U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #50, 98-04-24
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
739
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Friday, April 24, 1998
Briefer: James P. Rubin
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 Background Briefing on the Middle East Today
1 Background Briefing on Removal of Highly Enriched Uranium
from Georgia
DEPARTMENT
1 Secretary Albright to Receive Ruth Miller Seed of Peace
Prize on Sunday
10-11 Secretary Albright's Travel to Asia Next Week
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA
1-4 Situation in Kosovo/Firefight Along Albanian Border
2-3 Deputy Secretary Talbott's Consultations/Contact Group
Meeting
CUBA
4 EU and Helms-Burton/Under Secretary Eizenstat's Travel to
Europe
BOSNIA
5-6 Media OverSight/Standards
JAPAN
6 Approval of Economic Stimulus Package
RUSSIA
6-7 Duma Approves Sergey Kireyenko as Prime Minister
IRAQ
7 Reported Russian Efforts at UNSC re Lifting Sanctions
Against Iraq
AZERBAIJAN
7-8 Shutdown of Radio Liberty in Azerbaijan
CYPRUS
8 Ambassadors Miller and Holbrooke Travel/Meetings
RWANDA
8-9 Update on War Crimes Tribunal
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
10-11 Secretary Albright's Meetings in London
11-12 Reported Congressional Letter to Secretary re Palestinian
TV Program
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #50
FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 1998, 12:50 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Welcome to the State Department briefing. As you
know, we will be having a background briefing on the Middle East following
this briefing, as well as another briefing following that, in this busy
briefing room here today, on the subject of the highly enriched uranium
that has been removed successfully from Georgia in an important achievement
that we have made to control nuclear materials that might fall into the
wrong hands, and thereby advance the President's highest priority, to
prevent the spread of nuclear weapons or nuclear materials. That briefing
will occur at about 2:30 p.m. this afternoon.
QUESTION: Jamie, would it do any good to ask if that briefing be open to
cameras and sound?
MR. RUBIN: No.
QUESTION: What is your reasoning behind - I mean, the Defense Department
is releasing tape that they shot during the transfer of this material?
MR. RUBIN: Right. If those of you who want to get detailed information
want to get detailed information, then it requires different sourcing than
if it were provided in an on the record form. So perhaps more of your
questions can be answered and help you all do your stories better.
Let me just make one more brief announcement. The Secretary will receive
the Ruth W. Miller Seeds of Peace Prize on Sunday, April 26, in New York
from the Seeds of Peace Organization. That is the organization that works
with teenagers on the Middle East peace process. The Secretary will deliver
acceptance remarks at an open-press dinner on Sunday, and then fly back to
Washington for our round-the-world trip. There is some availability for
us to bring people back and forth with us; so those who are interested
should contact the press office.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the possibility of sanctions against
Yugoslavia because of Kosovo?
MR. RUBIN: Well let me just say that the situation in Kosovo is quite
troubling, extremely dangerous. We believe the Yugoslav National Army has
been engaged in a firefight along the Albanian border with myriad deaths
involved. We can't confirm the number of people killed, but we have no
reason to doubt that a significant number have been killed.
OSCE international border monitors confirm that they heard gunfire near the
Albanian border. There are credible press reports of a thousand refugees
fleeing across the border into Albania. Let me say that the United States
recognizes every country's sovereign right to protect its borders; but the
reports of a significant military build-up in the Kosovo region are
extremely troubling, given the disproportionate use of force again
insurgents and civilians in Kosovo in recent weeks. We have raised our
serious concerns about this matter directly with senior officials in
Belgrade. It is time for President Milosevic to understand that the
border problem that he is dealing with is a direct consequence of
his failure to come to terms and his inaction in terms of developing
a viable solution to the Kosovo crisis.
The United States strongly believes that the Contact Group and the UN's
call for the immediate withdrawal of special police units and the call for
Belgrade authorities to meet with Kosovar Albanians in an unconditional
dialogue is the only solution to this problem. The status quo will not
stand in Kosovo if it continues in this direction. It is not sustainable.
The level of mistrust and the gap between the parties is too great. And the
only solution is for President Milosevic to get the message and get with
the negotiating track and stop thinking he can solve this problem through
the use of military force. He cannot.
In fact, all that he has done is increase support for the Albanian
extremists in Kosovo. One might even say he's become the de facto
membership chairman of the UCK organization, because with every step he
takes in this effort, he is increasing the support the population has for
the extremist organizations.
