a half a letter, but that judgment means that
in some way, in some substantive form, we're perhaps a little closer.
As far as which is concerned, I can tell you that our focus has obviously
been on the further redeployment and the Palestinian steps that need to be
taken on security, which we believe will unlock the Middle East peace
process and enable us to move to the final status negotiations that need to
start if we are going to complete them by the middle of next year.
So, the area that we're focused on is less the airport and the seaport and
the industrial park. The area that Ambassador Ross was working on was the
further redeployment, the parallel steps that need to be taken in the area
of security which we believe, if done right, can unlock the peace process
that has been locked shut and enable us to move to the final status talks.
So the modest progress that the Secretary referred to is in that area and
it is substantive progress. It is not mood, it is not tenor, it is
not the type of meeting, it is what is discussed in those meetings. But as
far as being specific, I'm not going to be able to do that for you because
we are engaged in a negotiation and although some parties might find it
useful to talk publicly about this, we do not.
QUESTION: So there was substantive movement by the parties?
MR. RUBIN: Some substantive movement towards closing the gaps, but we
still are well short of the kinds of hard decisions that need to be made to
genuinely close it - to fully close the gap.
QUESTION: On the time-out on settlements, far from being a time-out,
there are new reports from suggest that there has been a virtual explosion
in acceleration of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. It that what you
have found? Has there been an increase in the rate of building?
MR. RUBIN: The Palestinians and Israelis agreed that settlements are to
be discussed in permanent status negotiations. We support that agreement.
We believe settlement activity - particularly at this delicate juncture
when the peace process is in such jeopardy - is unhelpful. It complicates
negotiations and undermines efforts to restore the confidence needed for
progress.
We have been working on the time-out precisely so that activities in this
area would not prejudge the outcome of permanent status talks. Our view is
to prejudge those outcomes is to make it harder for us to get to that
situation. We believe that for progress to be possible, both sides should
avoid actions that undermine mutual confidence. That includes settlement
activity. The reports you've seen about settlements - there are a lot of
different numbers floating around, and I'll try to get you a number for the
record, as far as what we think the right number is. But clearly,
there has been settlement activity in recent months that we've found
unhelpful and complicating to the process.
QUESTION: Jamie, can we take the Secretary's words at the White House as
a commitment that the United States will continue in its current peace-
making role for the foreseeable future?
MR. RUBIN: Only if those of you who were trying to make more out of
previous statements that we were not going to pursue that role.
All I can say to you is that disengagement is not an option that we prefer,
nor is it an option that is likely. We intend to keep working with the
parties to make the progress that is essential to move the process forward.
But at some point, this cannot go on indefinitely if the peace process is
going to have to be returned to some successful status.
QUESTION: Jamie, did Ambassador Ross relay an Israeli suggestion that
another trip by him to the region might be productive? Did the Secretary
accept that recommendation?
MR. RUBIN: Right, as far as that totally legitimate question, I'm really
not going to be able to answer it. They began a briefing, and had a full
briefing about what happened - what was said by whom about what subject.
They've absorbed that phase of the discussion and the next phase of the
discussion is going to be on next steps and what steps we can take that we
think will best catalyze this process. We haven't made such a decision.
QUESTION: Was that discussion held before she was at the White House and
made her statement?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. She was briefed by Ambassador Ross this morning.
QUESTION: It wasn't just a quick pre-briefing briefing. That was a full
briefing before she went to the White House? When she went to the White
House and spoke of concerns --
MR. RUBIN: She had been briefed by Ambassador Ross.
QUESTION: She'd already been briefed lengthily by Ross.
MR. RUBIN: It was more than a short briefing.
QUESTION: More than a short briefing.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: What can you lay out for us - the process that she and her
Cabinet colleagues, and perhaps the President, will follow in determining
what the next steps ought to be?
MR. RUBIN: Well, the process is the same process as always; which is that
the President has been deeply concerned about the peace process, and has
been directly engaged in discussions with her over the recent weeks about
what is the best way to put it back on track. The President himself, as you
know, met with Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu recently.
