U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #48, 98-04-20

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Monday, April 20, 1998

Briefer: James P. Rubin

STATEMENTS
1		Mourning the death of Octavio Paz
1		Secretary Albright to meet PM Netanyahu, Chairman Arafat in
		  London on May 4
3		Possibility of further meetings in Europe the week of May 4
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
1,5		Amb. Ross & Assistant Sec. Indyk trip to travel to region
		  this week
2,6-7		UK & European Union role; UK PM Blair's efforts; Roadblocks
		  remain
3-4		Need for parties to make hard decisions
4		No current plan for including more parties in London
		  meetings
5-6		Speculation on outcome of meetings is premature
CHINA
7		Arrival of Wang Dan welcomed; US doesn't control timing of
		  prisoner releases
8		Signs of recent toleration of dissent
8,10		Chinese human rights practice falls far short of
		  international standards
8		Exiling of dissidents; US concerns with Chinese practices
10		Role of NSC's Kristoff in Wang Dan's release not decisive
11		Spare parts for Sikorsky helicopters for China; No relation
		  to Wang Dan's release
IRAQ
11		Information to IAEA still incomplete
11-12		UN six-month report shows failure to cooperate
11-12		No significance to parade in Baghdad
12		No information on the role of the Russian ambassador in
		  Baghdad
TWO KOREAS
12-13		Bilateral talks ended April 17; US support for meaningful
		  dialogue
AFGHANISTAN
13,18-19	Amb. Richardson's efforts over the weekend
13		New efforts to hold internal talks April 27
14,15		Meeting of warring factions April 20 in Islamabad; Some
		  prisoners released
14		US supports quick end to fighting
NIGERIA
15		Election process seriously flawed and failing so far
15		US calls on Abacha not to run for president
IRAN
15-16		Leak of US report on terrorism; Assessment of Iran's 1997's
		  record
CANADA
16		PM Chretien's trip to Cuba;
CUBA
16		No sign constructive engagement works with Cuba
17		Criticism of US Cuba policy at Summit of the Americas
17-18		Comparison of Cuba with Chinese or Iranian government
		  behavior
AZERBAIJAN
18		Temporary halt to rebroadcasts of Radio Free Europe and
		  Radio Liberty
SERBIA
19		Happenings in Kosovo are matters of international concern

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #48

MONDAY, APRIL 20, 1998,12:55 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Sorry for the delay.

Let me start with regard to the death of Octavio Paz. The people of the United States join Mexico in mourning the death of Octavio Paz. We offer our deepest sympathies to his family, his many friends everywhere and the Mexican nation. He was more than one of Mexico's greatest men of letters. His incomparable poetry and penetrating essays and criticism brought him international acclaim, culminating in the first Nobel Prize for Literature awarded to a Mexican citizen. We in the United States will remember him with great affection and gratitude for his revealing explanations of the reality and complexity of our southern neighbor. His tremendous literary and critical talent served to build lasting bridges of understanding between our two peoples.

Moving to another part of the world, in order to clarify what I think has been some minor, modest confusion with respect to what will go on in London, let me say the following. Sometime ago, Secretary of State Albright asked Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat to see her separately in London. The purpose of these meetings is to determine whether the ideas the US has shared with the parties can provide a basis for a breakthrough on the four-part agenda that we have talked to you about and, ultimately, the beginning of the permanent status negotiations. Ambassador Ross, along with Assistant Secretary Indyk, will be leaving at the end of this week to meet with the leaders in the region in an effort to focus on the issues that we believe need to be addressed if Secretary Albright's separate meetings in London will be productive on May 4.

The United States has been working with the parties for many months now to try to put the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations back on track. We are prepared to continue that effort if the parties are prepared to take the decisions required to make this effort succeed; and it is clear that the time has come for those decisions to be made.

QUESTION: Of course there are all sorts of questions that flow from that. For one thing -- and this may not be the main question -- but if Ross and Indyk are out there early, wouldn't they know while they're out there, before she would get to London, whether the parties are disposed as you would have them be disposed? In other words, is the London trip on for sure, whatever Ross and Indyk might find?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. The British angle here - if Blair or whoever meets with Arafat and Netanyahu, would that be separate? And how does the US feel about a European willing to intervene?

MR. RUBIN: I have no information on separate meetings that may or may not take place. For those of you who followed us on our travels in this area, you know that we've been to London several times in the past to meet with one or the other of the leaders. And in different times, different ones of those leaders met with Prime Minister Blair and sometimes they didn't; so we're not sure what the exact plan would be. But as far as the European Union's role in the peace process, we are very clear that we appreciate the efforts that the European governments have made to contribute to the peace process, both politically and economically. We've been consulting with them all along, and will continue to do so. They have made important technical contributions on issues such as the interim issues with regard to the seaport and other matters. We're hopeful that they will continue to be in a position to do that.

With respect to the current situation, I'm confident that Prime Minister Major, in his discussions --

QUESTION: Blair.

