U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #107, 98-09-15
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
956
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Tuesday, September 15, 1998
Briefer: James P. Rubin
BOSNIA
1-2 Free and fair elections.
IRAN/AFGHANISTAN
2 US. condemnation of killing of diplomats.
2 US urged dialogue between the parties.
3 Will Pakistan be drawn into the conflict?
3 US encouraging a peaceful solution.
3 Is the same guidance being given to Saudi Arabia?
CUBA
4 The arrest of unregistered agents/spies.
4 Violations of laws against espionage.
4 Investigations are being pursued.
ALBANIA
5 The situation is constantly changing.
5 Control of the capital city of Tirana has been regained.
5 No adjustments have been made in the American/NATO military
personnel.
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
5,6 The arrest of a young American. Consular access to American
6 Any finding of mistreatment?.
5 The number of Americans in prison.
5,7 Land dispute. Is there an American/Israeli map?
8 Mediator is needed to help bridge the gaps between two
parties.
9 Collapse of peace process initiatives.
10 The killing of two Hamas members
CZECH REPUBLIC
10 President Havel to have press conference with President
Clinton.
NORTH KOREA
10 Trilateral meeting in New York.
10,11 Funding of KEDO.
11 US has monitored long-range missile efforts since 1980
12 Extremely worrisome development.
13 Implementation of Agreed Framework
AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE
14 Status of nomination.
14 One of finest US diplomats.
14 Issues being investigated by IG.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #107
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1998, 1:30 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Welcome to the State Department briefing. Sorry for the delay;
I'm having a little trouble getting back into the early morning pattern and
getting ready for all your important questions. We will have a statement on
the subject of Croatia and the subject of Lithuania available after the
briefing. With that, let me go to your questions.
QUESTION: I have a question about the Bosnian elections - being unable to
release --
MR. RUBIN: Yes. I understand the OSCE was possibly going to release some
preliminary results but chose not to. Regardless of whether they choose to
do so, let me emphasize that it's our view that given the ethnic make-up of
Bosnia, preliminary results may or may not resemble official results, given
the pattern of absentee ballots and other types of balloting procedures
that are developed.
So if results were to come in, it is our view that until we get real
results - official results as opposed to preliminary partial results -- we
don't intend to make any comment.
More broadly, we do believe this was the freest and fairest election in
Bosnia's history. Secondly, we will make our decisions - and there have
been more than one or two elections in Bosnia, there have been a series of
parliamentary and leadership elections that have occurred there. More
broadly, we will make our decisions about how to act with respect to the
new leaders and the new parliamentary groups that develop as a result of
this democratic process based on their actions. The primary consideration
will be are they taking steps to implement in good faith the Dayton accords
or not. Our assistance programs, our diplomatic programs, our posture
will be determined by that simple question.
QUESTION: So there's no leader that you're ruling out now as far as
dealing with at this point -
MR. RUBIN: No - well, other than those who've been indicted by the
International Tribunal and those were not people who ran for elections.
There is a pattern, however, of certain parties pursuing and advocating
policies that were less supportive of the Dayton accords and those
advocating policies more supportive. We will judge by their actions, taking
into full account our knowledge of the positions of these officials or
these political parties, but be waiting to see what they do and not so much
what they say.
QUESTION: Iran and Afghanistan -- tensions continue to run high; any
comment?
MR. RUBIN: I don't really have any new comments for you. Again, let me
emphasize, as I did to some of you after the briefing yesterday, that we
have a great understanding for the anger and the extent to which the
Iranian Government has condemned the killing of diplomats. We've gone to
some lengths, through some statements that we've tried to make over the
recent weeks, to condemn the killing of diplomats in the strongest possible
terms.
The inviolability of diplomats and diplomatic residences and embassies is
one of the oldest rules of a civilized society; it is embodied and spelled
out in the Vienna Convention. The murder of diplomats is, therefore, one of
the most heinous kind of international actions, and we condemn it. We
certainly understand that is generated by that.