So it is our view that he needs to realize that the only solution is to
come up with a credible negotiating procedure. That means unconditional
dialogue, and that means changing the course that he has taken.
With respect to sanctions, President Milosevic has clearly not complied
with the UN resolution's demands or the Contact Group's demands. He is
upping the ante with the involvement of the Yugoslav National Army. His
delaying tactics in calling for a referendum are also a step in the wrong
direction. All that has happened by the deployment of these National Army
forces in Kosovo is the heightening of instability in the region.
We are working with our allies to develop a package of additional measures
designed to ensure that President Milosevic understands that his current
course of action can only lead to further and further isolation for the
people of the former Yugoslavia. It is time for him to change course before
it's too late so that his people don't receive further isolation.
With respect to specific details, all I can say is that Deputy Secretary
Talbott has been consulting with key governments in Europe over the phone
and in numerous meetings in recent weeks. We will be discussing this
further at the Contact Group meeting next week. But the bottom line is, we
are going to be considering and pushing for additional measures to make
clear to President Milosevic that his current course of action is the wrong
course of action.
QUESTION: Is the freeze on assets still part of that --
MR. RUBIN: Again, I'm going to avoid details. I will get you some details
after the briefing on where the current package stands in terms of what has
been implemented. There were four measures that were discussed, some of
which have been put into place. What I am saying is that we are going to be
looking at additional measures to try to bring home the message to
President Milosevic that he must change his course of action.
QUESTION: Why do you feel it necessary to elevate these negotiations to
the rank of Deputy Secretary Talbott, as opposed to having Gelbard do
them?
MR. RUBIN: Well, Secretary Albright has been very concerned about this
problem. She wants to be sure that we've done all we can reasonably can do
at the beginning of the problem rather than wait until it's too late.
Clearly, some governments don't approach this problem with the same sense
of urgency that we do. We believe the involvement of Deputy Secretary
Talbott only strengthens the hand of Bob Gelbard, who's done outstanding
work in trying to bring peace to the former Yugoslavia.
QUESTION: And Kinkel apparently said today something about NATO putting
peace keepers in Macedonia to either support or replace the UN troops that
are there now.
MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to be in a position to discuss the details, but
what I can say is that Deputy Secretary Talbott has been working with
European governments and others on a combination of stabilization of the
countries around Kosovo, the isolation of President Milosevic and a
negotiating forum to help President Milosevic get himself out of the mess
he has created.
QUESTION: Will Talbott be the chief US representative at the meeting next
week or will Gelbard?
MR. RUBIN: I believe it's a Political Director's meeting, so it would be
Ambassador Gelbard.
QUESTION: Can I request a background briefing by a senior administration
official before departure?
MR. RUBIN: Before departure?
QUESTION: Before they leave for the meeting.
MR. RUBIN: I will certainly do what I can to make sure that our
department provides you the important background information you need to do
your job.
QUESTION: The build-up of the Yugoslav military that you mentioned --
that you were concerned about, is that strictly in the border with Albania
or --
MR. RUBIN: No, it's in the Kosovar region. The special police are out of
their barracks, the Yugoslav National Army is in the region. We can confirm
that we believe they are operating in the interior, as well, and this is a
matter of grave concern to the United States.
QUESTION: There's a report today that Eizenstat is in Europe and that
they seem -- the United States and the European allies seem to be getting
closer to an agreement on Helms-Burton?
MR. RUBIN: We have been seeking an acceptance of the principle that
expropriated properties will not be traded as an international commitment
with specific disciplines to define how that mechanism would work; and
Under Secretary Eizenstat has been working on that project extensively.
As you know, the European Union announced that it was not going to go
forward with the case before the WTO panel on Helms-Burton. But the next
step is to see whether we can come to an understanding that no country
should want to see expropriated property benefit the expropriator. This is
a worldwide problem, and we are looking to see if we can come to terms on
how to define expropriated property and how to define measures to deal with
this problem. That is what he's working on. I'm not in a position to
announce imminent results of any discussion, other than to say that,
obviously, he's talking about that.
QUESTION: Right, but I mean, the two sides obviously have been discussing
that issue for a long time.
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
QUESTION: And my question - I'm trying to get a sense of whether you feel
like you're moving towards a solution now.
