Visit the Antenna Mirror on HR-Net Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923)
HR-Net - Hellenic Resources Network Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Thursday, 28 March 2024
 
News
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  Announcements
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Hosted
  Mirrored
  Interesting Nodes
Documents
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  Constitutions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Other
Services
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts
  Tools
  F.A.Q.
 

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #95, 98-08-04

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>


895

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Tuesday, August 4, 1998

Briefer: James P. Rubin

STATEMENTS
1		SECRETARY'S TRIP TO SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO
1		STATEMENT ON SUDAN RESUMPTION OF PEACE TALKS

SUDAN 1 IGAD brokered talks/ famine / US delegation/ assistance and support/ cease-fire

IRAQ 2 Ambassador Butler's trip / Missile/chemical weapons files/ sanctions relief 2,3 UNSCOM discovery /people suffering / Butler's report 3,4,5 Kofi Annan trip/ humanitarian efforts / oil-for-food program / lifting of sanctions 4,5 US in contact / crisis brewing /Visit of Shi'ite leader 6 Amb. Butler's blue print

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO 6-7 US Interest/ human rights/ control of territory /democratic government 7,8 scattered shooting / airport opened / warden message/ status of Amcits

CAMEROON 8 Update of fighting for territory in the South

INDIA 8 Failed Meeting / Killing of civilians /fighting tapered off

ISRAEL/ MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS 8-10 Visit of Labor Party leader/ talks broken off

ST KITTS & NEVIS 11-12 Update on extradition / Number of Americans who departed / Police reinforcement / Steps for the protection of Americans

SERBIA (KOSOVO) 12,13 NATO finalized options / decision makers / ethnic cleansing / humanitarian workers / 13,14 dislocation of people / humanitarian catastrophe / finalizing plans /political leaders decision


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #95

TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1998, 1:00 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. RUBIN: Greetings.

QUESTION: Greetings.

MR. RUBIN: I can't imagine what was going on in this briefing room, prior to the State Department spokesman --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. RUBIN: Welcome to the State Department. Today is Tuesday. We have an announcement about the Secretary's travel in August to Santa Fe that we will provide to you. But let me begin by talking about the Sudan briefly. Peace talks resumed today in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, between the government of the Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement under the auspices of the so-called IGAD process -- that is, Inter-Governmental Authority on Development.

You're not taking that down, Barry - IGAD.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. RUBIN: The United States has consistently and strongly supported the IGAD-brokered talks, both financially and diplomatically. We believe the IGAD process offers the best hope for ending a 15-year war which as cost more than 1.5 million lives. A high-level US delegation, led by Ambassador Richard Bogosian, is attending the talks in Addis Ababa to lend US assistance and support.

We have welcomed the agreement for a three-month cease-fire in the areas most affected by the famine. We're looking to see an agreement by both sides to extend the cease-fire, which would enhance the ability of the international relief agencies to feed the hungry, and will also serve as a confidence-building measure. We hope the parties can reach agreement on monitoring modalities for that cease-fire and an expanding one, and we urge the parties to come to the talks in Addis Ababa ready to negotiate seriously.

With that statement, let me turn to Barry.

QUESTION: The breakdown in talks between the UN folks - Butler's group - and Iraq sounds ominous. What is the size-up here; and specifically, do you think sanctions could be maintained among your not-always-constant allies?

MR. RUBIN: First of all, let me say that the decision by Iraq to break off talks is disturbing. Let's bear in mind that Chairman Butler traveled to Baghdad to follow up on an accelerated work plan he agreed on with the Iraqis two months ago, which in turn followed a series of technical meetings held over the last eight months.

To quote Butler in a comment today from Bahrain, "If we did that work program for the next four or five weeks and experienced full Iraqi cooperation, I (Butler) could have been in a position to report to the Security Council the end or very near the end of the missile and chemical weapons files."