At the same time, we do not believe that the solution in this case ought to
be a military one. We've made clear in a series of resolutions and other
statements that we've made that we urge all the parties in the region to
respect international borders and to refrain from taking actions which
would inflame or enlarge the conflict.
This is a very tense situation. There are tens of thousands of troops and
hundreds of pieces of heavy equipment that are near the border of
Afghanistan, and we are monitoring it very, very closely. That is our
position on how more clearly this issue can be resolved through discussion,
through dialogue. We've talked to the UN and others have talked to the UN
about the importance of ensuring that dialogue does occur so this can be
resolved peacefully.
QUESTION: Jamie, by most accounts, in addition to the diplomats there
have been thousands of civilians killed in the attack on that city and a
lot of allegations that they were summarily executed, the Shiites. Does the
Administration have an opinion on the applicability of war crimes measured
against the Taliban in their attack on --
MR. RUBIN: Well, let me say that we have heard reports to that effect. We
have no independent confirmation of that. Regardless, we think this is the
kind of thing that ought to be looked into. Clearly, Afghanistan is a
troubled country. As you know, we don't believe any one faction can be in a
position to run the whole county. We've urged dialogue between the parties
with the assistance of the countries in the region.
With respect to the specific reports you're referring to, I can't say more
because all I know is that we're aware of the reports from the region about
it, and we have no independent confirmation of these kinds of atrocities;
although given what's going on there, we certainly don't rule it out.
QUESTION: What do you mean when you say it ought to be looked into? What
do you mean?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we've wanted to see, in all parts of the world where
these kinds of cases occur -- and you can imagine the other examples --
that independent outsiders are in a position to make assessments so that
people can know what's going on there. Right now we're operating more on
fourth and fifth-hand information rather than firsthand information.
QUESTION: Will Secretary Albright be meeting with President Khatemi later
next week?
MR. RUBIN: I have not heard anybody putting together the logistics of
such a meeting; so the short answer is no.
QUESTION: Back on Iran and Afghanistan, do you see a threat that Pakistan
might be drawn into any possible conflict there, should Iran go forward
with what it appears to be going forward with?
MR. RUBIN: Well, there are obvious dangers in the region if this
situation were inflamed or got worse with the involvement of outside
parties directly. That is one of the dangers that you've described.
We've made clear to all parties, Pakistan included, not to interfere
through logistics or other assistance; not to inflame or make the situation
worse. So we want all the neighbors to do what they can to try to encourage,
rather than a military solution, encourage a peaceful solution.
QUESTION: Are you giving that same guidance to Saudi Arabia as well?
MR. RUBIN: I think it's our position that we've stated quite clearly to
all concerned. But I don't know what specific messages - I don't believe
Saudi Arabia is part of the two-plus-six group that meets on this subject.
That tends to be the forum where this is most discussed.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: Again, I'm not saying that we're not saying that to them; I'm
just saying that the most active forum for discussion of Afghanistan is the
two-plus-six forum, which Saudi Arabia is not a part of. If I made a
mistake on that, someone will surely correct me.
QUESTION: Jamie, can you tell us what involvement the Secretary has had
personally in discussing this issue with her counterparts, with the Russian
Foreign Minister or any others? Has she talked to the Pakistanis about
it?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of any personal contacts by the Secretary on
this subject; other than maybe very indirect references to it. I know she
held an internal meeting of some length the middle of last week on this
subject. But beyond that, I wouldn't have any way to comment.
QUESTION: How do you read the latest statement by Ayatollah Khameini in
which he has warned both Pakistan and the Taliban that he has been holding
fire and he may not be able to do that anymore? Do you think that any
action by Iran is imminent and --
MR. RUBIN: The situation, as far as we can assess it, is as follows.
Capabilities are clearly in place for this kind of military action that we
have been urging not to take place in our statements, making clear that we
don't want to see actions that inflame or make the situation worse nor
action by neighbors to interfere.