MR. RUBIN: Well, certainly the fact that the decision was made not to go
forward with a case before the WTO indicates a desire on the Europeans'
part to come to a solution. We certainly hope that that desire yields the
kind of progress and discussions that would mean a good result. But we're
not in a position to say that at this time.
QUESTION: If there is a good result, would that mean an Administration
request the Congress to repeal Title III of Helms-Burton; or is that too
arcane?
MR. RUBIN: My understanding is that what we are trying to deal with is
the result of this expropriated property trading on visas, which is Title
IV. So in fact, if we yield success, we would want to see an opportunity to
reflect that success in more flexibility in the visa category, because we
already have the ability to waive, based on progress in the Title III
category, which is the lawsuits.
QUESTION: On Bosnia, is the United States supporting an effort to take
over publications and broadcasts outlets in Bosnia?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I was kind of surprised that this issue was covered the
way it was covered today. I hope all of you who have been following foreign
policy in the modern era will remember the pictures and the words, the vile
propaganda, the incendiary rhetoric that was a major cause of the war in
Yugoslavia, the exaggerated lies that appeared every day on television in
Croatia and Serbia. This concerned all analysts. Everyone who looked
at the problem concluded that this was a major problem that contributed
to the kind of irrational, excessive, extreme and occasionally genocidal
behavior on the part of paramilitary and occasionally military officers in
the former Yugoslavia.
This kind of vile propaganda must stop. The way the international community
has been trying to deal with that is to bring to bear the kind of
responsible oversight of the international media in Bosnia. It was only a
few months ago that we had to remove the several transmitters from the
control of Rodovan Karadzic, who was using them to undermine the peace
agreement by putting lies, falsified pictures, phony descriptions of what
occurred at meetings, juxtaposing real events with fictional events -
basically spewing out hatred and lies on television that was undermining
the Dayton peace agreement. All the newspapers that covered that event
pointed to that problem as one of the reasons why it was so hard for
Dayton to be implemented.
So when the international community is now trying to bring some reason to
bear on the decisions that are made by news outfits in the former
Yugoslavia - specifically in Bosnia - to suggest that this is somehow some
censorship program is hard to understand. The Peace Implementation Council
for Bosnia met in Bonn December 9 and 10, 1997, and agreed to establish
international media standards; one standard of which is to not spew lies
and vile propaganda on national television stations.
They licensed an international commission to regulate the media in the
absence of laws in Bosnia concerning the media. It is our view that we
should support the reform efforts in media undertaken by the High
Representative. And our concern is to free the airwaves in Bosnia of abuse.
We must see an end to the continuous use of hate language and ethnic slurs.
We are going to de-politicize media management accordingly. Frankly, if you
talk to the journalists who are operating there, as I know some of you do,
they consider this involvement a great boon to their ability to be
independent. They no longer have to answer to the likes of Radovan
Karadzic when deciding what goes on television.
QUESTION: So you're saying, yes, there is a new effort to do something?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we've been doing this for several months. Someone just
decided that it was a new effort today.
QUESTION: Oh, okay, this is the effort that was started last December?
MR. RUBIN: Correct. And there's been a process designed to bring some
reason to the media output in Bosnia. We were just stunned here in the
Department to see people think this was censorship when, in fact, what it's
doing is removing lies and vile ethnic slurs from being seen every day by
the people of Bosnia.
QUESTION: The problem, though, is we're operating from the context of the
United States in which we do have propaganda and we do have vile ethnic
slurs and we have hate language, but we also - this is balanced by more
responsible media. It all sort of exists in a rather free and open society.
So wouldn't you acknowledge, though, that at least the idea of regulation
of the media is something that really is at odds with our society?
MR. RUBIN: In the current context that exists in Bosnia, it seems to me
that the people who are concerned about this are living in a phony ivory
tower; that they haven't been on the ground; haven't seen what has been
created by this vile propaganda; and don't understand that the journalists
that are operating under these new rules don't regard it as being told what
they can say and told what they can do, but regard themselves as being
freed from the dictatorship of those who required them to put this
propaganda on.
So if you want to take an ivory-tower analysis of every problem in the
world, you can surely find some grand principle that's being violated. But
if you want to live in the real world, the real world is one in which the
media has been abused in this part of the world. The effort we're making is
to bring open, free, critical, supportive, non-critical, non-supportive,
whatever is not driven by ideology and evil design on television or in
the radio. And so this strikes me as one of those moments when self-
righteous people are imposing values that have no relationship to
what's going on in another country. But I have no other views on that.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: The Japanese Government approved the 16 trillion yen economic
stimulus package today. Do you have any comment on that?
