U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #89, 98-07-21
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
854
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Tuesday, July 21, 1998
Briefer: James P. Rubin
ANNOUNCEMENT
1 Background Briefing Today on Pakistan and the IMF
NIGERIA
1 US Welcomes Announcement of Release of Political Prisoners
and Transition Plan
TERRORISM / LIBYA
1-8 PanAm #103 Suspects: Exploration of Possible Trial in
Scottish Court Outside Scotland / Ensuring Judicial
Standards in Third Country / Libyan Compliance
3-5,7 Effectiveness of Sanctions / Libyan Obligations Under UN
Resolutions / US Policy
6 Qadhafi's Health
6-7 Secretary's Conference Call Today to Families of Bombing
Victims / Families' Reactions
7 Communications With Libyan Govt
CYPRUS
8-9 Turkish 1974 Invasion / Dispute Gone On Too Long /
Allegations of Turkish Airspace Violations / No US
Officials Attended Ceremony / EU-US Meeting re
Negotiations, Accession to EU, Missiles Purchase,
EU-Turkey Relations, Greek-Turkey Relations
PAKISTAN
9-10 US Power Plant Projects on Dep Secy Talbott's Agenda /
Questionable Contracts
10-11 IMF Negotiations / US Sanctions / Background Briefing at
3:30 pm Today
INDIA
10-11 Permanent Membership on UN Security Council / UN
Aspirations and Non-proliferation on Dep Secy Talbott's
Agenda
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
11-12 Status of Bilateral Discussions / Travel Plans for Amb Ross
CHINA
12 Modernization of Nuclear Forces
COLOMBIA
12-13 Basis for Visa Denial to Pres Samper
SERBIA (KOSOVO)
13 Rpts of Islamic Mercenaries in Region
KOREA (NORTH)
13-14 Funding KEDO / Oil Deliveries
DEPARTMENT
14 Briefing Schedule This Week
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #89
TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1998, 1:00 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Welcome to the State Department briefing. Today is
Tuesday. Let me start by saying that we will have a briefing this afternoon,
where several senior officials will talk about the question of US IMF
policy on Pakistan. That will be at 3:30 p.m. here in the briefing
room.
Let me also say that the United States welcomes Nigerian head of state,
General Abubakar's, July 20 address to the Nigerian people, announcing the
release of all political detainees, outlining a plan for transition to
democratic civilian government, including election of a civilian president
during the first quarter of 1999 and promising the inauguration of a
democratically-elected president in May of 1999.
We are committed to working with the people of Nigeria to ensure that a
rapid, transparent and inclusive transition to civilian democratic rule
takes place. In addition to the promising political measures which General
Abubakar indicated, there has been extensive consultation on this. He also
outlined an ambitious and commendable initiative in the economic area; and
we will have more to say about that in a formal statement.
In short, we welcome General Abubakar's commitment to move in the direction
of democracy and a credible transition to democracy, his stated commitment
to respect human rights, to combat corruption and his commitment to
international cooperation in combating the drug trade and other crimes. We
look forward to working with the government of Nigeria on these issues of
mutual concern.
Questions?
QUESTION: The Pan Am situation - evidently the Secretary and Mr. Berger
have talked to, what, about ten family members in a conference call and
laid out for them the possibility of having this trial held in The
Netherlands with Scottish judges. Since you've wanted the American or
British justice system to prevail here, I wondered how far along this idea
has moved and whether there would be any variations from American and
British justice even with Scottish judges, if this is that live a
possibility.
MR. RUBIN: Let me start by saying that we have worked very hard for ten
years to impose and then keep on an effective sanctions regime against
Libya, pending their compliance with UN Security Council resolutions
requiring that these suspects face Scottish or British or American justice.
We have been exploring alternative ways to meet that objective - that is,
again, to bring the suspects who committed this heinous crime where over
180 Americans died before a trial, an effective trial before an effective
justice system.
To date we have not found practical alternatives to a trial in the United
States or in Scotland. Our bottom line is simple: the accused perpetrators
of this heinous crime must face justice before US or Scottish courts. We
are working to achieve that goal. It has been ten years, and this delay of
justice has been a denial of justice. We have been working very hard to see
whether there is a way in which it is practicable to hold a Scottish court
outside the United Kingdom and what steps would be necessary to make
this possible.