On the other hand, to the extent one can assess intentions, there have been
different statements that one can read different ways. We have not made a
judgment as to what we expect for sure at this time; other than we're
sufficiently concerned about it, monitoring it closely and sending the
messages we think need to be sent to those concerned.
QUESTION: What if military action - I mean, the military choice happens?
What if Iran tries to strike or something? Because yesterday, Mr.
Rafsanjani was - he expressed the outrage of the Iranian people and their
anger. So if something like this happens, would the United States be
engaged militarily to protect Afghanistan or --
MR. RUBIN: I've never heard anybody suggest that.
QUESTION: On Cuba, do you have anything on the arrest of those agents
over the weekend; and anything on the propriety of Cuba doing such a thing
to the US?
MR. RUBIN: Let me start by saying that we condemn in the strongest
possible terms the Cuban Government's attempts to exploit the very openness
of our society while continuing to deny the Cuban people fundamental
freedoms and human rights. The arrests of these individuals were announced
yesterday; the criminal complaints were sealed, as you know. To the extent
that this involves nationals that were citizens of another country, we will
advise the appropriate missions so that they are given the consular access
guaranteed under international conventions.
The indicted individuals are accused of being unregistered agents of the
Government of Cuba in violation of Title 18 of the United States Code.
There have been some suggestions that some quid pro quo is going on, or
many different conspiracy theories generated by some. Let me say this --
there is no basis to any such allegation. There are undoubtedly many rumors
being bandied about.
Let me emphasize that the two investigations that have gone on that lead to
indictments in recent weeks have occurred on separate and independent
tracks by law enforcement officials. Quite simply, these arrests show
unambiguously that the United States is committed to the vigorous
enforcement of our laws and the prosecution of any potential violations --
whether that is evidence that needs to be followed to prosecute violations
of laws against espionage or, by contrast, laws against terrorism.
So we pursue these investigations. We are committed as a nation of laws to
follow our laws, but the great irony here is that here is the Cuban
Government trying to exploit our openness when denying their very people
any modicum of democracy for so long.
QUESTION: Jamie, is there any reply by the Cuban Government to this --
MR. RUBIN: I think we'll let the Cuban Government speak to this
themselves.
QUESTION: Any report on the situation in Albania?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. With respect to Albania, the situation, as you've
probably noticed yourself, is changing constantly. It continues to be tense,
but generally without violence today.
The socialist-led government, as far as we can tell, regained control of
the capital city of Tirana and the airport and ferry lines remain open. The
unrest in Tirana does not appear to have spread to other parts of the
country. We are deeply concerned, however, by the continuing stand-off
between the government and opposition over seized weapons and military
vehicles. We urged all parties to return the weapons and military vehicles
seized and are appealing to all sides to remain calm and seek to maintain
order.
Prime Minister Nano remains in office, and we continue to follow these
developments closely and are prepared to assist American citizens in case
of an emergency. As I indicated yesterday, our embassy is temporarily
suspended for public operations; but the staff continues to work. And with
respect to a question I received yesterday, approximately 65 US Marines
continue to guard the residential compound of the US Embassy in Tirana.
There has been no adjustment in the American or NATO military personnel in
Albania as a result of the current crisis.
QUESTION: Did you add your voice today to Germany and Italy in calling
for an international police force in Albania?
MR. RUBIN: I have not received such guidance. All I can say is that we
are working with our European friends and allies to try to urge a peaceful
resolution to this situation. Albania is a country that is going to require
a lot of attention by its neighbors in order to keep it on the path to
avoid this kind of chaos and anarchy.
QUESTION: Three quick questions, Jamie. One, the young American who was
arrested August 18 was remanded to a military court without the US Embassy
being informed, nor his lawyer, and was given another six weeks in
detention on charges of throwing stones, holding a Palestinian flag at a
demonstration and possibly being a Hamas religious sympathizer. Are you
satisfied with this response of the Israeli Government to your concern
about his having been tortured?