MR. RUBIN: You started me on that. (Laughter). Prime Minister Blair, my apologies, made clear to the parties his desire for there to be progress. So let me say this - we welcome and we hope that the discussions that Prime Minister Blair has had in the region will encourage the leaders to make the hard decisions that I referred to in the statement.

We're not aware at this point that there has been any substantive change of the position of either of the parties. And as far as we're concerned, there still are very significant and difficult roadblocks to restarting the peace process. That is what Ambassador Ross will be talking about on his visit, and hopefully will be able to clear away some of those roadblocks in Secretary Albright's meetings in London with the two parties separately.

QUESTION: Is it consecutive, the stop in London? Or does she do anything about changing her bags, changing her portfolio?

MR. RUBIN: At this point, it would look like those of you who are flying with us to Asia should be prepared to stop in Europe on the same trip.

QUESTION: Now, you have ministers' meetings - finance and foreign - a few days later, preparing for the G-8. Does she stay for that? In other words, is this like a lot of --

MR. RUBIN: As far as the schedule between that, we'll keep you posted before you leave, those of you who are traveling with us to Asia. I don't have an answer.

QUESTION: But you say separately --

MR. RUBIN: I gave you May the 4th, which is, I believe, a Monday. The meetings in Europe that you're referring to are at the end of that week. So I wouldn't rule out at all the possibility of a return flight and then another flight.

QUESTION: All right, and when you said separately with these, you mean separate from the Europeans? Going in separately with each of them.

MR. RUBIN: No, I meant separately. Secretary Albright will meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu in a bilateral meeting.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. RUBIN: Two people will be at that meeting.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. RUBIN: Then she will meet separately with Chairman Arafat, and two people will be at that meeting - her and the Chairman.

QUESTION: Last question, and probably the most substantive of all of these - there was the notion that the US would lay out call it whatever you want, a plan, a proposal, a scenario, a script. And in fact, it seemed that Arafat would not agree to move ahead, either with the Europeans or whatever, until he saw that and, in fact, it was said, until the Israelis accepted it. What happened to the proposition of the US laying out its prescription, its formula - pick your own word - but you know what I mean. I don't mean a blueprint, but what you want the two sides to do, publicly. Are you going to do that before London?

MR. RUBIN: I can answer the beginning and the end of the question; the middle doesn't resemble anything I'm familiar with, so let me stick with the beginning and the end.

As far as the question of whether the United States would decide to speak publicly about proposals that we had made or ideas that we had presented to the parties, this has been an idea that has been kicking around for some time. Our views on it haven't changed, and Secretary Albright has made clear to you that if she has something to say on the Middle East peace process publicly with respect to how it's going, and what the parties' views are, and their reaction to our ideas, she will do so. But we are no closer now to doing that than we were a couple of weeks ago when I read about it in various newspapers as if it would have already happened by now.

So what I can say about it is that we are going to continue working until we think that we can't make any more progress diplomatically. At that point, we will assess what we think is the best way to catalyze the peace process. That is one idea that you mentioned; there are others. When we've made a decision as to what we think will best catalyze the peace process, we'll let you know. But we haven't reached the point where we think that additional discussions are not useful. We think that they can be useful if - - and only if -- decisions are made no longer on procedures, but on substance. Will the leaders make the hard decisions on how much land, on how much security cooperation, on what type of land? Will they make the hard decisions so that the call for peace that is now not just in the Middle East but around the world, can be heard by actions, and we're looking for substantive decisions by the leaders and hard decisions and we have not seen them yet.

QUESTION: Still on the London events, you made it clear that those were separate, bilateral meetings. Is the Secretary leaving open the possibility for some kind of multilateral conference involving, perhaps, the Middle East partners, but perhaps also the European partners; or is that really not under discussion at all?

MR. RUBIN: That is not something we're planning for right now. One always wants to be flexible and be able to create a meeting with more people if you have something successful to try to ratify or close with a larger group, but we are not planning for any such meeting right now. I wouldn't rule out, at some point in time, at the technical level on issues like the seaport, that more than the just the United States and the two could meet. But this quadripartite summit is something that is unfamiliar to those in the Administration who work on the Middle East peace process.

QUESTION: You said that the Secretary had invited Netanyahu and Arafat to meetings in London some time ago, I think you said. When was that exactly?

MR. RUBIN: Prior to the events of the last 24-48 hours. I was trying to separate out some of the confusion that has caused me to get late night phone calls at my residence.

QUESTION: Jamie, you said over and over again the leaders weren't making the hard decisions.

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

QUESTION: And since before Christmas, the Secretary has been having bilateral meetings with them in Europe. What makes this meeting any more different than the other meetings that she's had and doesn't seem to make much headway every time she meets with them.

