U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #41, 98-04-03
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
757
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Friday, April 3, 1998
Briefer: James P. Rubin
CUBA
1 Russia Monitoring Facility at Lourdes in Cuba
1-2 Status of Migrant Cuban Baseball Personnel in Bahamas
2 Next Round of Bilateral Migration Talks
CYPRUS
2 Holbrooke, Miller Missions to Cyprus; U.S. Policy on Cyprus
Issue
9 Timing of Holbrooke Travel; Purpose of Visit
EL SALVADOR
3 Sentencing of National Guardsmen for Murder of Nuns; USG
Assessment of Killings
3-4 US Visas for Salvadoran Generals
4 Bilateral Extradition Arrangements
4 Possible Request for Declassification of Documents Related
to Killings
4 No Effect on Assessment of Christopher Report of 1993
HAITI
4-5 SecState Albright Agenda During Upcoming Visit; Information
on Human Rights Investigations
COLOMBIA
5,7 Threats to Kidnapped Americans from Guerrillas; AmCit
Thomas Fiore Now Free
5-6 U.S. Anti-Drug Aid to Colombia Military; No Aid for
Anti-Guerrilla Operations Not Tied to Drug Traffickers
6 Russian Mafia Connection with Narco-Trafficking Guerrillas
MEXICO
6-7 Worldwide Grounding of Huey Helicopters; Provision of
Working Helicopters
LATVIA
7-8 U.S. Willing to Assist Investigation of Synagogue Bombing;
Baltic Charter Commitment
SERBIA
8 Milosevic Proposal for Referendum on International
Mediators for Kosovo Issue
TRADE
9 Congressman Gilman's Deadline on ILSA (Iran-Libya Sanctions
Act) Implementation
IRAN
9 No US Reaction to Speech in L.A. by Iran's UN Representative
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
9-11 U.S. Commitment to Israel's Security, as well as a Just,
Comprehensive Peace Process Process Deadlocked
10-11 Israeli Denial of Responsibility in Death of Hamas Figure
Sharif
11 USG Deplores Hamas Threat of Revenge for Sharif Killing
UNITED NATIONS
10 Support for Congressional Action on US Arrears
CHINA
1 No Announcement Yet on Secretary's Potential Travel to China
ISRAEL
12 Direction of Missile Threat to Israel; USG Actions to
Prevent Russian Support for Iran Missile Program
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #41
FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 1998, 12:45 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: It's a quite mood today here on Friday at the State Department
briefing. I guess those of you who are getting up at 4:00 in the morning
tomorrow are going to go home early, and those who are not going to go with
us tomorrow will be working late.
QUESTION: (Inaudible).
MR. RUBIN: Sorry?
QUESTION: Editors don't need to (inaudible).
MR. RUBIN: Some do, actually. George.
QUESTION: Have you seen the story about the Russians supposedly using the
listening post in Cuba to glean information about American battle plans and
so forth?
MR. RUBIN: We are well aware of the Russian signal intelligence facility
at Lourdes, Cuba. Like our own SIGINT facilities, it is used to collect
military information, including information used in verifying arms control
agreements. Because of the sensitive nature of such activities, we will not
comment publicly on the degree to which we do or do not perceive Lourdes as
a threat.
QUESTION: I have a question on another topic.
MR. RUBIN: Sorry?
QUESTION: Well, it was a different subject. I had a Cuba question but it
was different, so we can come back.
MR. RUBIN: Let's stay with Cuba and then we'll go right to whatever
subject you might be raising.
QUESTION: Well, it is a different Cuba question. But Joe Cubas, the
baseball agent, says he has an agreement from four countries in the region
to take the baseball players who are in the Bahamas now. Do you have a
comment on that?
MR. RUBIN: Well, what we have said is that they haven't requested access
to the United States. If they did so, we would be prepared to consider
their request and make our judgment based on our assessment of the
situation. We don't have such a request.
We are perfectly comfortable with other countries in the region dealing
with this kind of a problem where people leaving Cuba do or don't want to
go back and have different needs and reasons to go to other countries. The
point being that we think the migration issue is not just an issue for the
United States; it should be an issue for all those in the region. So to the
extent this is resolved regionally, that is fine with us.
QUESTION: You don't fear pressing it though would encourage other Cubans
to take to rafts or anything like that?