Secondly, could you take the question of how many Americans are currently
in prison in Israel and Palestinian - in fact, any other countries
surrounding them? We understand that there are far more in Israel than any
place else. I'd like to know if you could tell me how many Palestinian-
Americans are in prison in Israel.
MR. RUBIN: And the third question?
QUESTION: The third question has to do with the Ross mission. Saab Erekat
this morning said for the first time that I know of, "Where is the land;
what is the map? We would like to see the map." He has accepted the nature
preserve, but he hasn't - he'd like to see the map. My question is, has the
Department ever had a map from or an indication from the Israeli Government
of what 13 percent of land is to be redeployed from?
MR. RUBIN: Terrific questions, all. With respect to the case that you
described, let me say that we, during the course of this case, have had
consular access to this American. With respect to how many Americans are in
prison and what is our reaction to the current developments, let me try to
get you some answers for the record. We'll do that; and Mr. Foley and Mr.
McClenny will make sure you get that information.
With respect to the current state of play in the peace process, let me say
as follows. There is a tendency with the intensity of negotiation for the
intensity of public comments to grow. Normally, there's a direct correlation
between the intensity of the discussions and the intensity of the comments -
- not only Saab Erekat's comment, which I have not seen, but other comments
about Ambassador Ross and other comments about how close we are.
I just spoke to the party about an hour-and-a-half ago - not according to
that clock. As far as I can say publicly - again, this is very difficult to
talk about when you're engaged in an intense exercise - is there's a lot of
work to do. There are a series of issues - much of which will come as no
surprise to you - that need to be worked out in detail in order for us to
complete the interim package that we are trying to complete so that one can
move directly to final status talks. That includes how much land would be
turned over; what kind of land would be turned over; which land will
be turned over. It includes a concrete program to fight terrorism, to front-
load that program so that the security gets the sine qua non status that
we've longed called for.
Under that broad parallelism, there are a lot of details, including some of
the details that you read about publicly. We don't think it would be wise
for us to comment on each one of those details as they're talking about
them privately.
Let me just say that Ambassador Ross continues to work; he's in meetings on
all aspects of this. I would expect him to be returning toward the end of
the week and making some recommendations to the Secretary and, through her,
to the President about what we should do next. But they continue to work
quite hard at this quite difficult exercise.
QUESTION: By way of following up, Jamie, on the first part you said
there's been consular access to the American. Was there any finding of
mistreatment from the --
MR. RUBIN: Let me try to get you a comprehensive discussion as best as we
can in public to a particular case after the briefing.
QUESTION: I understand, right. Secondly, on the Ross mission, the
question was asked, is there an American map? Well, you don't want to talk
about details, and I understand that.
MR. RUBIN: I didn't think that was the question. If you want to ask me
that question - that wasn't the question, Charlie.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. RUBIN: But if you want to ask it to me, I will try to answer
it.
QUESTION: Then let me ask you, is there an American map --
MR. RUBIN: No.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: The question was is there an Israeli map; is there an Israeli
map?
MR. RUBIN: You'll have to ask the Israelis.
QUESTION: No, no, the Americans are involved in mediation and you just
said --
MR. RUBIN: Right, but we don't always say what each party does, says and -
we leave it to them. Sometimes other parties don't leave it to us to
describe our positions; but we try as best as we can to leave it to the
other parties to describe their work, their positions and the efforts that
they're making.
QUESTION: Let's take map out of the question, then.
MR. RUBIN: Right.
QUESTION: You just enumerated at least four items that aren't settled yet
- like how much land, what kind of land. So the question is, does the
United States know what Israel plans or intends to relinquish? Or are you
arguing in the abstract, mediating in the abstract?
MR. RUBIN: Let me - we're not mediating in the abstract, but I appreciate
the thought and the sentiment behind it.
Let me say this - the work that we're doing involves a great number of
details. Given the pattern and the breakdown of trust between the two
parties, when I enumerate things for you what I am explaining to you is, as
I said yesterday, is the following principle. Nothing is agreed until
everything is agreed.