MR. RUBIN: Well, that's the kind of question that is reasonable today, but if one of the meetings does make headway then it will be different. Until we believe we've exhausted all the possible refinements, exhausted all the work that we think we can do behind the scenes, we're going to continue to do it. We're going to make the decisions on how to revive the peace process based on what we think will work, not simply the fact that there have been a series of meetings of similar character. If one of those meetings - this one or the one after that - were to yield success, then it would have been worth it.

So we're going to continue to do what we think is best. Right now, what we think is best is to have Ambassador Ross go to the region, see whether there's a willingness to make some of those hard decisions. If there is, then those decisions, hopefully, can be fleshed out in London with Secretary Albright; and if not, we'll know that.

QUESTION: But her expectations going into this May 4 meeting are no higher than they were before Christmas, when she met with the leaders.

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

QUESTION: Is there any magic to London, particularly, that because the EU chairman --presidency happens to be there at the moment?

MR. RUBIN: No, there's no magic to London. I don't know how, over time, this has become the favorite city, but I have no complaints about it.

QUESTION: Jamie, do Ambassador Ross or Assistant Secretary Indyk plan to travel to Syria?

MR. RUBIN: One moment - it might have something to do with the basic distances, too. I mean, it's about the same distance for each of the relevant people to fly to. But it's become a convenient place to meet, and we'll continue to do it as we think appropriate.

QUESTION: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt - do Ross and Indyk plan to go there as well?

MR. RUBIN: I am not familiar with their entire itinerary. As I understand it, the focus of their efforts will be in the Palestinian Authority and in Israel. I would be surprised if those other issues - particularly the Lebanon issue - didn't come up. But I think the focus of their efforts are in those two - I'll have to get their itinerary for you. I'm not aware they're going to Syria.

QUESTION: Yes, for planning and coverage purposes, if you could let us know what they're going to do.

QUESTION: I thought I was clear, but then you sort of fuzzed it up, which may have been your intention.

MR. RUBIN: Well, if it was, I'm glad. (Laughter).

QUESTION: Is the May 4 meeting going to be a make-or-break session? In other words, if there is no progress there, then the United States will wash its hands of it as promised, because the parties are not prepared to make substantive decisions.

MR. RUBIN: What I indicated in announcing her meetings was that we are going to continue to work on this process so long as we think there's a chance that the leaders will make the hard decisions.

If we conclude in London that they're not, then that may be the end of it. But I am not going to decide and announce for you in advance a decision based on the performance of and positions of the leaders who haven't yet taken those decisions. So it's impossible to answer the question in advance.

QUESTION: Jamie, (inaudible) it could well be the end of the US role in the peace process?

MR. RUBIN: If one wanted to create a little headline to write, I guess you could see that I didn't rule that out. What I'm saying to you is that you can't answer that question until you have the meeting. But clearly, the time is running out for these hard decisions to be made.

QUESTION: As currently envisioned, is this a one-day event?

MR. RUBIN: As I understand it. If that changes, I'll let you know. It may include an overnight, but it's not a multi-day event, as far as I know.

QUESTION: What about the European involvement in all this now? I mean, we've seen the French have been in the area, the British have been in the area at very high levels. Isn't there some contribution that the European commission can make to get these leaders to - I mean, why aren't you meeting with the British in London who've just been there and could put real substantive pressure on both parties? Why aren't they involved?

MR. RUBIN: I think, as I indicated in response to the first question on this subject, that they are someone we consult with; and we consult with them often. If, as a result of Prime Minister Blair's meetings in the region, that the leaders are willing to make hard decisions they have been heretofore unwilling to make, that will be a good thing. But so far, we have no evidence -- we're not aware of substantive changes on their part.

We do keep the Europeans informed, we consult with them and will continue to do so; and in particular, we talk to them about some of the technical issues, for example, related to the seaport issue, which is one of the interim issues, and we will continue to do that. To the extent that anybody can encourage successfully the leaders to make the tough decisions that we think need to be made, we welcome that.

QUESTION: A follow-up -- you're sidelining them, essentially.

MR. RUBIN: I don't see it that way.

QUESTION: You're saying, technically, in offering the --

MR. RUBIN: You're shaking your head, someone else is saying other and another. I don't know how to answer the question other than to answer it. The answer is, we welcome any involvement of any important world figures who can encourage the two leaders to make these hard decisions. That's at a political level. At a technical level, the European Union has a particularly unique contribution to make with respect to issues like the seaport, and we've made that clear and will continue to do so. So we're not sidelining them or not sidelining them; I'm trying to, as best as I can, answer the question of how we and the Europeans work together.

QUESTION: New subject? I'd like to ask you whether you have any further comment on the arrival of Wang Dan in the United States? And, more importantly, how does the Administration see what some might characterize as kind of a dribbling out of Chinese political activists from prison in advance of or right after major Sino-American political events, like summit meetings in the US or in China, or Secretary trips, that sort of thing?

MR. RUBIN: We have long urged the Chinese Government to release prisoners like Wang Dan. Therefore, we welcome his release and we welcome the fact that he is now in the United States.