In short, it is inexplicable for Iraq to break off talks that were specifically designed to accelerate the lifting of sanctions. Iraq is only harming itself and its people since this action only puts off the day when UNSCOM would be in a position to verify that Iraq had finally complied with the requirements of the Security Council resolutions.

Iraq's responsibility remains what the Security Council has made clear it must do - that is, fully disclose its weapons programs and cooperate fully with UNSCOM. If it were to do so, rather than breaking off talks with the person delegated by the international community the responsibility to get to the bottom of this, then they would be in a position to move quickly towards compliance with this requirement of the Security Council. So Iraq has only harmed itself; its actions are inexplicable; and we are continuing to demand Iraqi compliance.

With respect to the sanctions issue, I do not believe this can do anything but harm Iraq's standing in the Council with respect to sanctions relief. Even those who had a more forward-leaning position in terms of looking at an earlier hoped-for date for lifting the sanctions will only be undercut in their efforts by Iraq's refusal to even deal with the work plan that they wanted, that Ambassador Butler put together; and so they have set themselves back again.

QUESTION: Iraq has kind of zig-zagged in the past - it sounds like the US hasn't totally given up hope that there will be cooperation with Butler?

MR. RUBIN: The cooperation between UNSCOM and Iraq has ebbed and flowed over the years. They tend to cooperate more when it's apparent that UNSCOM has discovered something that they need to acknowledge or finally admit. We'll have to see; it's hard to know. This drama has been played out many, many times before. There have been many scenes and acts in this play, but the bottom line is that the Iraqi people are suffering for the failure of its government to do what the international community has demanded.

QUESTION: Would you care to resurrect the threats of grave consequences that you all used frequently during the last crisis if they do not resume - if they don't --

MR. RUBIN: At this point, what we want to do is wait for Chairman Butler's report on the precise details of what happened in his discussions and the state of play. And I'm not going to speculate on what would happen after that.

QUESTION: Are there any signs of any obstruction on the ground as far as the inspection work that is continuing is concerned?

MR. RUBIN: This would be a question that Ambassador Butler would answer in New York to the entire Security Council and then we'd be able to talk more about it. But let me say there has been work that has continued since the crisis in the winter. There's been access for the inspectors; they've been able to do their work. That's what we want to see happen because it's only by conducting the inspections, verifying the weaponry that has been there or has been destroyed that we can get to the bottom and answer the question of how much chemical, biological and ballistic missile weaponry and technology Iraq had; how much has been destroyed; and then finally eliminate what is remaining.

QUESTION: Will the United States be urging Kofi Annan to return to the region to help defuse the situation?

MR. RUBIN: I think that's a few steps down the road at this point. We need to see what Chairman Butler reports, what he thinks is necessary; and we'll have to see.

QUESTION: To pick up on your word "inexplicable" in terms of the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Government - has it occurred to you that their interests may not be identical -- that Saddam Hussein derives a certain political benefit from a crisis atmosphere and the image of the outside world starving Iraqi children?

MR. RUBIN: First of all, with respect to the humanitarian efforts, I think I could provide you after the briefing some rather dramatic information about what's gone on in Iraq over the last several years and the extent to which the oil-for-food program has provided the Iraqi people with significant standards in terms of caloric intake and medical supplies and basic foodstuffs. So the Iraqi people are getting their assistance because of the international community. We have no illusion that Saddam Hussein cares about his people. I'm simply pointing out that even by his stated objective, which is to lift sanctions -- if you look at the statements from Tariq Aziz and Saddam Hussein over recent weeks they start from the premise of getting sanctions lifted and demanding that sanctions be lifted.

If one takes that goal at face value, all that they've done by denying Butler the ability to complete his work and follow through on the work plan is shoot their own goal in the foot.

QUESTION: Well, that's the stated purpose. May they not have an ulterior motive, which is to derive this political benefit from this crisis atmosphere?