So nothing is agreed on that basis - including those issues that I
enumerated. We have made it a practice not to get into detail about the
specifics that we are discussing in private with the two parties, because
we think that makes it less likely to be able to make progress; and since
our goal is to make progress, we've made that decision.
With respect to your specific question, the best I can do for you, Barry,
is to simply say that we have a pretty good idea of what would be involved
in various proposals that have been put forward.
QUESTION: Well let me try this, then; let me put the question this way.
Has the United States suggested a formula - maybe formula is too strong a
word. Hs the US made any suggestions how these issues might be resolved?
MR. RUBIN: That's our job, is to try to make --
QUESTION: No, Oslo says it's Israel's job how much land to give up. So
I'm asking you do you --
MR. RUBIN: Now Barry, now you're making a political point. I'm trying to -
-
QUESTION: It's not a political point; it's a fact. The Oslo agreement
does not prescribe how much land Israel is to relinquish. So it is
interesting if the mediator is in the prescription business. That's why I'm
asking you.
MR. RUBIN: All right. I think you're going to know the answer, but let's
go over it again.
QUESTION: Go ahead.
MR. RUBIN: Both parties -- the Israelis, the Palestinians -- have asked
the United States to try to help bridge the gaps between them. The Israelis
in particular have looked to the United States to try to achieve two major
objectives in these negotiations: number one, to try to put the interim
agreement behind them and move directly to the final status talks with the
Palestinians; number two, to make sure that the security issue, the issue
we've described as a sine qua non, is handled as a sine qua non in
any package deal that emerges.
They have asked us, and continually asked us, to talk on the phone, to
travel to the region, and to work and come up with as creative ideas as we
can. That is a request of the Israeli Government that has been continual
and constant. The detailed ideas that we come up with in response to their
request to try to bridge gaps between the two parties is the job of the
mediator.
QUESTION: And that's what you're doing?
MR. RUBIN: That's what we're doing.
QUESTION: I just wanted to pick up on another point, and I wondered if it
was just a throw-away line or a little bit out of date. When you speak of
the lack of trust, I mean, can you fairly describe a situation in which two
parties to a dispute are in intensive negotiations with an American
mediator now for about a week, doesn't that reflect some confidence they
have in each other that they can work this thing out; or do you have
to drag them into the room and beat on them? It strikes me it's an
outdated thing to say lack of trust that they're talking.
MR. RUBIN: On the contrary, Barry. It's been our judgment and continues
to be our judgment that throughout this one year-plus period where there
has been no progress in the peace process and where numerous aspects of it
have collapsed and all the talks that were envisaged by it -- you know the
issues, I won't go through them -- none of those meetings have taken place.
Across the board the whole panoply of Middle East peace process initiatives
that were developed have collapsed. We are trying to put it back on
track.
During that year-plus, the lack of confidence between the two sides, the
lack of trust between the two sides has made even the smallest issue
difficult to solve, requiring the involvement of American officials --
Ambassador Ross in particular, but occasionally the Secretary and from time
to time the President -- to intervene to try to help the two sides solve
problems that we've thought they should be able to solve themselves all
along.
So that lack of trust and confidence is what makes it hard to solve what
may seem to you and others and the people watching as minor issues. But
because each side doesn't trust each other; doesn't have confidence in each
other, they ask the United States to help them resolve it. That is still
our position; that is still our judgment.
QUESTION: And that atmosphere persists to this day?
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
QUESTION: That was my point. Does it persist to this day?
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
QUESTION: Even though they've been at it for a week now?
MR. RUBIN: And we don't have an agreement and if we have an agreement --
QUESTION: Sometimes goodwill people can't reach an agreement.
MR. RUBIN: If we have an agreement, one of the other questions will be
its implementation. In the absence of the kind of direct contact -- solving
problems together; working together across the board, on the ground, in
negotiations all over the world -- that occurred prior to the period I'm
describing, it's harder; and that's why we need to get involved in this
level of detail.