Normally at the end of a mission like this, there would be discussions
internally about what are the best next steps. I mean, there will be a
lot of ideas out there on what w should do - some good ideas, some
not so good ideas. So I would expect that Secretary Albright would be
consulting with the President on what the next steps would be, whether it
be an Ambassador Ross mission or something else.
QUESTION: And what about the timing?
MR. RUBIN: Well, the President is going to be back in two days, as I
understand it. If there is deemed urgency, this can be done telephonically.
But I haven't - Ambassador Ross, I believe, is home now, probably getting
some well-deserved sleep. I don't think he's repacking his bags. But this
is a fellow who tends to carry a bag around with an extra shirt and a tie
and some underclothing at regular occasions.
QUESTION: Then why do you say time is running out?
MR. RUBIN: Well, because we believe that if we don't make progress soon
on the Middle East peace process, the disillusionment in the region will be
so great that it will be hard to rebuild the confidence that will be
necessary for us to make progress. In other words, with each passing day,
the disillusionment grows; the difficulty of rebuilding the confidence
grows; and the different tracks of the peace process grow harder to
restore. So it's a cumulative process, whereby if you don't make progress
the people who this is about - the Palestinian people, the Israeli people,
the people in other countries who we hope one day might see the fruits of
peace - become increasingly disillusioned.
The longer we go without any progress - and it's been well more than a year
now since we've had any progress in the peace process - the harder and
harder it becomes to convince the people that it brings them the advantages
they had been led to believe.
QUESTION: Jamie, you said much earlier in this conversation that
Ambassador Ross thought that some of the areas now were areas where the
gaps could be bridged. Is it the US assessment that those areas could be
bridged; or is he reporting that the Palestinians themselves and the
Israelis themselves see that the gaps could be bridged?
MR. RUBIN: What he would report to the Secretary would be his assessment
of what he heard from the Israelis and the Palestinians, and whether he
thinks that any new things were said that make it more likely that the
various gaps can be bridged.
So it's our assessment, based on his discussions, that there was some
modest progress; but that we have a long, long way to go before one can say
that we have bridged the gaps and put the peace process back on track.
QUESTION: Can you tell us if Secretary Albright has - she has not yet
consulted with the President?
MR. RUBIN: I don't believe so.
QUESTION: Do you whether she has been in touch with any other Middle East
leaders to convey her thoughts or Ambassador Ross' thoughts -- other than
the ones with whom Ambassador Ross was --
MR. RUBIN: No, not today and not certainly following the report from
Ambassador Ross. The only think that I think she's done since she received
the report was do this briefing at the White House and have a lunch with
CIA Director George Tenet. And to the extent she was on the phone, I don't
believe it was with foreign leaders regarding the Middle East. I do think
she had some calls she reported at the White House with regard to
Kosovo.
QUESTION: Did the Middle East come up in her lunch with the CIA
Director?
MR. RUBIN: I think that as a matter of practice, I am going to refuse to
tell you what subjects come up in her discussions with CIA Director
Tenet.
QUESTION: Can we go back to the Saudi - the non-investigation, or the
investigation over but you don't - the Saudi, the bombing, the loss of
American lives, the wounding of Americans, which is getting back-page
treatment because nothing's come out from the Saudis particularly. Where do
you sit on this? The US just, what, waits for the Saudis to publish
something ultimately?
MR. RUBIN: I urge those --
QUESTION: Well, I saw your statement.
MR. RUBIN: -- those of you who asked me questions based on reporting
yesterday to go back and look at the original remarks and you may find that
they weren't as clear as originally reported.
The Saudis' remarks that they have closed the investigation, which I
believe is the question that I got yesterday - when I looked again at the
remarks, it is not at all clear that that is what the official was saying.
On the contrary, he appeared to be saying that the big picture, there's
nothing new and nothing new to find but they are working on the details.
Well, most investigations focus on the details and from that, one can build
out into understanding what might have happened.