Determining whether such a proceeding might take place and how it might
take place without affecting the integrity of the judicial process has
taken a great deal of study and reflection, as well as extensive consultations
with other governments. It will take a great deal more effort to make this
procedure happen. We are exploring it. But let me emphasize very clearly,
we have made no decision on this matter. What we are doing is seeing
whether the question of a Scottish court in a third country with Scottish
judges, Scottish procedures and Scottish justice can be arranged logistically
and legally. If that happens, then it will be up to Muammar Qadhafi to
comply with the Security Council resolutions which state that he must allow
for a US or Scottish justice.
QUESTION: Well, if it does happen, if it does crystallize, this is bound
to be seen - already at least one of the mothers of a young woman killed in
the crash sees this as a whitewash, sort of Qadhafi winning out; because
after all, the reason there hasn't been a trial is because Qadhafi wouldn't
hand the suspects over. Is this in any sense a compromise - I don't mean it
necessarily in the pejorative sense -- but are you trying to find a way
to compromise the two positions - the US-British position and the
Libyan position?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say that Secretary Albright and Mr. Berger did talk to
some of the family members, and they can speak for themselves. But I think
it's fair to say there is a wide spectrum of opinion on this subject.
With respect to the fundamental question, the issue is will the standards
that apply in an American or a Scottish court - the standards of evidence,
the legal acceptance that the world holds for the standards of Western
justice in Scotland or in the United States - can those be applied in a
third country? That question hasn't been answered; but if it can be
answered in the affirmative, then the United States and the victims of this
tragedy will get what they have been long denied - and that is justice
before an American or a Scottish court. But there are many questions
that have to be answered, and we are not saying we've made such a
decision.
Frankly, the Libyans have refused to comply in any way with this resolution,
and they have proposed any number of ideas as to what they would do. But if
we had an arrangement by which the Scottish court could operate in a third
country like The Netherlands, then the oneness would be on Libya, very
clearly, to put forward these suspects. That is what the international
community has demanded. If Libya were to do that, then Libya would be
complying and the families and the United States that have sought justice
would be getting the justice that has been denied so long. So it would
be Libya turning over the suspects under the same procedures and the same
details.
QUESTION: Why would you consider allowing a suspected criminal to
negotiate the tribunal in which he's going to be tried? You wouldn't do
that for anybody in Bosnia.
MR. RUBIN: He's not going to negotiate the tribunal in which he's going
to be tried. Let me try to state this again.
The question is geography, not the quality of justice. We are not
suggesting there would be any change in the quality of justice. The
question is whether that justice system, with the same procedures, the same
prosecutors, the same law, the same process by which justice is provided in
a Scottish court would occur but in a different place. That is not allowing
the suspect to choose the venue. The venue is a Scottish court. If it were
in another location, it's still a Scottish court; it's a de facto Scottish
justice system. That is the question. The point is to bring them to
justice.
There have been indications that people speaking on behalf of Libya
indicate the Libyans would do such a thing. We are skeptical. But if we
created such a venue and an arrangement was made by which the Scottish
court could be located somewhere else, then Libya would be in a position
where they couldn't be seeking to mask their position by saying they would
do something else. They would have to comply. They have to comply now; they
have to comply then. In either case, it's a Scottish court.
If they don't comply then, then some of these people who have been
suggesting that the Libyans would comply in some other form are going to be
less supportive of the Libyan position, and that will be good for the
maintenance of the sanctions regime and the strengthening of it.
QUESTION: Jamie, some have suggested - and I won't use the word critics,
but just observers, people following the story, because I know how much you
like that word - have suggested that since the US policy to isolate Libya
has been basically ineffective over the last seven years or so, you're
softening your stance toward the Lockerbie situation in order to not only
bring the suspects to justice, but open up a new policy toward Libya.
How do you respond?
MR. RUBIN: Those observers must have missed what's been going on over the
last seven years. During those last seven years, the government of Libya
has been isolated. It has had a sanctions regime imposed upon it. There is
a travel ban for aircraft; there are oil parts that are not provided; there
is a partial assets freeze. Believe me, all the indicators that are coming
out of Libya are that they are desperate to get these sanctions removed.
So they are feeling the sting of the sanctions; so those observers are
incorrect.
With respect to a new policy towards Libya, they are equally incorrect.