MR. RUBIN: We welcome this package. I believe Secretary Rubin has
referred to that. But let me say that we welcome the substantial and
serious policy measures that are involved in that package, and we hope the
measures that are discussed will be put into place quickly.
QUESTION: Jamie, were champagne corks popping in this building after the
vote in the Duma this morning?
MR. RUBIN: As far as I can tell, everything that happens in foreign
policy was either expected or is not something that - let me put it this
way; we rarely pop champagne corks, much to my dismay.
But we do congratulate Mr. Kiriyenko and look forward to working with him
in his new capacity. There's a lot of work for the United States and Russia
to do. We appreciate Mr. Kiriyenko's -- I guess we can call him now Prime
Minister Kiriyenko's strong commitment and that of President Yeltsin to
continuing the activities of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission that was so
important in our relationship.
As I understand it, he has a week to propose new candidates for the new
government, including ministers and a Deputy Prime Minister.
Prime Minister Kiriyenko was Fuel and Energy Minister from 1997 until last
month. Before joining the government, he founded a commercial bank, he also
headed an oil refinery. As Energy Minister, he was an active participant in
our Joint Commission On Economic And Technical Cooperation. He's well and
favorably known in Washington. Deputy Secretary Talbott had a meeting with
him in which he found him to be a credible interlocutor who is on the path
of reform that we believe is so important for the future of Russia. I
think he clearly signals the kind of generational change that is necessary
around the world if we are going to be able to shed the barnacles of old
communist thinking.
QUESTION: Also on Russia, there are reports in New York that the Russians
are seeking a lifting of the sanctions against Iraq. Have you heard
anything along those lines?
MR. RUBIN: With regard to the sanctions in New York, let me say the
following. There is no prospect for sanctions being lifted by the UN
Security Council so long as Iraq continues to refuse to provide disclosure
on all the weapons of mass destruction programs in the area of poison gas
and germ warfare that they have refused to do consistently for years now.
They're smoking something if they think that merely by letting international
inspectors visit palaces they're going to answer the hard questions
that there are about how much VX gas was produced, how much material
is available for biological warfare, how many missile warheads were
destroyed. These are a whole series of extremely important questions Iraq
has refused to answer satisfactorily.
With respect to the nuclear question of what's being discussed in New York,
we would be the first ones to want to emphasize progress where we see it,
and clearly there has been progress in the area of understanding what Iraq
did and what it is now unable to do in the nuclear area. But in order for
us to really transition to a new type of process with the nuclear question,
Iraq has to answer questions that it's refused to answer about this area
as well - namely in the area of concealment.
So if Iraq stops the disruption pattern and starts the disclosure pattern,
the progress that we believe has occurred could yield an adjustment in how
the monitoring is done.
QUESTION: Again about Radio Free Europe's Radio Liberty program in
Azerbaijan. In your initial statement assessment, closure of radio in
Azerbaijan - (inaudible) - you say the problem was a technical one or a
misunderstanding. Now we have a report that five young people who organized
the protest against the shutdown were arrested in Baku and were put in
prison. What's your position right now?
MR. RUBIN: What we thought was a simple contractual problem has now
become much more significant. President Aliyev needs to understand that we
remain gravely concerned about the shutdown of this Radio Free Europe
operation. On April 20, with only a few days' warning, the government
halted Radio Liberty re-broadcast on grounds that it had no license. We are
deeply concerned over the government's decision. Our ambassador met with
government official, including the President and Minister of communication
to express our deep concerns.
We urge the government of Azerbaijan to protect the freedom of the media
through press, radio and television, and to conduct its relationships with
the media in a transparent matter. We do not have information concerning
arrests, but are looking into that question.
QUESTION: Apparently Mobil has applied to swap oil from the Caspian with
Iran. And while I understand that this is primarily a Treasury issue, I
understand the State Department also has a role to play. I'm wondering what
you're thinking about that.
MR. RUBIN: I'd have to get you an answer for the record; I have nothing
on that.
QUESTION: According to Greek press, Mr. Tom Miller, he brought some new
ideas and plans for the Cyprus problem, which is Mr. Holbrooke will be
there this weekend. Do you have any new ideas to the new plans for the
solving of this problem?