But let me say this - from the perspective of the United States, the Al
Khobar bombing investigation remains wide open. We are continuing to have
exchanges with the Saudi Government and have had repeated and very high
level assurances of cooperation form them. We expect that cooperation to
continue. But beyond saying that the investigation is wide open and that
those responsible will be found and to the best of our ability and, in
addition, that a price will be paid, all I can say is that this is an
ongoing criminal matter and it would be up to the FBI to say anything
more, if at all.
QUESTION: So their investigation is wide open; they have --
MR. RUBIN: No, I didn't say that, Barry.
QUESTION: Then what's wide open? I'm sorry, I misheard you.
MR. RUBIN: As far as the United States is concerned -
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - own investigation.
MR. RUBIN: Our investigation, from the United States perspective, the Al
Khobar bombing investigation remains wide open. We are working with the
Saudis. We have high level assurances of cooperation. The premature reports,
based on interpretations of what this particular minister may or may not
have said, do not strike us as indicating that their investigation is
complete. So, everybody's investigation, as far as I can figure, is ongoing
and we intend to continue to work with the Saudis.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: Because I didn't say, anyway -
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - worldwide. I mean, their investigation is
proceeding, so is yours.
MR. RUBIN: Right. Again, I can't speak for the Saudis about their
investigation. All I can debunk is the premature report that it was closed.
As far as we're concerned, this investigation is wide open and we're going
to continue to work with the Saudis on getting to the bottom of it. So, in
that sense, they're going to continue to work with us and therefore their
work is not complete.
QUESTION: These questions aren't based on some snooping into the Royal
retinue, I mean, Americans were killed. This has never been settled. Nobody
has been brought to justice. Nobody --
MR. RUBIN: Right. And these -
QUESTION: So, I mean, Americans have an interest in knowing, despite all
the who, who, who, when you deal with the Saudis. We do want to know what
is going on.
MR. RUBIN: So what's the question, Barry?
QUESTION: The question is how does the US currently assess Saudi Arabia's
relationship with Iran, and does it have any bearing on the investigation?
MR. RUBIN: I have no way of assessing Saudi Arabia's relationship with
another country. What I can assess is our intention to get to the bottom of
this investigation and to follow the leads wherever they may go, regardless
of anybody's relationship with any other country. This is about Americans
getting killed and we will follow this investigation wherever it leads.
QUESTION: Are you convinced that the Saudis are going at this full-blast,
or is there investigation influenced by their relations with other
countries?
MR. RUBIN: We have had high-level assurances from the Saudi Government of
their cooperation. We expect that cooperation to continue.
QUESTION: Well, we haven't asked you in about six months, you see.
They've repeated that they've given high-level pledges, but we haven't
asked in a while how the actual cooperation is. Can you assess that?
MR. RUBIN: We expect the Saudi Government to continue to cooperate with
the United States, and we expect that cooperation to be full and complete.
QUESTION: Jamie, you said a minute ago - unless I misunderstood - that
you didn't believe there were any suspects under detention.
MR. RUBIN: I certainly said nothing about suspects.
QUESTION: Well, the Saudis have said that there are suspects.
MR. RUBIN: Right, but the word "suspect" did not cross my lips.
QUESTION: Well, there are people under detention that the Saudis describe
as suspects in this bombing, correct?
MR. RUBIN: Right. As you may have divined now from the last five minutes
of discussion, this is an ongoing criminal investigation. When we talk
about criminal investigations on the record, from this podium, we tell you
that we have ongoing criminal investigations and we will get to the bottom
of it. We don't assess those investigations; we don't give you previews of
those investigations; and we don't assess the ebbs and flows of investigations.
What we do is investigate; and that's what we're doing.
QUESTION: Do the Saudis say in private to you the same thing they say in
public to us, which is that they have suspects in detention?
MR. RUBIN: There's no chance of me telling you privately about an
investigation the Saudis may have privately talked to us about. I've told
you that all I'm going to tell you on this subject is that we're investigating.
If you have further questions, I would encourage you to speak to the
FBI.
QUESTION: The Saudi pledges of cooperation have not been matched by --
MR. RUBIN: You started off so well - it was quiet -
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: -- by actual cooperation; isn't that correct?
MR. RUBIN: What?
QUESTION: The Saudi pledges of cooperation have not been matched by
actual cooperation.
MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to get into the position of assessing the
investigation. It's not the State Department's investigation; it's the
FBI's investigation. We obviously contribute to the process, but if you
have questions about the state of play of the investigation, I urge you to
contact the FBI.
QUESTION: Is it a complicated case that should take a long time?
MR. RUBIN: That would be a question about the investigation and the state
of play and the difficulty, and therefore, would be well-directed at the
FBI.
QUESTION: No, I just mean, without describing what might make it - see,
the tone on Lockerbie is, for instance, which is an act of terrorism, too,
is quite different. I mean, Administration officials demand and insist,
bring them to justice.
MR. RUBIN: No, because - Barry, because we came to a conclusion.
QUESTION: Because it's Libya and this is Saudi Arabia.
MR. RUBIN: Barry, we came to a conclusion.
QUESTION: All right.
MR. RUBIN: If you're going to make analogies, try to have reasonable
analogies.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. RUBIN: We drew conclusions about what happened in the Lockerbie
bombing. We investigated it and we drew conclusions. And once we came to
conclusions and we had suspects identified with state-sponsorship, we acted
to impose sanctions. What I can assure you is that when we've concluded the
investigation and drawn conclusions not based on suppositions that you and
your colleagues are prepared to report - we're talking about a situation
where lives are at stake, and we're not going to make judgments until we
have a reasonable level of confidence about what we're talking about. When
we have that reasonable level of confidence, when the investigation has
been completed, then we will act accordingly.
QUESTION: One last question - did you speak of them pledging to cooperate,
or are you saying they have cooperated fully?
MR. RUBIN: We have had repeated and very high-level assurances of
cooperation, and we expect that cooperation from the Saudi Government.
QUESTION: Have you had that cooperation?
MR. RUBIN: That would require an assessment of the investigation and if
you want an assessment of the investigation about its ups and downs, its
pluses and minuses, I -
QUESTION: You speak neutrally of what you expect the Saudis to do.
MR. RUBIN: No, no. Barry you're -
QUESTION: I mean, the investigation has gone on for years.
MR. RUBIN: Barry, we're not making any progress here. You're asking me to
assess the investigation -- have the Saudis cooperated, have they not?
That's an assessment of an investigation that the State Department is not
conducting. So if you are intent on getting an answer or probably not an
answer to that question, I would direct that question towards those
conducting the investigation, who would be in a better position to give you
information as to the ebbs and flows, ups and downs, pluses and minuses of
such an investigation.
QUESTION: Another subject - about Cyprus. Reaction to the European Union
to Turkey and the Turkish republic of northern Cyprus - they start
integration process yesterday. The Turkish Foreign Minister Ismail Cem
first he said that the first step is the custom integration and he said -
(inaudible) - to the European Union, this process will be double. Does this
mean that the Cyprus partition became permanent status on this development?
MR. RUBIN: Whew.
QUESTION: Want to go back to the Saudis?
(Laughter.)
MR. RUBIN: Let's go back to the Saudis - (laughter.)
QUESTION: How do you expect to recommend -
MR. RUBIN: We are hopeful that we'll see a resolution of the question of
how the delegation will be made up. We've long said that we would like to
see the integration of countries into the EU as becoming a positive factor
in the peaceful resolution of the Cyprus problem.
QUESTION: And also, do you have anything about the Armenian election
results?
MR. RUBIN: What I can tell you about the Armenian election results is
that vote counting continues in Armenia and we do not expect final results
to be announced until later today or tomorrow. With 72 percent of precincts
counted, the Armenian Central Elections Commission reports that acting
President Kocharian leads with 60 percent to 40 percent for the other
candidate. An international team of over 140 OSCE monitors, including 65
Americans, is meeting today to evaluate the election; and as I understand
it, will issue a statement later today or tomorrow and therefore we'll be
awaiting that judgment by the monitors.
QUESTION: The talks in this building this afternoon that start between US
and Canadian delegations on salmon in the Northwest - do you have anything
at all on that? And given the fact that it's been at stalemate for so long,
is there any optimism that these talks will actually produce something?