MR. RUBIN: We have a system in place. We have worked closely with the
Cuban government to ensure that migration is safe, legal and orderly. We
allow, as you know, 20,000 a year and we expect that system to continue to
work for us.
QUESTION: Can I ask you another question on Cuba? Just to know if you can
confirm that next week in New York, Cuba and the United States are going to
start another round of negotiations on immigration?
MR. RUBIN: I would have to get that for you for the record. Yes?
QUESTION: And the first thing I wanted to ask --
MR. RUBIN: By the way, we do have regular talks on migration. It's a
regular exercise. It's a normal process. The date at which they might begin
I will get you for the record.
QUESTION: Yes. First I want to ask you if you have anything for us on the
mission by Ambassador Holbrooke to Cyprus and, second, Wall Street Journal
in an editorial today attacks US policy on the Cyprus issue, if you have a
comment.
MR. RUBIN: Ambassador Miller arrived in Cyprus Thursday, yesterday. He
met on Thursday evening with President Clerides and again today. Ambassador
Miller also met twice today with Mr. Denktash. Ambassador Holbrooke is
scheduled to arrive this evening and will meet with both leaders over the
course of the evening and Saturday. Currently, they are planning only to be
in Cyprus, not to visit Greece or Turkey.
Our efforts are an ongoing process designed to achieve the objective we
have long set, which is to engage the two leaders in a process that leads
to a settlement on the basis of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation.
With regard to editorial criticism in particular newspapers, we develop
thick skin here in the government from the nit-pickers and second-guessers
outside the government, and so we really don't have much to say about
it.
QUESTION: El Salvador.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Can you say anything more than you were quoted as saying this
morning in the Times on the claim of the four men serving 30 years, that
they were directed to kill the nuns at the behest of higher-ups?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say that the U.S. embassy in El Salvador cooperated
with the lawyers from the Lawyers Committee on Human Rights and arranged
for their access to the imprisoned Salvadoran National Guardsmen. We
weren't privy to the conversations between these lawyers and the prisoners.
We were briefed on the results on their discussions.
We have long been involved in efforts to see justice done in this case.
We've been in the forefront of those trying to see justice done in this
case. Our assessment of what happened has, in general, coincided with the
conclusions reached by Judge Tyler in his investigation in 1983. A U.S.
federal judge went down there and conducted an exhaustive review of the
killings concluding that the guardsmen were not - I'm emphasize the word
not - following orders from senior officers.
If, however, there is any new evidence that emerges, we would want to see
the Salvadorans vigorously urge the government - their prosecutors to
investigate, and if warranted, to prosecute those implicated. So if there
is something tangible, something new, something that makes a demonstrable
difference in the evidentiary situation, we would want to see further
investigation and prosecution.
QUESTION: At this point you have no reason to do that and no reason to
look at the visa applications of Salvadoran generals who are in this
country?
MR. RUBIN: Well, let me make the point that this is an issue for
Salvadoran justice. We want them to pursue this issue, and they will have
to assess whether they think that based on any new information there is a
reason to go forward and investigate further.
As far as the visas are concerned, this is an issue for the INS. But let me
emphasize that one is presumably innocent until proven guilty; and,
secondly, that the two individuals mentioned in the article were not cited
as having participated in the cover-up of the slayings when Judge Tyler
investigated this issue in 1983. They received visas in 1989, prior to
subsequent reporting that they may or may not have been involved in it, and
subsequent reporting was not a judgment, but was some testimony.
So this an issue for Salvadoran justice to pursue. We want them to pursue
it to its natural course. If a new situation were to develop, if new
evidence were created and prosecutions were to follow, we would obviously
take that into account in our visa situation and in our international
cooperation with El Salvador on matters such as this.
But right now, what you are seeing is the statements of the some of the
prisoners. That may or may not be new, and it may or may not mean that
there is genuinely new evidence that changes the situation dramatically.
QUESTION: Do we have an extradition treaty with El Salvador?
MR. RUBIN: I would have to check that, but I am sure we have some kind of
arrangement for extradition.
QUESTION: Are you all going to - some of the lawyers that were involved
and that you cited earlier have said that they are writing a letter to the
Secretary to ask her to declassify all the documents you all may have
relating to this case. Are you all going to do that?
MR. RUBIN: I'm unaware of such a letter.
QUESTION: If asked, would you do that?