There are several issues that we have indicated we would like to see progress on as part of the dialogue we have with the Chinese on human rights, including the release of prisoners who are held only for the beliefs that they have and not for anything that we believe they've done wrong; including the signing of the covenant on civil and political rights; including access to prisons for the International Committee on the Red Cross. We've had an agenda on human rights that we've been pursuing both publicly and privately with the Chinese for many months now. To the extent that this release of Wang Dan indicates a willingness on the part of the Chinese Government to respond to our urgings on human rights, that's a good thing.

That means our engagement with them on this subject is advancing our human rights agenda, which is the world's human rights agenda - which is trying to reduce the number of prisoners released, trying to get the Chinese to agree to an international covenant that, if signed and implemented, would involve an oversight mechanism for Chinese human rights practices.

That's what diplomacy is all about - encouraging the other side to advance the common agenda. The agenda here is progress on human rights, and clearly his release is progress on human rights.

QUESTION: What about the other part of the question, which was the idea that these releases are carefully timed to political events, like Jiang Zemin's summit in the United States, Secretary Albright's trip next week, the President's summit in China next month, or in June?

MR. RUBIN: Well, we don't control the release of these prisoners; the Chinese control the release of these prisoners. To the extent that meetings that we hold give them a reason to do something they may not otherwise wish to do, then our engagement is working.

It is up to the Chinese to talk to you about why they make these decisions. What I can tell you is that we've been pressing for the release of political prisoners, pressing for the signing of international covenants on human rights. And as the Chinese do so, we are advancing our human rights agenda. If they choose to do so because of the timing, fine. But from our standpoint, what's important is that it gets done.

QUESTION: Finally, if I may, would the US prefer to see a number of prisoners - perhaps a large number - released at once, at one time, maybe in connection with China's review of its own laws that ended up putting them in prison in the first place?

MR. RUBIN: We've seen in recent weeks a somewhat more tolerant response to dissent, and an increased willingness to cooperate with international human rights mechanisms on the part of China. These are positive steps, and these are steps that we, in fact - signals that we saw in our most recent human rights report.

But let me say this - as our human rights report also noted, China's practices still fall far short of international norms and standards, and repressive measures continue to be used to tightly control dissent -- particularly dissent directed against the government or Chinese communist party members.

We believe there are many, many other political prisoners in China, and there is a long, long way to go if China is to enter the mainstream of nations that provide democratic freedoms to their people. We will continue to press them in that regard; and whether they choose to respond in a large group or a small group, we're going to continue to press them to respond.

QUESTION: Jamie, can you point to some specifics when you say you've seen somewhat more tolerance towards dissent? Can you cite a few examples?

MR. RUBIN: Well, for those of us who have read the newspapers in recent days, I think we've seen clearly on the part of some of China's thinkers and intellectuals a willingness to say and do things that is new and encouraging.

At the same time, that doesn't mean that the refusal to allow people to freely express their views, the fact that there are still many, many people in prison is still going on. But we've seen increased willingness to question certain long-held tenets publicly. I think for those of us who have read the newspapers in the last few weeks, you'll know what I'm talking about. I'd have to get you for the record some specific examples to justify the statement I made, but I think they reflect what I just indicated.

QUESTION: Yes, but is it satisfactory to the Administration, this arrangement where a dissident will be released and then exiled from the country? I mean, is that good human rights practice?

MR. RUBIN: We believe that Mr. Wang, as a Chinese citizen, should be allowed to return to the People's Republic of China. We've expressed this view to the Chinese Government. They say that any decision on his return to China would be made in accordance with Chinese law. As far as what that means, not only I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not a Chinese lawyer. I recommend that you ask them what that means.

But in our view, people like Wang Dan should be able to be released, to speak out in his own country. That is the view of the United States. He made this decision to come here; we're pleased that he's here. It certainly a lot better for him to be here where he can speak out, where the international media can hear him -- and, hopefully, some of that will get back to China - as opposed to languishing in prison.

QUESTION: And will any Administration officials, specifically the Secretary or the President or his National Security Advisor, be meeting with Mr. Wang?

MR. RUBIN: Well, right now he's in medical treatment. I would expect there would be an appropriate level meeting with him. I doubt it will be with the Secretary, prior to her departure later this week.

QUESTION: Jamie, to go back to that question about exiling political dissidents, does the Administration see a problem here that the Chinese are actually manipulating the situation in such a way that the two most prominent dissidents that were the most problematic for the Chinese are now out of the country, completely neutralized, in the United States, far away from Chinese soil?

Does it occur to the Administration that by focusing all the attention on these two prominent dissidents, getting them to the United States, that you've really given the Chinese what they were hoping to get in the first place -- attention away from the human rights agenda? Because nobody seems to be familiar with any names, particular names, of any of the dissidents. These are the two names that have been at the forefront, and these are the two people who are now in the United States.

MR. RUBIN: I can assure you that all of the issues you raised occur to the Administration, and that we take very careful decisions after consulting many people and trying to do what's best for the human rights process. So I can assure you that we take these concerns into account before we make our decisions.