This is a simple question, which is how best to bring justice for the
families of the United States and the United Kingdom whose family members
were killed in this heinous crime. If this moving of the Scottish court to
a third country will achieve that objective, the loser is Libya and the
winner are those like the United States and like the families who have been
seeking justice for this heinous crime.
QUESTION: So it's incorrect to view this in any way as a back-pedaling of
policy?
MR. RUBIN: Absolutely not.
QUESTION: Because you all have been adamant in saying that they should be
brought either to the US or Britain; and now suddenly you're throwing it to
a third court where you say Scottish law and Scottish judges. But the fact
of the matter is, you're not going to get what you want - which is having
them extradited to the US or Britain.
MR. RUBIN: The assertions in your question - all three of them - are
incorrect. Number one, we have stated very clearly that we want to get a US
or a Scottish court; that is what the resolution itself says - before US or
Scottish courts. We have doubted in several occasions when Libya has talked
about an international tribunal and opposed that - where it would be the
World Court or some international court. Often people have mistaken that
opposition for this kind of possibility. So it is incorrect -- your
second assertion - that we have said that we could never support this
idea. I've looked through what we've said about it; and what we've said is
that the various ideas that have been out there have all involved an
international court or international judges or some other internationalized
justice system, which is unacceptable to the United States. What this is is
a Scottish court with geography not changing the quality of the justice.
So we are talking about a change in geography, not a change in the quality
of justice.
QUESTION: A couple questions - why a Scottish panel and not an American
panel in a third country?
MR. RUBIN: It was believed - and this has not been worked out yet - that
that would be the most compatible for allowing a third country to permit
this sort of a trial on its territory. We have to work with a third country
here, and the third country involved - it was decided the most likely way
in which one can work this out, if these questions can be answered - and,
again, we're in the exploratory phase and we have not made a decision
- but the most likely possibility for this third country, The Netherlands,
would be a Scottish justice system.
QUESTION: Do you think it would be any more palatable for the Libyans if
it was Scottish rather than American?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to try to divine their -
QUESTION: I mean, I'm trying to divine your thinking.
MR. RUBIN: Our thinking was a legal thinking - how do you best make the
legal adjustment so that you can have a Scottish court in a third country,
in The Netherlands.
QUESTION: Okay, and also, is it the Administration's position that all
Qadhafi has to do is extradite these two suspects -- who were allegedly in
government employ when they conducted this operation - that all they have
to do is extradite them to get the sanctions lifted?
MR. RUBIN: No, that's not our position. I will get you after the briefing
some of the specific resolutions. But it is our view that not only do the
suspects have to be provided, but the Libyan Government has to cooperate in
the trial; that appropriate compensation has to be paid; and they have to
stop their support for international terrorism. Those are the requirements,
and those haven't changed.
QUESTION: That's if these people are - if the trial happens and if these
people are found guilty and if the evidence indicates that the Libyan
Government was, in fact, behind it, then those standards would have to be --
MR. RUBIN: Well, it is our view that compensation ought to be paid, and
if these nationals from Libya were involved - the four issues that I
mentioned are requirements for sanctions to be lifted. It's not enough to
just hand over the suspects; there is a level of cooperation in the trial
and the evidentiary proceedings and all that goes with that that would be
required, as well as a flat change in Libya's policy of supporting
international terrorism.
QUESTION: One more - there was some talk - when Moussa was in town last
week, there was some public discussion in a news conference and private
discussions between you all and the Egyptians about his trip to Libya the
previous week.
MR. RUBIN: You mean Mubarak's trip?
QUESTION: Yes, Mubarak's trip. I'm wondering whether this proposal grew
out of your consultations with Mubarak, if he had any input on it, if he
had formally presented it to Qadhafi?
MR. RUBIN: No. This has been something we've been considering and
exploring for many, many, many months now. It grew out of Secretary
Albright and other members of the Administration's desire, following
meetings with the families, to see whether we could be creative in bringing
these suspects to justice. This is a creative alternative to a court in the
US or the UK that serves the exact same purposes and will call Qadhafi's
bluff if, indeed, he doesn't turn them over.
QUESTION: If in fact Qadhafi is sincere, could this not, in fact, be a
sign of weakening, a sign that sanctions and his outlaw status - especially
since he's been wheelchair-bound now for almost two months; he's looking
weak in the eyes of his own people, perhaps, because of his injuries. Could
this not, in fact, be a compromise on their part?