MR. RUBIN: You are welcome to speculate on the motivations of Saddam Hussein; it's not a growth industry, in my opinion. People have been speculating on it back and forth. It's rather fashionable to somehow declare that when the international community gets him to back down that somehow it's good for him. It's impossible for those of us who measure success and benefits in the normal way to come to that conclusion. But you're welcome to such speculation.

QUESTION: You referenced to - well, rather than shooting himself in the foot and maybe he's hurt his cause with other governments. Has the US been in serious contact lately with these other governments? He has protectors on the Council - sympathizers.

MR. RUBIN: We're in regular touch with the key countries that are on the Security Council. I expect the next round of serious consultations to occur on Thursday, when Ambassador Butler - prior to, during and after Ambassador Butler's report.

QUESTION: Jamie, if I can ask you -- you seem unwilling to say, though I'll ask you whether the United States is concerned that a new Iraqi crisis seems to be brewing.

MR. RUBIN: The question being --

QUESTION: Does the United States see a new Iraqi crisis brewing - question mark?

MR. RUBIN: Ah, question mark. I'll tell you a joke about that afterwards - about questions without question marks.

Look, it's impossible to predict. Saddam Hussein and his henchmen for many, many years have been creating artificial crises, artificial situations that then are turned off in a matter of days. If the desire was to gain support for the lifting of sanctions, all I'm saying is that that failed, because it's our judgment that people will see this for what it is - which is a demand by Iraq to immediately declare them in full compliance, when all the evidence over the recent weeks has been in the opposite direction, whether it was the VX gas or other pieces of evidence that UNSCOM has been collecting that demonstrate there still is considerable work to be done to uncover what they had, what they've destroyed and what they might have left.

Is it going to escalate; is it going to develop in that direction? It's impossible to predict at this point. All I can say is that we have a lot of experience dealing with Saddam Hussein. We've very successfully contained his efforts over the last six years, whether that's been through the no-fly zones or the determination to get the inspectors to be able to do their work. We will continue to follow a policy that has kept him contained and kept the pressure on him to finally come clean in this area, in the absence of which sanctions cannot be lifted.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up and ask you, is it still the case that there is one American aircraft carrier in the Gulf; and do you have an update on the sort of status of American forces there?

MR. RUBIN: I don't have a --it's a good question; I will try to get one of my Pentagon colleagues to brief you on that. I don't know the exact order of battle in the Gulf at this time.

QUESTION: One more on Iraq -- how goes the effort to build up the Iraqi opposition forces - political opposition?

MR. RUBIN: We are putting that plan together; it's been briefed to Congress. I can try to get you some more information about it. It's a long term effort to try to bring greater coordination and skills to those who can present an alternative for the people of Iraq to the leadership that has done so much damage to the country of Iraq.

QUESTION: And are you inviting the Kurdish faction leaders to come?

MR. RUBIN: I believe that we are expecting talks along those lines this fall.

QUESTION: But how far are you along on the Shi'ite leader? When last I pursued this, if the think tank invites him, you wouldn't bar the door to him; but the think tank says it hasn't invited him but if he came, they wouldn't bar the door. Are you going to bring in this highly - I don't know what -- regarded or influential leader of southern Shi'ites who's parked in Iran at the moment as a way of getting under Saddam's skin?

MR. RUBIN: I don't know what our plan is in that regard. I'll try to get you an answer.

QUESTION: Regarding this inexplicable road that Saddam has gone down, there is some thought that he has taken -- maybe -- calculation that Europe is thinking about Kosovo and therefore distracted in that direction and the President is thinking about his domestic problems with Monica and what not. What are your thoughts on that?

MR. RUBIN: I've heard a lot of speculation over many years over what might motivate him to take these actions. All I can say to you is that this government and the governments with which it works closely in Europe has a long history of being ready, willing and able to deal with these situations that Saddam Hussein creates. We are ready, willing and able to deal with them; and I'm not aware that there's been any reduction in the intensity with which we follow this issue and would be prepared to deal with it if it got worse.