MR. RUBIN: We would have to see the letter, see the case, look at -
declassification is not something one just unilaterally announces from the
podium. We obviously would want to assist in this investigation. In 1983,
an American judge went through an exhaustive investigation based on the
information that he had available that we asked him to conduct. If there is
new information that justifies further examination of what we know or don't
know, we would obviously want to be helpful. But it doesn't sound
like the kind of thing that can be proved from the United States.
QUESTION: Does any of this change the Department's view - those presented
in the Christopher Report in 1993 on the State Department's handling of
this atrocity and others in El Salvador?
MR. RUBIN: I haven't seen any indication that this would or would not
change it. Again, what this is about is about the extent to which a brutal
and horrible killing was approved and how high the level was. I believe the
broad issue of extra-judicial killings was examined at the time and
findings were concluded.
What I'm saying to you is, if in the course of this new evidence, a new
evidentiary situation develops and there are reasons to pursue the case
further and see whether new leads can now be pursued, we would, of course,
do that. But at this point, we're not in a position to make that judgment.
QUESTION: Jamie, on Haiti?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: There are new appeals by lawyers for the Secretary to turn over
evidence the U.S. has about human rights violations in Haiti when she goes
to Haiti tomorrow. Does she have any intention of doing that?
MR. RUBIN: Secretary Albright will obviously be raising a number of
issues in Haiti, primarily focusing on the political impasse that has made
it impossible for the government to function as effectively as it ought to
and, therefore, made it extremely difficult for Haiti to receive the kind
of outside support it needs. We will obviously take a look at any requests
for information. I'm not aware that we have any new requests for information
there. But she would, of course, want to help in any way we can in
ensuring that the Haitian government investigates and acts upon the
investigation of any human rights abuses committed by the government or
people affiliated with the government.
QUESTION: To go to Latvia?
MR. RUBIN: Let's stay on Latin America. Then we'll come back. Go ahead,
yes.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about the recent events in Colombia
that have been causing some words in other countries, including the United
States?
MR. RUBIN: Can you be more specific?
QUESTION: I mean the kind of threats that the guerrillas have made to the
Americans.
MR. RUBIN: Well, with regard to the guerrillas in Colombia, let me make
several points. We can confirm that Thomas Fiore is safe. Due to our
concern for the safety of all the remaining citizens who are hostage, we
are not going to comment further. But let me say that the guerrillas who
carried out the abductions must insure the immediate and safe return of all
US citizens.
With regard to the broader question of the suggestion that we are
increasing counternarcotics aid to the Colombian military, let me just say
that our aid to the Colombian military will continue this year. We will be
providing some training as part of the international IMET program. We have
also notified Congress of our intent to begin a marine program.
We previously announced that aid to the military will include fixed wing
aircraft, spare parts, river patrol aircraft, communications equipment and
training, and will only go to those military units which have passed an
extensive vetting process to detect human rights abuse. In short, this aid
will go to fight narcotics, not to fight a civil war.
But at the same time, we have recognized that several of the guerrillas
have become increasingly involved in drug trafficking as defenders of coca
cultivation and processing labs and transporters of cocaine to markets in
the US. Thus, as the police and the military conduct counternarcotics
operations, they may encounter guerrillas engaged in providing support to
narcotics traffickers. The guerrillas wouldn't face this kind of derivative
use of American equipment against them if they would get out of the
narcotics business.
Yes. Same subject?
QUESTION: In other words, the United States is trying to support the
Colombian government to combat guerrillas using anti-narcotic guise,
right?
MR. RUBIN: No, no, let's be clear. One plus one equals two. One plus one
does not equal three. What I said was the assistance we provide to the
Colombian military and the Colombian police is to fight narcotics
traffickers. To the extent that guerrillas are narcotics traffickers, they
would obviously face the prospect of American-assisted Colombian police and
Colombian military. To the extent that they don't want to see that, they
should get themselves out of the narcotics business. Our aid is focused
on fighting narcotics. One plus one equals two, not three.
QUESTION: In terms of equipment, the Mexican government has decided to
stop using Huey helicopters. Are you planning to replace that kind of
equipment to Mexico?
MR. RUBIN: My understanding on the Huey issue is there is a worldwide
decision to ground Hueys until some of the mechanical issues can be
resolved. I refer you to the Pentagon for discussion of mechanical problems
with Huey helicopters. But as I understand it, it is not focused on Mexico,
but is worldwide.