MR. RUBIN: Well, as I indicated in response to previous questions, we
believe the sanctions regime has weakened Libya. They are desperate to get
the sanctions regime lifted. Their only international diplomatic exercise,
as far as I can tell, is to go around and seek assistance from other
governments in getting the sanctions lifted. So obviously, the sanctions
have weakened Libya. As far as what their motivation might be and would
they, in fact, turn them over, I don't care to speculate. It is our
view that Libya must turn the suspects over for justice before US or
British courts.
This idea that we're exploring is simply a creative way to achieve that
objective, if it can pass legal muster and all the questions that it
involves can be answered successfully.
QUESTION: What does this government say about Muammar Qadhafi's physical
state and how he got in that state? Do you have anything to say?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have any information on it. As I said yesterday, with
respect to another similar type person, I don't have any interest in
wishing him well.
QUESTION: Jamie, can we go back to the phone call and give us more
specifics, perhaps? How many family members? Was anyone else on the phone
representing the British Government, perhaps?
MR. RUBIN: No.
QUESTION: Obviously, I assume, you've been in touch with them that you
would have such a phone call, but maybe not. Has Secretary Albright spoken
to families before this time? I know other officials have.
MR. RUBIN: Secretary Albright, I believe about a year ago, spoke to the
families. When she was UN Ambassador, she spoke to them many times when
this issue came up before the United Nations.
She has spoken twice to Foreign Secretary Cook in the last two days. With
respect to your question of how many, I believe there were over ten family
representatives of some kind or another on the call. It was only with
American officials - with Mr. Berger and Secretary Albright.
QUESTION: How long was the phone call?
MR. RUBIN: I don't know - 45 minutes or so.
QUESTION: Are other calls planned, Jamie, with other family members?
MR. RUBIN: I don't believe so. I think that there will probably be
continued discussion and consultation with the family members in the coming
weeks; especially if the exploratory phase of this idea improves.
But again, we have not made a decision, and I hope all of you who are
covering this issue accurately reflect the fact that we are exploring
something. We have not made a decision; we're exploring a creative way to
deal with the fact that justice delayed is justice denied, and that a
change of geography does not mean a change in the quality of justice. That
is what we're doing.
QUESTION: The reaction - what did Secretary Albright think about the
reaction from the families?
MR. RUBIN: Well, again, this is a very emotional issue. Family members
who've lost loved ones in a heinous crime like this, it tends to be a very
difficult conversation. She is quite understanding of their pain, and she
and Mr. Berger try to explain the benefits, if this were to work out, of
getting these people before an actual Scottish court - something that
hasn't happened for ten years.
Now, this has gone on for ten years, and this delay of justice is something
that we're trying to deal with. As I said, it will be up to the family
members themselves to speak about this; and I don't care to reflect their
reactions, other than to say that there was a wide spectrum of opinion.
QUESTION: Just to be explicit, you have no guarantee, then, that if you
choose to go ahead with this that the Libyans will turn over these two
people? And secondly, how are you speaking to the Libyan Government on
this? Is there an intermediary country; is it the interest section; who's -
how's that working?
MR. RUBIN: I don't think we're going to have a communications problem
here. The United Nations Secretary General has, on occasion, been in touch
with them; various countries have been in touch with them; the OAU - the
Organization of African Unity - has been in touch with them.
The question will be, once we make this arrangement - and this is not a
negotiation. What we are talking about is a take-it-or-leave-it package
that puts a Scottish court in a third country and presents that to the
United Nations as an alternative way of meeting the objectives of the UN
Security Council resolutions. I'm sure we'll find out very quickly whether
the Libyans are going to put their money where their mouth is or whether
they were bluffing.
QUESTION: I just want to make sure I understand the status of this
proposal. The Libyans have been going back, at least five years, to when
they hired - (inaudible) - to try to work out a deal for them in Washington.
There have been all kinds of proposals floated that were alternatives to
just turning them over. So now we come to the 21st of July of 1998 and
should we understand that there's been some acceleration of the discussions,
or that it's moving to a more active phase?
MR. RUBIN: Okay, let me try to put this in a little context, because
that's a very good question. The Libyans, every time there's a sanctions
review in New York, come up with some new idea for why the current
requirements of the UN Security Council resolution are unacceptable. Every
time there's a sanctions review, we try to remind the other countries of
the world that the Libyans are seeking to mask their refusal to turn over
with one cockamamie legal idea after another.