With respect to the two dissidents that you mentioned, let's bear in mind that they are now not languishing in prison. And in commenting on whether that is a good or a bad thing, let's hope that people take into account the fact that they are no longer languishing in prison, and that they are in the United States where they are able to speak out freely. That is certainly much better than the situation that was the case when they were in prison, languishing and unable to speak freely. With respect to whether this will diminish the United States' concern about other prisoners, the answer is no.

QUESTION: Is the Secretary going to have a specific list of prisoners that she is going to ask be released when she meets with the Chinese?

MR. RUBIN: When the Secretary is ready for me to talk about what she intends to do on her trip, I will.

QUESTION: Can you get into whether the United States helped engineer this release? The Los Angeles Times had a very full, comprehensive story naming names, a State Department person, and NSC, et cetera.

MR. RUBIN: We hate it when they name names.

QUESTION: Well, you don't mind taking a bow if help get a famous dissident out of prison, do you?

MR. RUBIN: While you were outside the room, I did address the overall question of what we do and don't do with respect to human rights and our human rights agenda with China.

There was nothing in that article that differed from many of the things that I've said here from the podium; namely that in our meetings with Chinese officials, that we have expressed concerns in several areas: the signing of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the need to release prisoners who have been languishing in prison -- prominent dissidents; the need to allow access for the ICRC to prisons. Those were items on our objective list, and if we thought there was progress in those areas, that would be sufficient for us to make a decision not to sponsor the resolution in Geneva on human rights in China.

At the time we made that clear that we would not sponsor such a resolution, I spoke to you about our objectives here from this podium, about what we wanted to achieve, including the release of additional dissidents. So it is correct that in our diplomatic discussions with China, that one of the issues that we repeatedly raise -- that Secretary of State Albright has raised and that President Clinton has raised - is the release of political prisoners. Therefore, while there is still a very, very long way to go, the release of Wang Dan is very welcome to the United States.

QUESTION: If Ambassador Kristoff and her colleagues go and put this deal together -

MR. RUBIN: First of all, Sandra Kristoff is not an ambassador. Second of all --

QUESTION: I think she is.

MR. RUBIN: She's a senior director for East Asian Affairs at the National Security Council.

QUESTION: But she became Ambassador to APEC. She still has the rank.

MR. RUBIN: I've never seen it on any of the lists that I have. Nevertheless, there were many meetings that were held between the United States and Chinese officials over the recent several months; that was certainly one of them. But I wouldn't regard it as decisive.

QUESTION: Could I ask about another subject?

MR. RUBIN: Are we still on China over here?

QUESTION: Is there a helicopter technology sale pending between the US and China? If so, what is its current status?

MR. RUBIN: I don't have the exact wording here with me today, but my understanding is that there has been no decision to waive the restriction that would prohibit the provision of spare parts for helicopters --

QUESTION: I'm sorry, there are too many negatives there for me to capture.

MR. RUBIN: Let me try that again. There has been no decision to allow the sale of spare parts to China. That is something that would require a waiver by the President or appropriate officials for either the reason that enough progress had been made in pursuing a democratic change in China or a national interest waiver; no such decision has been made. I can't rule out that it's not poking around in the bureaucracy, but it's not been decided upon.

QUESTION: And might the release of Wang Dan in any way affect that decision?

MR. RUBIN: To the extent that we see issues together, we tend to see issues together in the same area. In other words, I did indicate to you that having made progress on the human rights agenda of the United States, the objectives we saw with respect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the release of prisoners, access to prisons, that that affected our decision not to sponsor a resolution before the Geneva human rights commission. But the idea that these are horse-traded across substantive issues is not something I'm familiar with, at least in this Administration - or at least in the time when I've been able to observe it closely.

QUESTION: Different subject - a couple of days ago, the Iraqis held a nice, big military parade, at about the same time that Richard Butler was waxing somewhat pessimistic on the state of the inspection process. Do you have any comment?

MR. RUBIN: Just commenting on those two separate events?

QUESTION: Well, maybe separate.

MR. RUBIN: Let me just say this - for seven years, the UN and the IAEA have been attempting to get the Iraqis to provide complete, verifiable accounting of their weapons of mass destruction programs. For the International Atomic Energy Agency, this means providing important information on Iraq's nuclear program, including its progress in weapons design, uranium enrichment, procurement efforts and Iraq's efforts to conceal its programs. Iraq handed the IAEA incomplete information in a piecemeal fashion, and we look forward to hearing the report on that subject.

With regard to the six month report that is now circulating in New York, what this latest report from the UN indicates is, there is a compelling case that Iraq has not complied with UN Security Council resolutions in any area of substance. The report presents clear and very disturbing evidence that Iraq has failed to cooperate in coming forward with the information needed to allow the UN to conclude that Iraq has, indeed, destroyed the weapons it says it has destroyed. We are especially disturbed that non- compliance has taken place after signature of the UN-Iraq Memorandum of Understanding, an agreement which we welcomed and which Iraq is bound to comply with.