QUESTION: There is some, I'm sure, entirely erroneous speculation which says that perhaps the United States isn't really too bothered if Saddam Hussein continues to cooperate on a limited basis -- and thus, delaying the day of which sanctions can be lifted - because it means that you'll have people on the ground in Iraq, he's limited in what he can do and in the developments he can make. That said, is the United States really anxious to see this whole matter deal with? If the Kofi Annan agreement is adhered to and that sort of trundles along at its own pace, isn't quite a nice outcome for the United States?

MR. RUBIN: I've certainly heard that speculation, and never understood where it directly comes from. I know it's the kind of thing that the parlor game includes. But as far as we're concerned, the job here is to identify, locate and destroy the danger; and the danger is the weapons of mass destruction. Our focus is on how to ensure that Saddam Hussein can never again threaten his neighbors or the world with weapons of mass destruction. In order to do that, UNSCOM has to get to the bottom of what he has and get it destroyed; that is our primary objective here.

Sanctions is a policy of containment that is a result of his failure to comply with that and other resolutions. It's a means, not an end.

QUESTION: More on Iran --

MR. RUBIN: Welcome back, Lee; go ahead.

QUESTION: What do you think is in the blueprint that Ambassador Butler has? Is there something in there that you think - in the blueprint - can you explain the blueprint a little more?

MR. RUBIN: I really don't know, other than, as I did, I tried to be as helpful as I could in quoting what Butler said: "If we did that work for the next four or five weeks and experienced full Iraqi cooperation, I (Butler) could have been in a position to report that we were at the end or near the end of the missile and chemical weapons files."

So clearly, a focus of the blueprint was the chemical and missile files and things that needed to be done in a short number of weeks that would permit him to believe that he had verified the absence of such weaponry.

QUESTION: Does the US feel that could happen in the next couple of weeks - that he could have actually verified the absence of chemical and missiles?

MR. RUBIN: Well, we have full confidence and respect for Ambassador Butler's work and the work of the experts. If you go back over the last many years of the to-ing and fro-ing on Iraq, you'll see that we have been fully supportive of the experts' judgment by UNSCOM as to what they have, what they have refused to reveal and what needs to be done to close the gaps. So that is whose judgment we will be happy to accept.

It would be a happy problem to deal with if he fully complied with the resolutions.

QUESTION: On the Congo: What are American interests right now in the Congo? Do we have, if you like, any sort of lion in this fight? Do we care whether Kabila stays in power --

MR. RUBIN: It took me a minute, but I did get it. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: --or does it - I mean, do we actually care whether Kabila stays in power or not, or are we invested in him, given the diplomacy of the past? Are we disappointed in the way he's run the country since he took over? Do we find reasons for this rebellion such as it is? What can you tell us about the Congo?

MR. RUBIN: Terrific questions. Kabila's rule has been a mixed bag -- there have been some successes and some significant setbacks in terms of human rights, economic and political developments. There was the release of Tshisekedi; there was the schedule for elections. There was not human rights access for the human rights investigators; there was not the kind of free and fair political environment we were looking for; and there was less than full acceptance of some basic democratic principles.

On the economic side, we'd hoped for more; we'd certainly hoped that more would be done. I'm not prepared to comment on whether we would like to see a change in the government there; that's not something we normally do. I can say this - that we want the government in Kinshasa to be in a position to control its territory. We do believe strongly in the territorial integrity of the Congo - the Democratic Republic of the Congo - and let's bear in mind that it is in a strategic location. There are many important countries that border on it, and as goes the Congo so well might go the stability of some of the countries in the region. There are strategic minerals and resources in that area. So we want to see the country stay together under its current borders, and we want to see the people there have a government that can help them thrive and prosper in a democratic way. Those are our objectives.