MR. RUBIN: Ambassador Holbrooke will be bringing to bear his extraordinary
diplomatic expertise on this problem in a visit to Cyprus sometime next
week, I believe towards the end of the week. He will be staying there for
several days. He will be discussing with the relevant officials ways to
bring peace to this troubled region. We do not believe that it is helpful
for Ambassador Holbrooke's work to describe in detail any of the discussions
he needs to have with the relevant officials.
What we can say is we hope that both sides see this as an important
opportunity to meet with what we all know to be a very able diplomat who's
going to constructively look at ways to resolve the problems, and not miss
this opportunity.
QUESTION: Jamie, do you have anything more on the War Crimes Tribunal in
Rwanda? Rwandan officials said that they executed the people they did today
because of the slow pace of the War Crimes Commission.
MR. RUBIN: Somehow I think the fact that the War Crimes Tribunal always
goes a little slower than people think has had little to do with the
decision about what punishment ought to be brought to bear on officials who
were involved in one of the most heinous acts in modern times. I doubt that
that was the reason why they were executed.
We've said we had our doubts about whether they received the kind of fair
judicial process we would expect people to receive in the United States.
That doesn't mean we doubted their guilt, and it doesn't mean we, in any
way, wish to diminish the fact that these were some of the worst war
criminals in modern times who were involved in orchestrating or taking part
in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. And so the
fact that we have questions about the procedure by which they were
executed and the public nature of it doesn't change the horror of
their crimes. Nor does it change the fact that the Rwandan Government
I doubt took its decisions based on the War Crimes Tribunal's inability to
move as fast as some would like. And if so, that sounds like an unfortunate
excuse for what we believed were unnecessarily sensationalized public
executions.
Again, let me emphasize, none of that changes the fact that these people
were responsible for some of the most horrible war crimes of the modern era
and did deserve to face the bar of justice.
With respect to the International Criminal Tribunal's activities, the
tribunal for Rwanda has publicly indicted 32 people, most of them for
genocide. A year ago the tribunal had 11 people in custody; today the
number in custody is 23. This includes many of the top organizers of the
Rwandan genocide. The first trial has just taken place; a verdict is
awaited. Two trials are well underway. The tribunal has recently added a
second courtroom to bring accused to trial more quickly.
Obviously, we're concerned about the slow pace of trials. That's why we've
welcomed the prosecutor's efforts to hold Nuremberg-style trials that would
show how the 1994 genocide was planned and carried out. There have been
administrative problems that we've been working on, but at the end of the
day, the legal process may be slow but it is the only fair process by which
all concerned can see that justice is done.
QUESTION: Who would carry out the sentences on any findings by this
court? Would they be carried out by the government of Rwanda? I mean, could
these people who are tried in the War Crimes Tribunals end up with the same
kind of -- --
MR. RUBIN: Well, let me check this for the record, but my understanding
is the procedures would be similar to that which apply for The Hague, which
is that the International Tribunal issues judgments, issues sentences and
then the Tribunal as process finds a way to carry out those sentences. The
death sentence is not a sentence that we would expect an international
tribunal to carry out.
QUESTION: It's not clear to me whether you think the judicial process
affecting the 22 was flawed.
MR. RUBIN: I think that they wouldn't have met the standards that we have
come to expect. But in the local context, we think where we had problems
was in the sensationalized public executions, which we do not think is a
way to promote reconciliation. What we think is a way to promote reconciliation
is trials, bringing people to justice, making sure that whole groups of
people aren't falsely accused, that whole groups aren't falsely assumed to
be involved, that collective guilt is expunged and individual guilt
is assigned in a fair process. We do not think sensationalized public
executions contributes to a climate of reconciliation in Rwanda.
QUESTION: Would you say you express concern about the appeals process?
MR. RUBIN: Again, I'm not saying that we think it was a process that
would meet our standards, but the area where our concern was greatest was
the sensationalized public executions.
QUESTION: A question of a very general nature. The Secretary takes off
for Asia next week. There's been a background briefing here that's already
discussed the trip in some detail. Of a general nature on the record, what
are you able to say about what she hopes to accomplish? Is she planning to
walk away -- hoping to walk away with something concrete from this trip, or
are these primarily discussions?
MR. RUBIN: The travel of the Secretary of State to countries of this kind
is not designed to achieve a particular negotiating outcome the way, say a
meeting of the Contact Group or some pre-prepared negotiation would.