The message from all of this is that even while the Iraqis may have allowed inspectors to visit palaces, they continue to lie and hide the truth regarding the existence of long-range ballistic missiles, VX and serin chemical weapons and anthrax and other biological weapons. It doesn't surprise us that they are doing so, but it nevertheless shows how far away they are from the time when the UN could declare them in compliance with the relevant provisions and the relevant resolutions.

QUESTION: Does the parade, perhaps, underscore their --

MR. RUBIN: You know, they give parades over there all the time, and I'm always especially amused at the parades that are reported with great fanfare that have people marching around in circles with no rifles. So, it doesn't mean much to me there's a parade in Baghdad.

QUESTION: On the North-South -- can we switch to Korea, the talks ended now?

MR. RUBIN: Any more on Iraq?

QUESTION: Yes, I have one. The Russian Ambassador is Baghdad is playing an mediator role between Saddam Hussein and the two Kurdish parties in the north and this development is almost different and opposite of the US, British and the Turkish Ankara process.

MR. RUBIN: When asking me what is not a front-burner issue, it would be helpful if you let us know and then we could try to get the information before the briefing instead of spending the afternoon doing it when we have all the people there who can answer these questions. Give us a call 10:30 a.m., 10:45 a.m.; tell us what you're going to ask, and we'll be happy to try to get information. If it's not a front-burner issue, it's hard to have everything here.

QUESTION: The Administration has been sympathetic to the food problem in North Korea. The North-South talks ended without accord. Apparently the South will not provide fertilizer and other assistance the North needs until its action on family unification, et cetera. I don't image you're going to open a chasm between you and Seoul because the US and Seoul have reached (inaudible) stand side by side. Does the US agree with that kind of approach, or would like it to see South Korea do a little more to help ease the starvation in the North? Would you like to assess the talks?

MR. RUBIN: Let me say the talks were the first bilateral government-to- government talks since 1994, and ended on April 17. No agreement was announced, although North and South Korea had previously declared their desire to continue contacts after the formal talks ended.

The details of the discussions are a matter for South and North Korea. In general, I can say that the US has long supported South Korea's efforts to promote meaningful North-South dialogue. What that means is that we want to see discussions held, we want to see decisions made that allow reduced tensions in the Peninsula, and to be able to solve problems like the families issue that you mentioned.

With respect to who said what to whom and who linked what to what, I'm reluctant to get into it publicly, because the sides themselves have not; and frankly, it's a negotiation between two other parties.

QUESTION: Jamie, (inaudible) - decisions made that would help solve problems. If that answer --

MR. RUBIN: Let me just say, that applies to every problem in the world. I'd like to see decisions made that help solve problems.

QUESTION: Right, but the question you were asked was whether you agree with Seoul's approach to the talks, and you gave that answer.

MR. RUBIN: It wasn't a conscious effort to signal anything.

QUESTION: I took it as --

MR. RUBIN: It wasn't.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: If I'm not mistaken, the US-sponsored peace talks were supposed to start today, but instead it appears that the truce, if that's what you can call it, that Mr. Richardson brokered, has broken down and fighting is starting to flare up.

MR. RUBIN: Is that the information you have? That's not the information I have, so let me give you what I have.

Following meetings with faction leaders inside Afghanistan on April 17, Ambassador Richardson announced that both sides had agreed not to launch new military offenses until they meet for talks about a cease-fire and prisoner exchanges under UN and Organization of the Islamic Conference auspices by April 27.

The Ambassador laid out several other announcements, which I think all of you have - if not, I'll get you a fact sheet on that. These are welcome developments; they're the result of the 6 + 2 process - that's Afghanistan's neighbors, as well as the US and Russia, led by UN Special Envoy Brahimi.

What is really important is what the Afghan factions do in the days ahead. According to the information I have, both factions seem to be moving forward on their commitments to Ambassador Richardson, despite some reports of some fighting.

Representatives of the Northern Alliance and the Taliban met in Islamabad on April 20 -- the first such face-to-face meeting between the factions since early 1997 - on modalities for the proposed steering group meeting. The Taliban also reportedly released some political prisoners as a goodwill gesture.

Let me emphasize that Pakistan made an important contribution to the success of these efforts; and we hope that all Afghanistan's neighbors, including Iran, will play a positive and constructive role in supporting this peace process. The United States fully supports the efforts of the UN's special mission to Afghanistan, and Ambassador Brahimi, specifically, to end the conflict. We want to see a quick end to the fighting in Afghanistan and the formation of a broadly representative government. We favor no faction, and call upon them all to work for peace in their country.

QUESTION: Did you say some prisoners had been released?

MR. RUBIN: Reportedly that some political prisoners were released as a goodwill gesture. I don't have anymore; we can try to get you some more on that.