There have been ideas for an international court; trying them before the
International Court of Justice; any number of ways to internationalize the
issue. We have always refused to do that, and we continue to refuse to do
that. We are not going to let the Libyans try to get the victims of justice
to see the trial outside of the justice system of either Scotland or the
UK.
About several months ago, we began to explore quietly, with a bit of
discussion with other governments, and extensive discussions more recently,
about whether there was a creative way to get a Scottish court in a third
country. That's all this is is an attempt by us to meet the very requirements
of the Security Council with a creative idea. This is not a function of
Libya's ideas or any other ideas other than our own thought as to how you
could either call Libya's bluff about willingness to turn them over not
in the United States or in the UK or get the actual trial with the
same quality of justice we've long been seeking.
That is the intent. It's been going on for some months. But again, there
has been no decision, because all the important legal questions have not
been answered.
QUESTION: Is the distinction between the Scottish court system and the
American court system the issue of capital punishment? Is that why you --
MR. RUBIN: I don't know the answer to that; I would have to try to get
you a legal answer. I doubt it's that simple.
QUESTION: Any response to my yesterday questions on the Turkish invasion
of Cyprus?
MR. RUBIN: The fact that 24 years have now passed since the 1974 conflict
only underscores our belief that the Cyprus dispute has gone on too long
without a resolution. The US continues to work under the United Nations
umbrella to resolve the dispute.
QUESTION: How do you comment on the violation of Cyprus air space and
seas by Turkish forces, even with the presence of the Turkish Prime
Minister in Nicosia?
MR. RUBIN: To the best of our knowledge, Turkish combat aircraft did not
overfly Nicosia during the celebrations, although Turkish-Cypriot Cessnas
and helicopters may have done so. A Turkish Air Force acrobatics team
staged an air show near Kyrenia. As we have stated before, displays of
military equipment by either side only unnecessarily raise tensions on the
island and make the search for peace more difficult.
QUESTION: I was told that the US delegation from your embassy in Nicosia
participated in the so-called Turkish ceremony of the invasion and
occupation of Cyprus, and I am wondering why.
MR. RUBIN: No US officials attended the Turkish-Cypriot celebrations in
any official capacity. US Embassy employees on their own time and
unofficially were apparently present. Their presence is in no way an
endorsement of the event.
QUESTION: And the last one - anything on last Friday's meeting between
DOS official and the EU delegation from England, Austria and Germany here
in Washington on the Aegean and Cyprus issues?
MR. RUBIN: Both sides stressed the need, at that meeting, to jump start
settlement negotiations on Cyprus. The European Union will look for ways to
involve the Turkish-Cypriot side in the process of Cyprus' accession to the
European Union.
Both sides will continue to raise their concerns with the governments of
Cyprus over its intention to purchase S-300 missiles. Both sides also
stressed the importance of improving relations between the European Union
and Turkey, and noted the European leaders' endorsement at the summit in
Cardiff of a European strategy to prepare Turkey for EU membership.
Finally, both sides agreed on the need to improve Greek-Turkish relations.
In this context, they acknowledged the importance of NATO Secretary General
Solana's call for confidence-building measures, as well as greater direct
contacts between the parties.
QUESTION: On his trip to Pakistan, did Mr. Talbott raise with the
Pakistani Government the noticing of cancellation of power projects with US
companies?
MR. RUBIN: Pakistan's treatment of foreign independent power producers
has been a subject of strong US concern for some time, and we have raised
it at the highest levels of the Pakistani Government. The subject is on the
agenda of the Deputy Secretary's delegation. They, I believe, have a few
minutes ago or shortly will meet the Prime Minister.
In its discussions with the Pakistani Government, we will be pointing out
how national security has an economic as well as a military component, and
that Pakistan's current economic situation is dire and it would be a
mistake to not treat foreign investors hospitably and honor their
contracts.
The delegation will raise it. I can't say for sure who will do it; but it
will happen.
QUESTION: The premise of that seems to be that the US Government believes
the allegations against the US companies are without foundation.
MR. RUBIN: On the contrary - we are raising with the government there a
subject of our concern that this decision or otherwise interfering with
these contracts or US businessmen is not correct and wrong and shouldn't
happen. The fact that we raise it at the highest level of governments means
we give credence to the reports.