MR. RUBIN: The scheduled meeting in the Department for today and tomorrow-
the US negotiating team will include senior federal negotiators Roberts
Owen and representatives of the governors of Alaska, Washington and Oregon,
and of the Treaty Tribes and the Federal government. The Canadian
delegation will be headed by their chief negotiator, Donald McRae. The
talks will follow up on the recommendations contained in the January 1998
report submitted by Special Representatives Ruckelshaus and Strangway.
The negotiating teams will work towards establishing a practical framework
for implementation for the Pacific Salmon Treaty.
The negotiators will also discuss interim arrangements. These are largely
organizational meetings that will take place. Obviously, what we're trying
to do here is see whether we can come up with some interim arrangements so
that when the fishing season starts in full, shortly, that there's a
process for the next two fishing seasons that will avoid the kind of
controversy and conflict that occurred last time. And as far as being
hopeful or optimistic or pessimistic, the fish negotiators have advised me
to be neutral.
QUESTION: Several hours ago it seems, you said that the Secretary spoke
to - had telephone conversations about Kosovo.
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
QUESTION: Can you tell us who she spoke to?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, she spoke to Foreign Minister Primakov twice, I believe,
in the last 24 hours to try to come to some resolutions on some of the
remaining obstacles to passing a resolution in the Security Council. We
wanted to do what we could to meet the deadline that was set in Bonn for
action today. We're still hopeful we can do that. We're in the final throes
of negotiating a few words here and there. We're hopeful that the Security
Council will act today to impose an arms embargo on Serbia-Montenegro
as a clear signal that that country will face isolation from the international
community, beginning with this arms embargo, if it does not change its
practices and change course and allow for a peaceful resolution of the
problem in Kosovo.
QUESTION: To use the word of choice last week, has there been any
backtracking by the Russians since your meeting in Bonn last week? Any
backtracking on the arms cut-off?
MR. RUBIN: No, there are always expected to be words negotiated.
Resolutions imposing arms embargoes are very complicated documents that
have to be carefully written that impose serious sanctions on a country.
So we believe we've received the kind of signal from Foreign Minister
Primakov that he intends to instruct his delegation to support a resolution
in the Security Council, which would be a clear implementation and follow-
up from the meeting in Bonn.
QUESTION: Also on Kosovo, the Serbs say that the delegation to talk to
the Albanians would include a personal representative of Milosevic. Does
that meet the Contact Group's requirement?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we're not trying to micro-manage the entire negotiating
process. What we are trying to say is that he needs to take responsibility
for this process. I'm not in a position to adjudicate any one particular
proposal, other than to say that so far we haven't seen the kind of
behavior from President Milosevic that would signal a willingness to
resolve this conflict peacefully.
On the contrary, by refusing to see Ambassador Gelbard, he was signaling to
us that he is not moving in the right direction. Hopefully the message sent
today by the UN Security Council - the clear message that isolation will
come to his country if he doesn't change course, get the message and begin
to come up with an acceptable political solution.
QUESTION: Using last week's lexicon, is that - the Europeans' lexicon,
not yours - but what Ron just described. Is that a basis at all for
"encouragement?"
MR. RUBIN: We have not seen the kind of across-the-board behavior,
whether it's on the special forces, on the access for outside groups --
QUESTION: Or taking responsibility --
MR. RUBIN: Or taking responsibility for this problem at a political
level. And just to give you an example, was the refusal to see Ambassador
Gelbard just a couple of days ago. So we haven't seen anything to indicate
that he has made the wholesale change.
But again, there are going to be tiny steps. What I'm saying is there
haven't been the significant steps that would constitute a changing of
course, which is why we're going forward with the resolution.
QUESTION: On the resolution, are you saying that the Russians are now on
board for a full and immediate total arms embargo on Serbia?
MR. RUBIN: Gosh, that just doesn't sound at all like what I said.
(Laughter.) What I said was --
QUESTION: That's the language that you wanted, right?
MR. RUBIN: What I said was that Secretary Albright and Foreign Minister
Primakov spoke, and that she was encouraged by that phone call that Foreign
Minister Primakov would instruct his delegation to move forward to support
a resolution banning the sale of arms or the transfer of arms to Serbia.