QUESTION: Okay, and then also, you say they're moving forward with their commitments, despite some fighting.

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

QUESTION: How can a commitment -

MR. RUBIN: Well, I think, for those of you who've covered the State Department a long time, you know that in conflicts like this, without making any direct analogies to other conflicts in the world, one can move forward and have meetings and do things that one has said without exerting full and complete control on all the fighting forces that may occur in a country as large as Afghanistan and still make progress on the peace front, even while there are continued efforts to use military force in other parts.

In other words, obviously, we'd like to see a cease-fire, obviously we'd like to see them both fully comply with every aspect of the commitment, but that doesn't mean there isn't going to be fighting, even while we think we can move forward.

QUESTION: There's just one more question. The meeting in Islamabad today, just the Northern --

MR. RUBIN: Northern Alliance and the Taliban.

QUESTION: Jamie, in Nigeria, it's been announced that the presidential election is going to be substituted with a referendum on General Abacha's continuation in office. Does this strike you as a perfect example of democracy?

MR. RUBIN: There's nothing about Nigeria's political evolution in the last few months that strikes me as very democratic at all. It appears that the government of Nigeria is manipulating the transition in order to secure the nomination of General Abacha as the sole candidate in the presidential election.

Thus far, we believe this transition that he promised in June 1994 is seriously and fatally flawed. We urge General Abacha to live up to his promise to his fellow Nigerians and the entire and to refuse the nomination so that a genuine transition to civilian democratic rule may take place in the August elections. We will continue to encourage reform and democratic principles in Nigeria, which would permit a free and fair process -- which would mean free political activity, release of political prisoners, freedom of the press, free and fair and transparent elections.

So far, Nigeria's transition is seriously flawed and failing. In order for the transition to result in a genuine civilian democratic government, the process itself must have integrity and not be manipulative. What we've seen so far is the manipulation of the democratic process by General Abacha and his cronies.

QUESTION: Is the State Department just a few days away from saying in its terrorism report that Iran has a terrible record, possibly worst in the world? You don't have to cover the State Department very long to know terrorism reports are regularly leaked on the Hill; and there is such a story floating around now. But you, yourself, said the other day that you haven't seen any change in Iran's behavior, particularly.

MR. RUBIN: Let me answer it this way -- there is a Pattern of Global Terrorism report due on April 30, which describes what we know of terrorist activities in 1997. That's the way the reporting works.

We have said many times before that Iranian support for terrorism has been a long-standing policy of the Iranian Government. However, we note that Iranian leaders have said that Iran does not support terrorism -- including, notably, a clear statement from the Organization of the Islamic Conference held in Tehran, which was last December. It will take time for us to determine if there has, indeed, been a change in that policy. We are not yet able to say that such a change has occurred. When there are positive changes in Iranian policy, we are prepared to respond appropriately.

We have made clear that the question of terrorism is one of the subjects we would like to be able to discuss with the government of Iran in an authorized, acknowledged dialogue. We believe our mutual concerns can be overcome in such a dialogue, and we would be prepared, in such a dialogue, to address Iranian concerns as well.

QUESTION: Whether or not their statements reflect intention to change, all around in '97, did the US discern any substantive difference in Iran's behavior?

MR. RUBIN: I think I indicated, we are not able to yet say that such a change has occurred.

QUESTION: Your comments here are all limited to last year, during most of which Khatemi was not president of that country; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I guess he was elected mid-year.

QUESTION: Okay, so it would have been difficult - you said it would have been difficult to grind in his impact in the report you all are preparing to release.

MR. RUBIN: I'm certainly indicating that in December a very important statement was made about rejecting the use of terrorism. This report is reflecting actions from January to December. If that statement yields changes in actions, it couldn't happen before December - it could, but we would consider that extremely unlikely. So what we're going to be looking to see is whether that statement in December, and subsequent statements of a similar nature, will yield changes in actions during the year 1998, when the report for that year comes out, which would be another year from now.

In the meantime, we can say we haven't seen enough to say that a wholesale change has occurred, because we want to be very careful and prudent about how we make judgments on such an important issue. It took us a long time to lead to the conclusions that we've reached about Iran, and we want to make sure that any new conclusions have been given due consideration and careful and prudent work.

QUESTION: Do you approve of the Canadian Prime Minister's visit to Cuba?

MR. RUBIN: Well, it's not up to us to tell people where to go, obviously. We certainly can say that we understand that the purpose of Prime Minister Chretien's proposed trip would be to follow up on the 14-point cooperation program signed between Cuba and Canada in January '97.

We have not seen any evidence that constructive engagement with Cub has produced results with regard to improving respect for human rights or promoting democracy in Cuba. We hope that Prime Minister Chretien will pursue an agenda that promotes human rights during his trip to Cuba. That's about all we have to say about that.

QUESTION: There was quite a lot of criticism before the US position on Cuba at the Summit of the Americas. What's the US Government's reply? Is this going to influence the negotiations that are going to start this summer in any way?