Is this the same subject?
QUESTION: Same subject.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Either/or. Let me start with the guerrillas. The guerrillas,
the FARC and other guerrilla groups allegedly are profiting so much from
the drug business that they can afford to buy very sophisticated weapons.
They are getting some from the old wars in Central America, but most are
coming from the Russian Mafia. General Serrano testified to this. Most of
the flow - and they're very sophisticated weapons, almost anything
is for sale, they say. Is this accurate, do you think, and what is the US
going to do to counter Russian Mafia supply?
MR. RUBIN: I would have to get you information for the record on the
extent to which the Russian Mafia may or may not be assisting, working with,
collaborating with, and otherwise in an evil alliance with drug traffickers.
QUESTION: It appears that way. Let me follow the helicopter story just a
bit. General Serrano said that they, one, were not getting the copters that
they had been promised in '96. This was taken up with Mr. Beers, who was a
witness before the general. But they need more than Hueys. They need more
than super-Hueys. They need the Blackhawks that can go up to the heights of
the poppy fields. They need range to get - so that the guerrillas
cannot get out of their range. And they need to be able to carry platoons -
not platoons, but squads of up to 14 men. So they are very much handicapped,
and these guys are fighting for their lives. If they lose, they die, this
is what General Serrano says.
MR. RUBIN: So the question is?
QUESTION: So the question is where are the 'copters? Can't we get them
'copters that work?
MR. RUBIN: We are working very closely with Congress and those in Latin
America who are fighting drug traffickers, and we are going to provide the
assistance we believe is most appropriate for that. This is an issue that
has obviously been discussed, and the extent to which particular helicopters
are more or less useful is one that is the subject of consultation between
Congress and the Executive Branch and the countries concerned.
QUESTION: Thomas Fiore?
MR. RUBIN: All right. Let's stay there and we're getting back to you in
the front row.
QUESTION: Does the release of Thomas Fiore make it any more likely that
the others will be released, and have they made any demands, a ransom or
anything?
MR. RUBIN: Beyond saying that he has been released, we think it would be
inappropriate to comment in our primary interest to protect the lives of
American citizens who are obviously at risk.
QUESTION: Have the consular officials there talked with him?
MR. RUBIN: There has been contact. But beyond saying what I just said, we
are keeping a very low profile on this.
QUESTION: On Latvia. In the last week there have been a couple of
incidents involving - one was a march by Nazis in Riga and yesterday a
bombing of the largest Jewish synagogue there. I am wondering - and a
request to the United States that the FBI help with the investigation. Two
questions: Is the FBI going to help -
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Yeah, there was a statement last night, I know. But it doesn't
answer whether the United States is going to help with the investigation.
Then, also, sort of --
MR. RUBIN: Let me start by saying, as a rule, we tend to try to be
helpful when our assistance is needed in investigations. But as far as
whether the FBI would be involved in such a specific effort, I would direct
you to the FBI to answer the question.
QUESTION: And, second, is there - what is the level of concern in this
building about the apparent rise of that type of incident and sentiment in
Latvia?
MR. RUBIN: Well, let me just say that this type of hate crime is an
outrage and the US government, as I indicated last night, would pledge to
provide full support to the Latvian investigation of these kinds of
shameful offenses. As far as the connection between this event and any
other events like the demonstration that included Waffen SS slogans or
insignia, we wouldn't want to speculate other than to say we are ready to
help the Latvian government work on this problem.
As signatories to the Baltic charter, Latvia has affirmed its commitment to
civil and human rights for individuals belonging to diverse ethnic and
religious groups. The Latvian political leadership have all issued
statements deploring this act of violence. Numerous fact-finding organizations,
as well as the OSCE mission there, confirm that there is no systematic
pattern of human rights abuses. But, obviously, we are concerned when these
events occur, and we will continue to urge Latvia to remain steadfast in
its support for tolerance and the right of ethnic and religious minorities.
QUESTION: But as I understand it, Latvian parliamentarians participated
in that march last week. You don't consider them part of the government?