QUESTION: Did the party indicate to you that it would be unlikely there
would be an agreement before the religious holidays in Israel?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not expecting an imminent breakthrough; on the contrary,
there's an enormous amount of work going on.
QUESTION: Jamie, I just wondered if you could give us an overview of the
priorities that the US has in its talks with President Havel over the next
few days?
MR. RUBIN: This is a meeting between the President and President Havel. I
will try to get you something on background a little later, but we would
normally leave this to the White House.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: They are planning, it's my understanding, in this building
about 25 hours from now there will be a press conference between the two.
That's my understanding. If I made a mistake on that -- I did not.
QUESTION: Can we go back to the Middle East for a second? Is it the view
of the Administration that the bodies of the two Hamas members who were
killed the other day should've been turned over to their families for
burial rather than buried them in some sort of pauper's grave?
MR. RUBIN: I don't know that we've taken a position on that. I'll check
for you.
QUESTION: I believe - the Palestinians, at least, are saying that
Ambassador Ross asked the Israelis to do that.
MR. RUBIN: I'd have to check. I'm not aware of it, and he may well have
done such a thing; I just don't know. We'll have to check.
QUESTION: Jamie, do you have anything on the meeting yesterday between
the US, the North (sic) Koreans and the Japanese on the continued funding
of KEDO?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. There was such a meeting. Let me say that there is
expected to be a trilateral meeting at the foreign minister level in New
York later this month. So I have what we call "bare bones" information to
provide you.
Basically, this meeting was in preparation for that and the subjects were
the same subjects I described yesterday. But there isn't an outcome. What
they are doing is talking through the issues in preparation for this
trilateral meeting of Secretary Albright and the South Korean and Japanese
Foreign Ministers.
QUESTION: The last question just pre-empted my question, but let me try
something else. There are reports that the United States may send an envoy
to Angola soon to try to resolve the situation there. Do you know anything
about this?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have any information on that; I'll try to get it for
you.
QUESTION: Back on KEDO again, so the funding still remain frozen for the
reactor project?
MR. RUBIN: We made a commitment in the joint statement to - the work we
did with the North Koreans in New York to try to put that back on track.
It's up to the Japanese to describe their position on this; but we fully
expect that everyone will get together and get this project implemented,
provided the North Koreans abide by the agreement because we all share the
same goal. The same goal is to make sure that North Korea doesn't
become a nuclear threat to east Asia or the world.
QUESTION: But the agreement doesn't address -- correct me if I'm wrong --
address the attempt to satellite launches. So at this point, I fail to see
the connection between the satellite launch and the Japanese freezing of
assistance.
MR. RUBIN: Right. Again, one might talk here about the phrase "intentions
and capabilities." We have been monitoring North Korea's efforts to develop
increasingly longer-range missiles since the 1980s. This is a development
that worries us, that concerns us, given North Korea's behavior in the
past. Given their proclivity to sell such equipment to the highest bidder,
we have concerns and we regard it dangerous, as does Japan.
In the early 1990s we identified a two-stage missile under development that
we called the Taepo Dong I. On August 31st the North Koreans attempted to
place a very small satellite into orbit with what appeared to be a Taepo
Dong I with a third stage. Although the launch of the missile was expected
for some time, its use with the third stage and the attempt to orbit a very
small satellite was not.
Our analysis regarding this project continues, and we continue to assess
how the use of a third stage would affect the ability of the missile to fly
at greater ranges. Regardless of the range that this missile could fly or
the question of whether it had a third stage for the purpose of satellite,
the fact that that are working on such a long-range missile capability --
in the range of over 1500 kilometers -- is a worry to us. In combination
with the other work that they are doing, they appear to be working
assiduously on developing a ballistic missile capability that worries
us.
On the other hand, some of the suggestion that this means that they have a
long-range missile capable of attacking the United States we think is
significantly overstated.