With respect to what we want to see happen in the current situation, there was some scattered shooting in Kinshasa overnight, but less than the previous night. It appears that Congolese military operations continue against a pocket of rebels in the vicinity of Camp Tshatshi. But today in Kinshasa, traffic and commerce have resumed; although still below normal levels. The airport is open; a Sabena flight from Brussels arrived and departed without incident this morning. The area of the Kivus is more sketchy; and although we know Goma is calm, there are conflicting reports of continued clashes in Bukavu and other areas of south Kivu.

Military commanders in Goma and Bukavu announced yesterday and the day before that their forces would no longer respect the authority of the Kabila Government. These announcements and the clashes in Kinshasa follow the departure last week of Rwandan forces from the Congo. The Rwandan Government denied any involvement in the rebellion. What we want to see is all the sides to show restraint and resolve these differences in a non- violent way. That's what we want to see happen.

QUESTION: A quick follow up - do you have any reason to discount - as you discounted Mr. Milosevic's claims yesterday to halt his offensive - the Rwandan Government's claims to have no involvement in what's going on now?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I would have to check the evidentiary base on that before I gave you a considered answer. We want to make clear, however, that we don't believe that governments should be intervening in the internal affairs of their neighbors. That's not something that we advocate.

QUESTION: Are Americans there? If there are any, are they safe?

MR. RUBIN: We have no reports that any Americans have been hurt in these clashes. Our embassy in Kinshasa issued a warden message urging Americans to remain at home; and we continue to monitor the safety of the American community.

QUESTION: No evacuations?

MR. RUBIN: No.

QUESTION: Two questions - let me go first on Cameroon. Over 4.5 million people of Cameroon, also known as Amazonia,are fighting for freedom from Cameroon and Nigeria - both are fighting for a piece of territory. What is the future or what is any update on Cameroon - Southern Cameroon?

MR. RUBIN: I will have to get you something after the briefing. And the second question?

QUESTION: Do you compare this with Kashmir - the same thing happening in India and Pakistan?

MR. RUBIN: I knew it was coming. To make the comparison, I would need to answer the first question.

QUESTION: On India, do you have any comments on the once-again-failed meeting of two prime ministers for India and Pakistan in Colombo, Sri Lanka, during the SAARC meeting? And also, scores of innocent people are being killed in the last two days in Kashmir, innocents by militants. Now, nobody is really talking about it in the media or the State Department when Hindu Kashmiris are being killed there - nobody is talking about them.

MR. RUBIN: Well, I think if you had been here yesterday, you would have heard me talk about them. But I'll be happy to tell you what I said yesterday. From Thursday through Saturday, artillery and small arms exchanges across the line of control separating Kashmir intensified, reportedly killing dozens of people - many of them civilians - Sunday. Today, however, the fighting tapered off. There are firing incidents along the line of control almost daily during the summer.

Adding to the tensions are continued killings of civilians inside Kashmir, and now in the Indian state of Himachal Pradesh. We condemn these acts of terrorism, and that's something I made very clear yesterday as well.

QUESTION: Jamie, the would-be prime minister of Israel - the Labor Party - Ehud Barak - is here with some high-powered advisors. They're on a blitz so far as access to the media, but I wondered what kind of audience they might be getting.

MR. RUBIN: They're not on the Secretary's schedule today. I'll have to check what the plan is for the rest of the week.

QUESTION: They made a trip to the Hill, and I believe they've seen Indyk. But I wondered how much attention they're getting from the US Government.

MR. RUBIN: Right, I mean, they'll have to provide their own schedule to you; and somehow I'm sure they will.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they might. But I would need to check what her schedule is for the rest of the week to tell you whether there would be such a meeting between the Secretary and the opposition leader.

QUESTION: Then maybe I can use one of Barak's remarks this morning as a way to get your latest view of the situation in the negotiations, unlike - I mean, very much like the United States, he is foreboding. He sees through the fog, as he puts it, a collision ahead. Is the US despairing, as it sometimes is, about the situation?