What is important, however, is laying the groundwork for the President's
trip to China, trying to advance our agenda in terms of getting concrete
progress in human rights, in stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, as well as seeing whether there is an opportunity to move
China forward on its application or attempt to join the WTO, the World
Trade Organization. Those are three specific areas of concern that we've
had, that we will try to make progress on. But in general, it is an
opportunity for her to meet with some of the new leaders that are now in
place, to prepare the way and arrange for many of the details of the
President's summit that will follow shortly after her trip; and then in the
region, to have an opportunity to meet face to face with the new President
of South Korea, Kim Dae-Jung, whom she knows in a former capacity, and who
will extremely important to the success of American and Korean relations in
the coming years. In addition, she will be meeting in a very important stop,
her first stop, with the Japanese Government. We have a very strong
bond with the Japanese people and the Japanese Government, and that will be
re-emphasized and specific problems will be dealt with.
The trip, as you know, ends in London after visiting Mongolia, at which
time the Secretary will have an opportunity to meet with Prime Minister
Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat. There the prospects are unclear. We have
been working very hard in trying to find a path to put the peace process
back on track. We've been unable to do so. We've been working at this
problem for some nine months now - since the Secretary's visit to the
Middle East last summer. Therefore, we are going to continue to work to see
whether we can revitalize the increasingly moribund peace process.
But the obstacles are serious. We have no reason, at this point, to know
that this meeting will yield anything but the kind of refusal to make hard
decisions that we've seen in the past. We hope that the leaders approach
the meetings with an open mind, and don't miss the opportunity that
London's meetings will create to finally and irrevocably put the peace
process back on track before it's too late.
QUESTION: You don't sound particularly hopeful about this set of London
meetings at all.
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think it's very hard to be optimistic and hopeful
about the Middle East peace process after a series of meetings in which
Secretary Albright and Ambassador Ross have used all the ingenuity they can
muster to try to find creative solutions to these problems, and the leaders
have been as yet unwilling to make the decisions that will allow it to
happen.
QUESTION: This podium has always been curious to tell us that if there is
no result expected out of any meeting, the Secretary wouldn't go. Now there
is a kind of change. Is this a function of a sense of urgency, a sense of
dangerous results that could come out of the situation?
MR. RUBIN: I don't think it's correct that I'm saying there is no chance
of progress. That is not what I said. I'm simply pointing out that it's
hard to be optimistic, given what's come before us. The Secretary is
willing to go the extra mile to try to see what she can do, to try to
catalyze the Middle East peace process. But there is a limit to what the
United States can do when the two parties have to make the hard decisions,
and those decisions have yet to be made.
Certainly, a failure to bring the peace process back into a condition where
it is moving forward will be something that will harm the security of the
region in our view. It will harm the ability of people to have a future in
which economic and political goals can be advanced; and instead, will
relegate them to the kind of violence and hardship that has, unfortunately,
marked the Middle East for so many recent years.
QUESTION: How do you see the Vice President's role fitting in with Dennis
Ross, Martin Indyk and the Secretary in the talks of the next couple of
days?
MR. RUBIN: Well, it's a pretty straightforward answer, and others will be
in a position to answer it more specifically in a few minutes. But let me
say this - he will be visiting as a demonstration of the commitment of the
United States to the security of Israel that's been so unshakable for so
many years, and that has not changed. That celebration of Israel's
anniversary will give him an opportunity to make that point. Obviously,
the issue of peace will be on people's minds, so it would be hard
not to be discussed. But the purpose of his mission is to demonstrate the
commitment the United States has to the State of Israel.
QUESTION: So, you don't see a role, then, of him trying to convince the
parties to make the tough decisions that the rest of the --
MR. RUBIN: I did say that it would be hard to imagine, in the current
environment, that those issues wouldn't be discussed.
QUESTION: Just one other thing - I was going to wait to ask this, but --
MR. RUBIN: So why - maybe you could.
QUESTION: Because in light of your comments on the Bosnian TV, I'd like
to pose it quickly. Related to the Palestinian TV, there's a letter on the
Hill, gathering signatures now, to the Secretary in light of a show on
Palestinian TV where little children talked about turning into suicide
bombers in Jerusalem. I wonder if you have any views on it.
MR. RUBIN: I am not familiar with the letter or the particular program.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you. Time for the next briefing.
(The briefing concluded at 1:30 P.M.)
|