MR. RUBIN: Criticism of US policy on Cuba is nothing that surprises us, I can assure you, whether it's from intellectuals in the United States, members of Congress on one side or the other, or Latin American countries, or, frankly, countries from most parts of the world. So we were not surprised by criticism of our Cuba policy. That doesn't mean that we're going to make any changes, though, and our Cuba policy remains the same.

We do not believe, for example, that Cuba joining the OAS is an issue that should even be on the agenda. If you look at Secretary Albright's famous map, every other country in the region is a democracy; and Cuba is still the last bastion of communist dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere.

QUESTION: Just a few minutes ago, you were again saying - for probably the 15th time - that you would welcome a dialogue with Iran to see if that would be --

MR. RUBIN: Are we making the Iran-Cuba connection?

QUESTION: Albright is going to China. These are two countries whose human rights record probably is worse than Cuba's. Why don't you --

MR. RUBIN: I think we've made clear, Barry, that --

QUESTION: What is it about Cuba that is such a --

MR. RUBIN: Let me explain. President Khatemi was elected in a relatively free election. When Fidel Castro submits himself to a free election, things might be different here in the United States.

QUESTION: And China, of course, has free elections.

MR. RUBIN: China - we've described the China-Cuba analogy for you 100 times; you want me to do it again?

QUESTION: No, no, because the US really took a whipping. There isn't a country in Latin America that agrees with your Cuban policy. And I just don't understand why you don't invite them to have the kind of dialogue you would have with Iran or China.

MR. RUBIN: Let me explain our policy towards China and Cuba for you, Barry. With respect to China, we believe that we have genuine national security considerations that are at stake in the area of nonproliferation that require us to engage in a direct discussion with the Chinese Government.

We can point, over the last seven to ten years, with myriad changes in Chinese Government policies, that have made the world a safer place -- whether it's in the area of missile transfers, the termination of nuclear assistance to key countries around the world, or the joining of the Chemical Weapons Convention. These are national security policies that affect every American, and the fact that we have engaged with China has improved their behavior on proliferation and therefore has made the world a safer place. That is a reason to talk to the Chinese about proliferation.

With regard to Cuba, we have made the decision that, because Castro is essentially the first revolutionary and is still in power, there is nothing to be gained by talking to Castro, because he will only seek to justify his own actions and his own revolution and any change that he makes would be a repudiation of this entire life. While talking to leaders in communist countries that are not the original revolutionary, they can see adjustments in those policies without regarding their whole life as having been a failure.

So we don't see the reason why we have to have a knee-jerk policy towards every country in the world. If we did that, you'd have nothing to write about. We need to take decisions based on what we think would work best in each country. And if there are going to be occasional differences that you can happily point out as inconsistencies, we're just keeping you in business.

QUESTION: Well, you write all the time about people - (inaudible) -- you meet with them in London and all over the world.

QUESTION: Today the government of Azerbaijan has shut down broadcasting of programs -Azerbaijani Service of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty on the medium waves. Azerbaijani Minister of Communication explained the decision to stop translation of RFE/RL was taken, due to the radio didn't have license for broadcasting its program to Azerbaijan. But some political parties in Azerbaijan stated that the real reason for the shutdown was politically motivated. Do you have any comment on this?

MR. RUBIN: Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty are rebroadcast in Azerbaijan on the medium-wave band through local transmission towers. While RFE/RL have renewed the contracts for use of these towers, this fact apparently was not communicated to the tower operators and the transmissions have been temporarily halted. Broadcasts continue to be available in Azerbaijan on the short-wave band. We anticipate this misunderstanding will be cleared up shortly and the broadcasts will resume.

QUESTION: One little thing to tie up on Richardson's talks on Afghanistan -- he was engaged in those talks recently. Did he engage in any discussion with the Iranian representative to those talks on subjects other than Afghanistan?

MR. RUBIN: I'm not familiar with that if that had taken place; I've heard nothing to suggest that, and I think I probably would.

QUESTION: Okay. Could you look into that, if there's anything to --

MR. RUBIN: Sure, sure. I don't even know that the representatives were all there from those countries. I don't think so.

QUESTION: I don't believe - I plead ignorance on that score, but --

MR. RUBIN: I don't believe any of those representatives were in Afghanistan or in Pakistan while he was making those efforts, so the answer is no.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Jamie, this week in Serbia, residents vote on a referendum on whether international representatives should be involved in helping to solve the dispute in Kosovo. The former Minister of Information for Serbia was in Washington today, driving home the point that it's an internal problem and Washington should stay out. Any comment?

MR. RUBIN: Yes. The representative of the Serbian Government who made that point must have missed the reaction of the international community for the last month. The Security Council itself has made clear that what happens there is a matter that effects the international security and peace of the world. It is not an internal matter. The Security Council has made that decision, and it's time for the Serbian representative to read up on his Security Council resolutions.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:50 P.M.)

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article