MR. RUBIN: Again, if you would like me to list the government officials
who have condemned these acts of violence, they include the president, the
prime minister, the foreign ministry. They have all issued statements
condemning these acts of violence. So that is the government. If we in the
United States had to be responsible for every member of parliament or
member of the government, that would be difficult. But we do believe it's
regrettable that in this demonstration there were members of the Latvian
armed forces and some parliamentarians, and we are pleased that the
Latvian government disassociated itself from this event and made clear that
it had no connection to it.
QUESTION: Jamie, do you have any comment on the Serbian proposal for a
referendum in Serbia on international mediators between the Serbs and the
Albanians?
MR. RUBIN: The March 25 Contact Group statement on Kosovo demanded that
authoritative delegations from both sides convene rapidly in order to agree
on a framework. This statement also called for the participation in the
negotiating process of an outside representative or representatives.
President Milosevic's call for a referendum on mediation is, in our view,
another in a long line of diversionary tactics, one that shows clearly that
he remains defiant, unwilling to meet the minimum conditions set forth by
the international community and he is, therefore, gambling with his
nation's future. We think he should put aside the dangerous games, put
aside the diversionary tactics, and start focusing on what would improve
the lives of his citizens and improve his nation's role in the world.
QUESTION: About Holbrooke's visit to Cyprus. The question first is: why
is now he is visiting to Cyprus; second, is he carrying any new initiative
or proposal to the island's leader, other than the well known U.S.
position?
MR. RUBIN: Well, Ambassador Holbrooke decides to travel when he thinks
it's ripe. As far as what constitutes his ripeness calculation, I will
leave that to him to describe. But we obviously have confidence in his
efforts to try to improve the situation there. Beyond saying what our goal
is, we don't think it's wise to comment publicly. Our goal, of course, is
to achieve a settlement on the basis of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation.
QUESTION: Congressman Gilman says he is giving the administration three
weeks to reach a decision on the ILSA; otherwise, he threatens Congress
will take action.
MR. RUBIN: We are pursuing our policy based on the law. ILSA is the law,
and we will implement it. We are actively reviewing the facts of the case
in the South Pars case and its implications under the Iran-Libya Sanctions
Act. No decisions have been made. All options available remain open,
including the possibility of sanctions.
I'm not going to speculate as to when our review will be complete. But it
certainly wouldn't be based on some arbitrary deadline. We want to do an
investigation. One of the new factors, of course, is that some of the
companies involved are in Asia and are, therefore, potentially affected by
the Asian financial crisis. So that is an additional factor, a new factor
that we need to take into account in pursuing our investigation.
QUESTION: Are you saying that Petronas might pull out of this deal?
MR. RUBIN: I'm saying that it's a new factor that we want to take into
account as part of our investigation.
QUESTION: Jamie, on that general topic - Iran - did you - have you had a
chance to look at the speech last night by the UN representative who went
to Los Angeles? And if you could sort of respond to that in light -
MR. RUBIN: The short and pathetic answer is no.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. RUBIN: But I will try to get back to you on that.
QUESTION: Jamie, did the administration have any comment about the demand
of the House and the Senate majority that the Middle East proposal not be
made public?
MR. RUBIN: Well, let me say this. Secretary Albright has obviously been
pursuing very earnestly and with great attention and an enormous amount of
work the Middle East peace process. We, as you know, have made very clear
that we support Israel, and we are trying to pursue the Middle East peace
process.
The record of President Clinton and Secretary Albright on the commitment to
Israel's security, I think, is a matter of record. I think it's pretty
clear that this administration's support for Israel is about as strong as
any in the history of the State of Israel, if not the strongest.
We are also committed to the goal of a just, comprehensive peace process.
The Israelis, the Palestinians and others have asked us to play this role
of trying to catalyze progress. As the Secretary said yesterday, we have
made some small steps in recent weeks towards narrowing the gaps between
Israelis and Palestinians. But there are no breakthroughs and no breakthroughs
in sight. The fact is the process has been deadlocked.
To change this situation will require hard decisions by the leaders
themselves. We are a key factor in helping them to move forward. But at
some point, our work will have to conclude. At some point, we would have to
decide how best to proceed if we cannot close those gaps. The administration
remains determined to pursue negotiations, to do it privately without
public disclosure of details of proposals while we're in the process of
exploring them with the parties.
But if - notwithstanding our best efforts - the parties remain at an
impasse, then of course we would have to make a judgment about to proceed.
That is our view.