MR. RUBIN: We are not in the prediction business today. There has been direct engagement between the parties. We are now in touch with both sides in order to determine if there is a basis for reaching an agreement. We're trying to make a judgment about whether it is possible or not to reach an agreement.

So having hopefully made extensive contact with both the Israelis and the Palestinians, we want to be in a position to make the determination of whether we're in a position to reach an agreement or not.

QUESTION: And should you - and I don't think this is entirely hypothetical - should your inquiry reveal to you that there isn't a basis for an agreement, would that be the occasion for the US to step forward and give at least its summary of the situation?

MR. RUBIN: We'll have to make that decision based on the judgment that we make as to where things are. The fact that they may or may not be able to reach an agreement talking to them directly, engaging with each other, may or may not lead to action by the United States. It depends on what we hear and how close they are and whether we think that there are other ways to get an agreement. Remember, our goal here is to do what we can to try to bring the peace process back on track to determine whether there is a basis for a breakthrough that we have been working hard on for some weeks and months now. Based on that judgment, we will determine the next steps.

QUESTION: Did your plea yesterday for specific proposals from "the parties" have any affect in today's session?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I do believe some specific proposals were made, and we're trying to determine what the prospects are.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. RUBIN: You'd have to - I'm not in a position to make that kind of statement.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. RUBIN: I didn't think so.

QUESTION: That's what the implication of the question - all right.

MR. RUBIN: The questioners' implications in this room occasionally are things that I can not be sure of.

QUESTION: But anyway, are the talks at an impasse? Are the talks broken off?

MR. RUBIN: As I said, what we are doing is in touch with both parties, working closely with them trying to determine what's happened in their recent direct engagement to see whether there is a basis for reaching an agreement or not; and that is what we're doing right now.

QUESTION: Can I try another subject?

MR. RUBIN: Just because one doesn't meet on one day doesn't mean they've broken off, necessarily.

Same subject? I think we should go to the one and two-finger system. One finger is same subject, and two finger is different subject.

QUESTION: Which finger would you like?

(Laughter.)

MR. RUBIN: Well, the one that would be signaling your deep respect and affection for your spokesman, of course.

QUESTION: Who is handling the communication on the Middle East negotiations? I mean, Dennis is on vacation; Aaron is on vacation. Who is it that's talking to these people every day?

MR. RUBIN: I see. Let me assure you that Ambassador Ross has all the equipment necessary to stay in touch with the parties and do his job, as does Aaron Miller and as does most senior officials involved in working on an important subject when they are taking a few days off.

QUESTION: The impression was given that you all were sort of letting them do their thing. They've now done it - or not done it - and you seem to be assessing, maybe thinking about getting involved again. Would that be --

MR. RUBIN: Right, I'm trying to not prejudge our next steps until we judge where we think we are.

QUESTION: So there could be some sort of bridging proposal?

MR. RUBIN: Again, I think I've indicated that I can't really go any farther than that. Yes, two fingers - new subject.

QUESTION: St. Kitts - any update on "Little Nut" or any of his friends? Are Americans leaving in droves or not at all?

MR. RUBIN: The St. Kitts Government has not requested security assistance, as we discussed yesterday, but we have had two security officers on the island discussing with the remaining Americans how we can be of assistance.

With respect to the status of the extradition process, the case begun in 1996 was recently remanded to the examining magistrate for reconsideration by a higher court. The timing of a new decision, possible defense appeals and an ultimate appeal to the so-called Privy Council as court of last resort is not certain but could take some time. We discussed this matter with the St. Kitts Attorney General, who was in town over the weekend in a meeting with State and Justice Department attorneys.

QUESTION: Can we go back to Kosovo?

MR. RUBIN: He's got the floor - he's put his one finger up.

QUESTION: Jamie, is there any news on the number of Americans who have left since - are there any totals?