QUESTION: But I mean, the Pakistani Government has alleged that there was
corruption in these contracts; that the US companies were involved somehow
in corrupt activities with the Bhutto regime. I'm wondering if --
MR. RUBIN: I can't really be too more specific about the specific issues
of each of the companies. What I can say is that this type of discrimination
is a matter of concern to us - strong US concern - and those points will be
made. Then the actions will be judged on the merits of each of the
cases.
QUESTION: Do you have anything more on Talbott's trip? He has move on to
Pakistan?
MR. RUBIN: Right. I don't have anything new, really, to report; other
than, obviously, what his goals are -- and the goals today are the same as
yesterday, which is how to reduce tensions in the area and get the Indian
and Pakistani Governments to move step by step towards acceptance of
international norms in the area of non-proliferation.
QUESTION: Did the Indians suggest a seat on the UN Security Council to --
MR. RUBIN: Let me be very clear on that. Secretary Albright has been very
clear on that. India is not going to blow its way onto the Security Council
as a permanent member. All it has done by conducting these explosions is to
harm and make impossible, in the current circumstances, India joining the
Security Council as a permanent member. We cannot support that kind of
policy.
Let's bear in mind that Germany and Japan, the other countries that we have
supported for Security Council membership, have forsworn nuclear weapons
and are members of the NPT. So there is no relationship between having
nuclear weapons and American support for permanent membership. On the
contrary - with the current trend away from the proliferation of nuclear
weapons, with more and more countries forswearing them, India has made it
far, far harder for it ever to join the UN as a permanent member.
QUESTION: Do you know if the issue arose during Talbott's meeting in
Delhi?
MR. RUBIN: I would assume that in a full-fledged discussion like this
that the issue of India's aspirations in this regard came up in one form or
another. Whether it was in a formal bilateral or on the margins, though, I
don't know.
QUESTION: Later on today there's going to be a background briefing?
MR. RUBIN: A background briefing on Pakistan and with respect to the
international financial institutions.
QUESTION: Is there anything you can say on the record that might get us
started, as to why - the reason for the briefing?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. Let me say that Pakistan's serious economic problems, a
legacy of severe and lengthy mismanagement, have been exacerbated by
sanctions. A default could result in severe hardship for Pakistan's people,
leading to political instability and turmoil.
It was not our intention that sanctions should punish Pakistan's citizens
or precipitate an economic collapse. We need to respond in a prudent manner,
and this can best be done through international institutions designed to
deal with such problems.
We think it is critical that the IMF be allowed to resume negotiations on
reinstating Pakistan's IMF program. We are re-examining, with our G-7
colleagues, the multilateral approach to the IMF with respect to Pakistan.
Resumed IMF involvement is the minimum necessary to forestall a collapse of
confidence in Pakistan's economy; but it is unlikely, by itself, to prevent
default. To turn things around, Pakistan must commit to serious economic
reforms. We and our partners, together with the IMF, will do everything
possible to see those reforms implemented.
We have not softened or somehow waived the sanctions. We are abstaining and
making use of the flexibility that the law currently allows. We are not
being softer on Pakistan than India. On the contrary - the overall effect
of sanctions is harder on Pakistan; and in addition, India neither seeks
nor receives support from the IMF.
Both India and Pakistan will continue to feel the impact of US sanctions.
Pakistan will continue to be denied much needed spares for its US-origin
military equipment, for instance; and both India and Pakistan will continue
to be denied desperately needed financing and insurance for investment. We
still retain significant leverage, but we are trying to deal with one of
the fundamental problems right now, which is the state of the Pakistani
economy.
QUESTION: So --
MR. RUBIN: So the backgrounder will be at 3:30 p.m.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Just one quick question on, I suppose, everyone's favorite
topic. On the Middle East, would you now say a half an inch is as good as a
mile, or are we still at an inch being as good as a mile?
MR. RUBIN: Analogies in the Middle East are tough. I worked very hard to
come up with that - an inch is as good as a mile - and now you've made me
sorry that I did.
Look, they are working in these bilateral discussions. They are discussions
that we were seeking. We are, as you know, have been working very hard to
try to get an agreement to close the gaps and to restart the Middle East
peace process. We have not yet reached that agreement; they have not yet
closed the gaps.