To show that they would have a capability able to threaten the United
States, they would have to demonstrate two things to us that they have not
yet done: one, that they've mastered the problems of a third stage -
bearing in mind that this third stage broke up during the test; and two,
that they've mastered the unique, daunting challenges of a re-entry vehicle
launched to ranges in the 5,000-kilometer range, re-entering the Earth's
atmosphere and hitting a target without burning up - all of which is an
extremely difficult exercise, which they didn't even try to do. The
small payload they tried to launch didn't even make it into orbit.
So on basic physics level, having launched a very small payload to this
range, one shouldn't assume they could carry a bigger payload to the same
range or longer. So we have not yet concluded that this test shows their
ability to threaten any part of the United States.
On the other hand, it is an extremely worrisome development. To the extent
that North Korea is spending its scarce resources on these dangerous
missile programs, we want to sit down at the table and talk to them about
restraints - not only on their indigenous missiles, but on those they would
be prepared to sell - as part of our goal to do what we reasonably can do
to stop the spread of dangerous missiles and weaponry around the world.
QUESTION: Without getting too bogged down in technical stuff, are you
sure --
MR. RUBIN: I thought that's what I did, is bog us down in technical
stuff. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Are you all sure that the rocket they used on August 31st was,
in fact, a Taepo Dong I or something else?
MR. RUBIN: It's our judgment that it was a Taepo Dong I with a third
stage for the purpose of launching a small satellite.
QUESTION: And not the more advanced missile that the intelligence
agencies say won't be ready for another decade?
MR. RUBIN: Well, you threw that word in there that makes me - I don't
have any information on a further weapons system.
QUESTION: Do you have any more information about the satellite itself? I
mean, was it a dummy; was it intended to be a communications satellite?
MR. RUBIN: As I understand it, we believe that debris burned up; and what
it was, I don't have any further information.
QUESTION: Last week you said that the United States has told North Korea
that we want to get in to at least take a look around those underground
facilities to see if they do, in fact, have some sort of a nuclear program
that they still have functioning. The North Koreans, albeit reluctantly,
issued a statement in which they said they would be amenable to that. Is
there a time table for getting into this facility?
MR. RUBIN: We have four sets of talks planned. One is the four-party
talks in Geneva in October. Another is the missile talks that we were just
discussing in New York, also in October. A third unscheduled set of talks
relates to the terrorism question.
QUESTION: Also in October?
MR. RUBIN: I'd have to check that for you.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: I'd have to check that for you. I didn't mean to say - the
four-party is October in Geneva; the missile talks are October in New
York.
QUESTION: They are?
MR. RUBIN: That's my understanding. Terrorism has not been scheduled and
this meeting has not been scheduled. The purpose of the meeting on
implementation of the agreed framework is to discuss our insistence on
getting access to potential, suspicious nuclear - well, definitely
suspicious - nuclear facilities. We want to get access to those sites and
they understand what we want. The meeting, when it is scheduled, would be
designed to set a process in train by which we could get such access.
But I don't have any information for you now either on when the meeting
will take place or what time frame would follow for access. But it's very --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: No, no. There's four meetings - one is on the four-party
talks; two is on missiles, which is scheduled in New York in October; three
is on terrorism; and the fourth meeting is about the implementation of the
agreed framework. That meeting will have as its main agenda item our
insistence on getting access to suspicious underground facilities. And
although I'm aware of comments they've made, we would want to talk to them
about the modalities of access and will insist on access, and they
understand that.
QUESTION: The Indian and Pakistani prime ministers will be in New York
for the UN General Assembly session at the same time President Clinton will
be addressing the session. Are there any meetings scheduled? And secondly,
in recent statements by Indian officials and leaders, they appear to be
drifting away from earlier indications of signing the CTBT. Now they are
talking about signing it within the larger framework of the original
position in the context of an international agreement.
MR. RUBIN: With respect to the Indian position and what it will end up
being, I'd have to defer to the Indians to describe. I think you know --
and I can certainly repeat for you -- what our goals are and those goals
are the very goals set out in the Geneva communique and other statements by
the UN Security Council and elsewhere on the question of the CTB and the
question of restraint and the question of missiles.