MR. RUBIN: I believe 50 have left.

QUESTION: Well, yesterday you said 50 have left or are planning to leave when the --

MR. RUBIN: Right, and the numbers still - we haven't gotten an update that changes that number substantially.

QUESTION: But it's have left or are planning to leave when the semester is over was the formulation yesterday.

MR. RUBIN: We'll try to get you a specific answer after that briefing. Any more one-finger questions?

QUESTION: Are you disappointed that the St. Kitts authorities have not requested police reinforcements from other Caribbean countries?

MR. RUBIN: We have had two security officers on the island. The St. Kitts Government can request assistance from the Caribbean Regional Security System and we've urged them to do so, and so therefore we hope they will.

QUESTION: Do you think they're taking adequate steps to protect the Americans there?

MR. RUBIN: I should have thought of this a long time ago.

QUESTION: -- the St. Kitts police are taking adequate steps to protect the Americans there?

MR. RUBIN: We do regard this security responsibility as being primarily theirs. We're working with them and we've urged them to request assistance, and we want them to therefore do that.

QUESTION: To take you away from this subject, if you're willing to go to Kosovo or at least discuss it.

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUESTION: It may be contrived a bit, but people in Brussels don't think anything really new has happened. This is in reference to what you were saying yesterday about contingency planning. I wondered if we could - I have to challenge what you said because, as I say, what they say doesn't really, to me, seem so different from what you say.

MR. RUBIN: Right. What I was trying to indicate yesterday is that the process is being finalized, and NATO has taken a look at a set of options and finalized those options. With the changing situation on the ground, refinements were sought in recent days to a set of options that had been finalized. The point of all this is to minimize the time between a decision by the political decision-makers and the time when NATO would be in a position to act. So these plans are being both finalized and operationalized so that NATO will be in a position to act quickly if a political decision to do so is made.

What I am suggesting and was suggesting yesterday is that the final touches are being put on the contingency plans. They do have to be adjusted based on the situation on the ground; and the situation does change. So I'm familiar with some of the - how should I say - the technical distinctions between particular words as used, but the point is the same - we're finalizing the plans.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - if you use the word contingency, I don't know what the issue is. However, let's just go through a little bit of a checklist - no consultation yet with those political leaders yet on action, right? And you did use the word operational - that seems to move it a little bit.

MR. RUBIN: No, again, it's a term of art for the people who work on the planning, and that means operationalizing the planning so that if political leaders make a decision, you can quickly act rather than when political leaders make a decision then having to be in a position to organize yourself to act.

QUESTION: Those are questions - (inaudible) - this really is a bit - former Yugoslav military spokesman who has written, I guess in a Yugoslav newspaper, that essentially what the West has done is given Milosevic a green light for 30 days -- I don't know if you've seen this - to suppress the really wild, radical liberation secession forces. In a sense, what he's saying is that they have license, the Serbs, to do a little messing up -- provided they don't do ethnic cleansing.

MR. RUBIN: That is a ridiculous claim; the short answer is absolutely not. The United States and the international community have publicly and privately demanded that Milosevic cease his offensive operations in Kosovo. The continuing Serb offensive is exacting an unacceptable toll on human suffering. We could not condone and would never condone this irresponsible behavior by Milosevic's forces.

We will continue to bring that message to him in the strongest possible terms.

QUESTION: Would you say what he's doing is ethnic cleansing?

MR. RUBIN: I gather there are - Roy Gutman is not here with us today, but there are many people who have different terms - think that term of art has an elaborate set of meanings. What I can tell you is that it's clear to us that the objective of the use of force is directed at one ethnic group - the Kosovar Albanians; and inhumane and irresponsible and unacceptable means are being taken by the Serb forces in pursuit of their military objectives against one ethnic group.

But with respect to making a flat statement about the term "ethnic cleansing," look - they are moving people around; they are forcing people to leave their homes; they are killing people based on their ethnicity.