Are they making progress? It's up to the parties involved to comment on a
bilateral meeting, rather than us. But I can tell you that we haven't
closed this down; and certainly, it's plausible that just as an inch is as
good as a mile in the Middle East peace process, a centimeter is as good as
a mile or as a kilometer in the Middle East peace process.
QUESTION: Any travel plans for the special Middle East coordinator?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of any.
QUESTION: The Washington Times says this morning - well, you don't like
to use the name of publications - anyway there's a --
MR. RUBIN: I know, I try to avoid that unless there's a really big
mistake and then I use it.
QUESTION: Well, it's published a report today saying that China produced
six new ICBMs in the first four months of this year. Do you have any
comment on that?
MR. RUBIN: The US and China are building a cooperative security
relationship, as symbolized by the agreement of the two presidents not to
target strategic nuclear missiles at each other. We believe such cooperative
steps help build the basis for a new and improved security relationship in
the future.
At the same time, we are aware that China continues its limited efforts to
modernize its nuclear forces. I obviously can't get into the specifics of
such an article, allegedly based on intelligence matters.
QUESTION: On Colombia, yesterday President Samper recognized for the
first time - openly -- his campaign had been flooded by money from the
cartels.
MR. RUBIN: I'm sorry, the question, please?
QUESTION: President Samper recognized yesterday openly that his company
had been flooded by money from the Cali cartel.
MR. RUBIN: Well, flooded - we certainly - one of the factors that led to
our denial of a visa for Samper was the fact that we thought there was too
great a collusion between his administration and drug cartels. If he has
admitted that, that sounds like admission is a step in the right direction.
But visa revocations are based on a finding of ineligibility under the
Immigration and Nationality Act.
As in any other case, a finding of permanent ineligibility, which was the
case with Samper, is not altered by the fact that the applicant no longer
holds public office.
QUESTION: Well, he recognized it, but at the same time he said that he
wasn't aware of it.
MR. RUBIN: It doesn't change the fact that this gentleman will never get
into the United States.
QUESTION: On Kosovo, I was informed that - (inaudible) -- forces are
stationed now in Kosovo. I'm wondering if you are aware of that, and do you
have anything?
MR. RUBIN: There are reports stemming solely from claims by the Serbian
armed forces. We cannot corroborate these reports. We do not have reason to
believe there is an organized presence of Islamic mercenaries or volunteers
in Kosovo. It is possible, however, that individuals from various Islamic
countries may choose to fight in Kosovo, as we've said in the past.
QUESTION: North Korea - (inaudible) - had a briefing this morning, the
director of KEDO. He said that they would be willing to accept - this is on
the funding - money from any source, including Libya, including Iran. But
he said that it was up to the United States to take the lead in raising the
money. I'm just wondering whether you all have approached Iran for money
for the KEDO project.
(Laughter.)
MR. RUBIN: I've never heard of such a thing.
QUESTION: No, it's a serious question - why not?
MR. RUBIN: We are working with Congress and with other countries around
the world to try to fund KEDO, and we see no need to approach Libya or any
other such country for funding for KEDO.
QUESTION: I'm sorry, when you say "other such country," what do you mean -
do you mean countries that you consider supporters of terrorism or
countries in another region?
MR. RUBIN: That's a good example.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Could you --
MR. RUBIN: Look, I've just never heard of this notion, and so it's hard
for me to say anything other than it's not happening, Sid. We are not
seeking money from Iran or Libya or any other country of that kind to fund
KEDO. We are working with Congress and other countries around the world to
try to get such funds.
QUESTION: Do you have an update on that?
MR. RUBIN: I have no update on that.
QUESTION: Follow, if I may - that brought to mind the 66,000 tons of oil.
Has it been delivered? Has it been --
MR. RUBIN: I have no idea; I will try to get you an update on the status
of the oil.
QUESTION: What I really wanted to ask you is, tomorrow you're off - or no
briefing --
MR. RUBIN: There will be a briefing in the afternoon on the Secretary's
trip to Asia.
QUESTION: Do you know what time yet?
MR. RUBIN: 2:00 p.m.
QUESTION: And then Thursday, we're back here with you; and then Friday,
have you decided?
MR. RUBIN: Correct. I'm not clear yet.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:40 P.M.)
|