So what the Indian Government chooses to do as a result of our dialogue and
how they talk about it publicly is up to them to say. It is a very good
question as to what might happen in New York, but it's a question that
needs to be addressed to the President's office, meaning Mr. McCurry and
shortly, Mr. Lockhart.
QUESTION: On Ambassador Holbrooke -- forgive me if you addressed this
yesterday. Are there any Department rules covering situations where an
official accepts free lodging from another State Department official who,
in this case, would have been his technical subordinate?
MR. RUBIN: On that point, I think an ambassador works at the pleasure of
the President and the Secretary of - the President, really. So I'm not sure
subordinate would be an accurate word.
QUESTION: He reports to the assistant secretary.
MR. RUBIN: On policy grounds, but the ambassador serves at the pleasure
of the President. So subordinate would not be an accurate description of a
relationship between an ambassador and an assistant secretary.
If you doubt me on that, I would go ask Mr. Rohatyn and some of the other
major ambassadors in Europe if they think they are Marc Grossman's
subordinate; and see what they say to you.
Now, having made that point, the question of Ambassador Holbrooke's
nomination, Secretary Albright spoke to in a statement. Let me be very
clear. She regards Richard Holbrooke as one of our nation's finest
diplomats who's got extraordinary abilities, extraordinary knowledge, has
demonstrated those extraordinary abilities, most recently in the Dayton
accords. She looks forward to this matter being resolved promptly.
Considering that the issues are being investigated by the IG and she is the
Secretary of State, she cannot - nor can I on her behalf - make any
statement about those issues; because that would be perceived as prejudicing
the work of the IG. But having said that let me say that Secretary Albright
regards Ambassador Holbrooke as a brilliant man who would make - if this
works out - a brilliant contribution to our foreign policy. That's why she
was so supportive of the President's decision to nominate him in the first
place.
This is a matter under investigation, and she looks forward to it being
resolved as promptly as possible.
QUESTION: Well, what about the rule?
MR. RUBIN: I'd have to get someone to give you the rules; but certainly,
your formulation wouldn't work for the question. So you'd have to
reformulate the question.
QUESTION: Okay, I'll reformulate the question.
MR. RUBIN: No, no, we'll do it after the briefing; I'll get you an answer
happily. I just don't have the rules and regulations of the Department in
this book
QUESTION: Does "prompt" suggest "trivial?" From everything you've seen,
which is getting use of one room in an ambassador's house while the
ambassador is out of the country; paying for his newspapers, maid service
and everything else; and his accountant not listing it on a disclosure
statement - does the Secretary believe that that's reason to be without an
ambassador at the UN for the rest of the year?
MR. RUBIN: The Secretary believes it's extremely important to have an
ambassador in New York. The Secretary believes that Ambassador Holbrooke is
a brilliant diplomat, and that is why she has been so supportive of his
initial announcement by the President.
With respect to specific issues that are being discussed in the context of
his nomination process and anything that may be investigated, because it is
being looked at by the IG it is inappropriate for me or her to make
comments about specific issues from the podium.
QUESTION: One last -- both the original investigation and the latest
business over a room were the result of anonymous tips, anonymous -- I
don't know, phone calls or pieces of paper. Does the State Department or
the Secretary have anything to say about the fair play of such a situation,
where an anonymous tip can spike an ambassador's appointment, at least for
the rest of this year? Is that the way it's going to be? I mean, if
somebody --
MR. RUBIN: Well, I can't speak for the State Department on the subject.
On a personal level, I can certainly say that the process has that
unfortunate quality to it often.
QUESTION: Can you address Greg Craig's status?
MR. RUBIN: I think someone else has done that.
QUESTION: Okay. Has done it?
MR. RUBIN: Or will soon.
QUESTION: Can you sweep up the pieces?
MR. RUBIN: Only after we know what --
QUESTION: Has he resigned yet?
QUESTION: I was going to ask about the Tibetan coordinator and policy
planning.
MR. RUBIN: It's too premature for those questions.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:15 P.M.)
|