QUESTION: At one point you - I think it was you - said that, at the beginning, it looks a lot like the old movie ethnic cleansing to us.

MR. RUBIN: It does, absolutely.

QUESTION: So is there some hesitation in --

MR. RUBIN: Again, I gather that when you use that term, a bunch of lawyers start examining what its meaning is, and I'm trying to communicate to you in English rather than letting the lawyers nit pick it to death. An ethnic group is being attacked and moved from their homes and killed because of their ethnicity; and that looks a lot to us like the kind of ethnic cleansing that went on before. That is why we are demanding that he stop and that he allow the humanitarian workers the access they need to do their job to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe.

QUESTION: Not to belabor this, but you just sort of said an interesting thing which makes us - do you then believe that none of these people are being moved or attacked because of their insurgency against the authorities of this region?

MR. RUBIN: No, I don't think that. But what I think is that the disproportionate methods being used to pursue some limited objective like clearing a roadblock is causing massive dislocations of people who live there; and this is an unacceptable action on the part of Milosevic. That doesn't mean that there isn't some ability to clean a road or to clear a roadblock that we could legitimately dispute; but when the tactics are so disproportionate that they're causing this kind of humanitarian suffering and may well cause a genuine humanitarian catastrophe, that is what we are condemning and that is what we regard as unacceptable.

QUESTION: Then why doesn't NATO act to stop this stuff that looks like ethnic cleansing?

MR. RUBIN: I don't believe that was the standard that we've set. What we've said to you all before is that there are two factors that led to the decision to engage in military planning. Let me say this - Milosevic's failure to respond to the basic demands of the international community for unrestricted access to the displaced persons and stopping the offensive is keeping planning for possible military action on the front burner. So the reasons why the planning began is because of the risks of instability in the region, from refugees spilling over or fighting spilling over, as well as the humanitarian dimension. Those two factors is what generated the military planning and will obviously be important in any decision-making that's made by the political leaders.

QUESTION: I guess what I'm trying to get at is everybody sort of raise it in their stories tat appeared today. So what would be the triggering event?

MR. RUBIN: I don't intend to preview that publicly. We are finalizing and working on a set of contingencies, including limited contingencies, that are designed to give us the flexibility; and if we decide that we want to make some specific trigger, we'll decide that ourselves and make that known either privately or publicly. But what I'm telling you is that I don't intend to set that publicly right now, other than to say that we're finalizing the plans.

QUESTION: And you said that the intention in finalizing and operationalizing these plans was so that you could do something quickly if you needed it. But then you're not going to go ahead and try to get the political decision to do it if necessary in advance, which would streamline it - which is probably the biggest hurdle, in my humble opinion - it's the biggest hurdle to any action --

MR. RUBIN: I don't want to prejudge what political leaders will do in terms of triggers and anything like that. Certainly political leaders can make a decision that if x, y or z happens then a, b or c will happen. But I don't want to prefigure in public a discussion of military contingencies like that.

QUESTION: I think we're out of questions. Jamie, we want to say you're going to great strides to let Foley brief, but we want to wish you the very best in what seems to be a very, very long weekend.

MR. RUBIN: Well, I do have a very important personal engagement that is of vital and critical interest to me.

QUESTION: We're going to miss you, but we wish you the very best and one of our confederates here wants to mark the occasion.

MR. RUBIN: Uh-oh --

QUESTION: A little thing for you and a little thing for your about-to-be better half.

MR. RUBIN: Terrific. Well, I'd better wait to open it with her.

QUESTION: Oh, you can open it now.

MR. RUBIN: Thank you very much.

QUESTION: Bye-bye.

(The briefing concluded at 1:45 P.M.)


U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
Back to Top
Copyright © 1995-2023 HR-Net (Hellenic Resources Network). An HRI Project.
All Rights Reserved.

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.01b run on Tuesday, 4 August 1998 - 22:47:00 UTC