But that hasn't happened yet, Jim. It's 2:00 p.m.; it hasn't happened yet.
So I couldn't make the kind of sweeping judgment that you just said.
They're negotiating in New York; they're working it out. And when and if
they complete the process, then we'll know the answer to your question.
QUESTION: Does that include the appropriate sanctions, too -- that the
Russians are on board in support of that? You said earlier that an arms
embargo requires sanctions.
MR. RUBIN: An arms embargo is a sanction.
QUESTION: Well, okay.
QUESTION: Well, you can sanction violators. Resolutions sometimes
sanction violators.
MR. RUBIN: Right. We believe that to impose an arms embargo on a country,
to deny a country, in its view, its legitimate right to defend itself is a
major step by the international community. For you guys, it's one sentence
in a story; for the country involved, it's a major step forward by the
international community to isolate that country - to deny it one of the
fundamental abilities that countries in the world have as nations, which is
to try to import weaponry to defend themselves. So for them it's a pretty
big deal; it's a sanction, I can assure you.
QUESTION: How convinced are you that an arms embargo against Serbia-
Montenegro is going to be effective? They've had no trouble getting weapons
over the years. Is there any reason to believe they'll have any serious
trouble now?
MR. RUBIN: Well, the premise of your question, I think, is fundamentally
flawed. The arms embargo that was imposed by the Security Council did have
an effect. The former Yugoslav Republic of - Serbia-Montenegro was unable
to import much of the weaponry that it wanted during the war in Bosnia and
the war in Croatia. I think if you had a general from the Yugoslav national
army here, he would talk to you bitterly about his inability to re-arm
himself, get additional weaponry. So to blithely say that it had no effect,
I think, is inaccurate.
QUESTION: I didn't -- (inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: You said it's been ineffective.
QUESTION: I said that it had little difficulty getting weapons, and they
have gotten weapons. There has been a weapons flow; perhaps not what they
would have liked.
MR. RUBIN: Right, so it therefore has an effect.
QUESTION: Okay, and what I'm asking you is, do you think this arms
embargo will close off the flow of weapons to Serbia-Montenegro?
MR. RUBIN: I can assure you that no embargo in the history of the world
is leak-proof, and this will not be leak-proof.
QUESTION: Are there steps being taken by the US and its allies to make
this a more effective --
MR. RUBIN: What I can also assure you of is that countries of the world
are deterred by the Security Council imposing an arms embargo. And there's
been a proven record over the years that the ability of countries to get
arms is severely constrained by the Security Council imposing an arms
embargo.
There are countries in the world that are, perhaps, negotiating the
possibility of transferring weaponry to the country of Serbia-Montenegro,
and I suspect that they are not going to follow through because most
countries in the world do not violate international embargoes.
Will there be some gray market trade in arms to Yugoslavia? I can assure
you there will be some gray market trade. If that's your standard, then no
action by any international body ever will ever meet your standard.
QUESTION: Jamie, still on the arms embargo, in the conversations with Mr.
Primakov, was the Secretary satisfied that the Russians would also agree to
a resolution that does not include a time - a clock running, or a time
limit?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, I believe there is no time limit in that resolution that
is being considered.
QUESTION: Is there any language about when it gets lifted?
MR. RUBIN: The language - again, I haven't read the resolution; they're
considering it in New York. But the standard that was set in Bonn was the
judgment by the OSCE that President Milosevic was meeting the three
conditions I discussed with Barry - namely, the special police, political
responsibility, access for outside organizations.
QUESTION: Another subject - yesterday you took a question on the US
response to the Okinawan Governor calling for more equitable burden-sharing
for US bases between Okinawa and the Japanese mainland. Is there any
response?
MR. RUBIN: The US maintains forces in Japan to fulfill its obligations to
defend Japan under the US-Japan Security Treaty. The Special Action
Committee on Okinawa was established in November 1995 to look for ways to
ease the burden on the people of Okinawa. It contained recommendations to
re-align, consolidate and reduce US facilities in areas. We continue to
work with the government of Japan to implement the remaining recommendations.