With respect to the views of the Congress, let me say this. We welcome
congressional interest in foreign policy. We certainly welcome congressional
interest in the Middle East peace process. But we are going to continue to
do what we think is the best way to promote the Middle East peace
process.
We would also welcome congressional interest in foreign policy more
broadly. For example, if the Congress wants to play a more active role in
the foreign policy process, it would be extremely helpful for them to come
to grips with the issue that has damaged our credibility internationally,
and that is to pay the bills that the United States owes to the United
Nations.
The United States administration - Secretary Albright - are going to make
our decisions based on what we believe to be our national interests and
what we believe will best promote the Middle East peace process. That is
the way we're going to make our decisions. It is the way we have made them,
and we are going to continue to make them based on our judgment of what is
in the national interest.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. have any reason to doubt Israel's denial of
responsibility in the death of the -
MR. RUBIN: I am not aware of any.
QUESTION: You take -
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of any reason to doubt.
QUESTION: And --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) follow up on that if I may?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Anything to say about the call - the call by Hamas, the threat
of revenge and how that - you know, what that could do to the Middle East
process?
MR. RUBIN: The enemies of peace process should stop trying to kill the
Middle East peace process and act accordingly. In our view, it would be
unconscionable for anybody to use this incident as an excuse to resort to
violence. We deplore the statements of those Hamas officials who are trying
to advocate violence and use this event as an excuse to advocate violence.
Those who support the peace process must work closely together to prevent
any incidents of violence and terrorism. We urge the Israelis and
Palestinians to enhance their security cooperation to try to deal with
what might potentially happen.
But at this point we don't have any, as I said, reason to think that the -
we don't have any information about this case to make a judgment and we
obviously take Prime Minister Netanyahu at his word.
QUESTION: Given that sort of support for violence, and that sort of -
MR. RUBIN: Well, it's no surprise to us that the Hamas organization,
which is dedicated to destroying the peace process and destroying the lives
of the Palestinians and Israelis who would benefit from the peace process,
will look for any excuse to try to pursue their perverted and outrageous
approach to advancing the lives of the Palestinians.
QUESTION: Okay. But would you not say that that gives the Prime Minister
some backing in his claim that it would be foolish to compromise Israeli
security by giving more territory to people who are so closely associated
with that effort?
MR. RUBIN: I think I know what the purpose of the question is; but it
implies that we - the United States - have any different view of this
subject than the Israelis, and we don't.
QUESTION: But you don't agree on the amount of territory -
MR. RUBIN: No, no, Sid, we don't necessarily agree on that. But we agree
on the importance of fighting terrorism and making sure that the Palestinians
fight terrorism. We believe in the long run what's best for the region is a
peace process, and we and the Israelis both agree on that subject. The fact
that Hamas advocates violence is not a new phenomenon. The fact that we
and the Israelis have the same view of Hamas is, therefore, not a
new phenomenon.
QUESTION: On China. Yesterday in the New York Times, that Secretary
Albright would be expected to go to China later this month. When is she
exactly going and what is the agenda on that?
MR. RUBIN: It's a little premature to announce the Secretary's trip, but
those of you who suffer a lot from jet lag to Asia should be prepared to
suffer from jet lag to Asia.
QUESTION: Especially on those flights.
QUESTION: Israel. Could I go back? A little different subject on Israel.
Defense Minister Mordechai last week at this time told Mr. Cohen he was
very pleased that there would be a third aerial battery deployed to protect
the population centers in Israel. And when asked about the threat from Iraq,
he said he didn't think the Iraqis would dare because Israel is too strong.
So in the view of the State Department, is the missile threat to Israel
coming from the rapidly progressing missile program in Iran, or from
both?
MR. RUBIN: We are concerned about the prospect of missile deployments in
the region. We have worked very hard with the Russians, in particular, in
recent weeks to try to prevent the possibility that Russian entities are
providing assistance to Iranian missile objectives and aspirations. As you
know, an executive order was signed on January 22, which is a major step
forward in this process. Now what we are focused on is implementation,
implementation and implementation, so that that executive order does
translate into a termination of the kind of assistance that could benefit
Iran.
As far as what the broad-based threat to Israel and our forces in the
region is from missiles, there is a threat. The extent of it, the details
of it, I think is more appropriately directed at the Department of
Defense.
(The briefing concluded at 1:15 P.M.)
|