We continue to believe that the sea-based facility offers the best
alternative to the existing facility at Futenma.
QUESTION: On Cuba, I don't remember how long it was ago that the
Secretary talked about working - announced the new US policy on working
with Congress toward relaxing some of the restrictions on medical shipments
and food shipments. Do you have a progress report on that at all?
MR. RUBIN: I think we're still awaiting specific legislative language
from the various members. There hasn't been any action involving high-level
meetings to try to come to closure on any particular pieces of legislation.
Obviously, there are some staff-level discussions that go on, but in terms
of genuine movement with high-level meetings between senators and the
Secretary or her representatives, I'm not aware of any.
QUESTION: On another unrelated subject, this week a series of perhaps
unrelated, perhaps related events associated with Iran are occurring.
There's going to be a wrestling team in Oklahoma, and there's going to be
an ambassador in California. Do you have any comment on whether those
things are related, or what they represent as far as the US is concerned?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we have been encouraged by the statements of President
Khatemi in certain respects, and we are seeking to encourage the kind of
civilizational dialogue that would be involved in exchanges of this kind.
So we've been facilitating them. We encouraged the wrestling team to go
there originally - or I believe our phrase was, we had no objection to
it.
So we obviously want to see whether these kinds of people-to-people
contacts can be helpful. But at the end of the day, the only thing that can
really bridge the gap between our two countries is a direct dialogue
between the two governments, where we believe the issues between us can be
resolved.
QUESTION: So in that connection, Iran now has a new ambassador to the UN,
for example, has the US ambassador to the UN met with the Iranian
ambassador to the UN to discuss anything?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of such a meeting. Again --
QUESTION: Would it be authorized, would it be allowed?
MR. RUBIN: What we have said is that we would like to see a direct
dialogue - that is, an authorized dialogue, publicly acknowledged - where
the issues that we have listed would be on the agenda. There is no step
that I'm aware of towards that end being taken in New York.
QUESTION: Well, how does it begin? Somebody has to make the first move
towards dialogue. I mean, is the US prepared to initiate it?
MR. RUBIN: We think we'll be in a position to know when such a direct
meeting can take place between US and Iranian officials. It's no surprise
to you that we have ways to communicate on the procedural level like this.
All I'm saying to you, in direct response to Ralph's question, is that I'm
not aware of any steps toward direct dialogue being pursued in New
York.
QUESTION: Are US diplomats still under the instructions that they've been
under, I think, for quite a few years now, which is that they can meet
Iranian officials in social settings and so on, but they're not to have any
substantive discussion with them?
MR. RUBIN: I'll have to check; I doubt that's changed, but I'll have to
check that for you.
QUESTION: I mean, I know as a general principle you don't get into the
game of denying whether this person works for the CIA or that person works
for the DEA, but --
MR. RUBIN: They're birdwatchers.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: I'm sorry, can you give - (inaudible) - can you say whether -
as to these --
MR. RUBIN: I have no reason to believe that these people are anything but
birdwatchers, and they should be released and they should not be suffering
at the hands of terrorists and they shouldn't have threats to their lives.
The people of this - who want to visit a country to enjoy the environment
and the beauty of it should not be kidnapped and terrorized and threatened.
As far as I best can tell, there is no connection between these people
with anything other than the National Audubon Society.
QUESTION: The London Times had a report that the abductors who captured
four Western hostages in Kashmir about two years ago, apparently, in anger,
had killed off all the hostages. What's the latest information you have on
this? And is there going to be any closure on this, in terms of are you
still cooperating with the Indian Government? Is there any - or have you
all just forgotten about the hostages?
MR. RUBIN: First of all, we have not forgotten about them. We continue to
work with the governments involved to try to bring this case to closure.
It's a difficult situation to try to find out what's happened. I don't have
the latest update as of today, but we'll be happy to get you that after the
briefing.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: On Albright's speech - sorry - any clue that you can give us at
this point on the topic of her speeches this week?
MR. RUBIN: It will be topical.
(The briefing concluded at 2:30 P.M.)
|
