U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #62, 99-05-11
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
978
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Tuesday, May 11, 1999
Briefer: James P. Rubin
SERBIA (Kosovo)
1-2 NATO Accidental Bombing of Chinese Embassy in Belgrade/Effect on
Diplomacy
3,4-5 Investigation into NATO Accidental Bombing
1-2 Update on NATO Air Campaign
2,10-11 Status of Diplomatic Efforts at UN/Status of Resolution
5-7,10 Deputy Secretary Talbott's Meetings in Moscow/Travel Itinerary
7-8 Secretary Albright's Address to Serb People
8 Territorial Integrity and Withdrawal of Serb Forces from Kosovo
11,13-14 Status of Efforts to Prevent Shipping of Oil
CHINA
1-2 NATO Accidental Bombing of Chinese Embassy in Belgrade/Effect on
Diplomacy
3,4-5 Investigation into NATO Accidental Bombing
3,4,8-9 Reaction of PRC to Accidental Bombing/Four Points Raised by PRC
4-5 Situation/Demonstrations in China
4,12,16 Update on US Ambassador Sasser and Embassy Staff
5,7,12-13 Contacts Between Secretary Albright and Chinese Foreign
Minister
13 PRC Suspension of Various Exchanges with US
ISRAEL
14 Ruling Delaying Closure Order of Palestinian Offices in Orient House
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
15 US View of UN Resolution 181
UNITED NATIONS
Status of Nomination of Richard Holbrooke as US Ambassador to UN
IRAN
Iranian President's Travel to Syria, Saudi Arabia and Qatar
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #62
TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1999, 1:40 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Welcome to the State Department briefing. We have two notices
we're going to put out with regard to a press opportunity with Under
Secretary of State Eizenstat and German Minister of the Chancellery Hombach
tomorrow in the afternoon. That information will be provided to you after
the briefing. I have no opening comments. Let's go directly to your
questions.
QUESTION: We have a notice there's another 6:00 p.m. event. We thank you.
It will be sparsely attended, probably. One of the major newspapers today
led the paper with the notion that the attack on the Chinese Embassy is
going to have an impact - in fact, a negative impact - on US diplomacy to
end the war. Nobody quoted by name, but officials are saying that. Not in
an attempt to catch up, but it's something, in a long discourse yesterday,
we didn't really get into. Is this embassy bombing having any restraining
effect on US efforts to find a diplomatic solution?
MR. RUBIN: Well, even our nation's finest newspapers occasionally don't
get nuances quite right. We do not believe that this will have any
significant effect on the conduct of our military operation or the pace of
the diplomatic track, each of which is determined by separate factors. NATO
is determined to continue and pursue and intensify its air campaign. In
that regard, over the past 24 hours, NATO has struck hard at Serbian forces
in Kosovo, particularly around the Junik and Podujevo areas. NATO
successfully struck tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, command
posts and troops; in particular, the 125th and the 211th armored brigade.
NATO's increasingly effective targeting of Serb forces in Kosovo is
obliging the Serbs to spend more and more time hiding from air strikes and
less and less in offensive operations.
NATO also struck relay stations, air fields, petroleum storage and
production facilities, military bases and air fields throughout Serbia.
These attacks will reduce even further the morale of Serb forces in
Kosovo.
I mention all that to make the point that it is NATO's air campaign that
will determine the pace of the diplomacy, because the diplomacy ultimately
has one question that needs to be answered: will President Milosevic
finally see the writing on the wall that every day he gets weaker and
weaker? And he can come up with all sorts of dramatic gestures that are not
so dramatic when you look at them. All sorts of attempts to hoodwink the
world, but the reality is he's getting weaker every day, his forces are
getting weaker, his military machine is increasingly broken, and we are
going to break it. With respect to the diplomacy therefore-the diplomacy's
pace will be determined by when President Milosevic agrees to NATO's
five conditions. If he were to do that tomorrow, the pace of diplomacy
would quicken greatly. If he does not do that tomorrow, we will go on to
the next day and the day after that. If President Milosevic does finally do
what would be the right thing for his people and for the world, I believe
we would be able to move very quickly diplomatically to arrange for the
implementation of NATO's five conditions. So, I do not believe, as tragic
as it was, that the accident that occurred when NATO struck the Chinese
Embassy in Beijing has any effect whatsoever on the pace of the diplomacy
or the military campaign.
QUESTION: Historically, China, while opposing various initiatives like
the inspection scheme in Iraq -- in fact, the Persian Gulf War -- did not
use its veto to stop, basically, what the US and others had decided to do.
Now in this case, you're looking at ultimately - I don't think it's the
core of your diplomacy - but you are looking for some UN resolution
ultimately embracing, endorsing the approach that you and the Russians are
trying to work out along with the allies. Has this - is there a feeling
here that the Chinese are so angered by that accident that they will
actively try to stop such a resolution? Are you concerned about that?
MR. RUBIN: First let me say, let the record reflect that I meant the
Chinese Embassy in Belgrade - I gather I said Beijing. Mistakes were made
in that regard.
QUESTION: Wait a minute. While we're making corrections, that photo op is
today, not tomorrow. (Laughter.)
MR. RUBIN: Other than that, the announcement is exactly right. So what
was the question? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Well, I'll shorten it. You know, your diplomacy has, as one of
its elements, a UN resolution. Do you anticipate that will be harder to at
least get the Chinese to stay neutral on and not use their veto on?
MR. RUBIN: I think in all of our businesses, occasionally we focus on
procedure more so than substance. The issue in the diplomacy is the
substance. The issue is whether President Milosevic will finally say yes to
the five conditions that NATO and the rest of the world are supportive of.
If he does so, and arrangements are worked out substantively for a force
with NATO at its core, for a rapid and precise timetable for his withdrawal,
for the return of the refugees, for a framework for a discussion of
the political arrangements and the end to the violence, that's the
substance. That is the key question. If that happens, we believe we will be
able to find a way procedurally to move quickly and we do not believe that
at the end of the day, if a diplomatic resolution is found where President
Milosevic has agreed to NATO's conditions, that at the end of the day the
Chinese will stand in the way of that. It would be contrary to their long-
standing claim to resolve this question peacefully.
QUESTION: Jamie, as you know, the Chinese have stated four demands that
they want the United States to fulfill - among them is the punishment for
those responsible for the attack on their embassy. It's a sentiment that's
been repeated by several former diplomats in this country. Should high-
level US officials be held accountable for what is called faulty intelligence?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say that both the President and the Secretary have
publicly offered their condolences and apologies on behalf of the United
States. That is one of the issues that Foreign Minister Tang raised in his
discussion with Ambassador Sasser. In addition, they have both written
their counterparts to express this apology -- the Secretary's letter we
made public yesterday.
With respect to the question of an investigation and what follows from that,
we are investigating this matter thoroughly to discover how this mistake
could have occurred and to ensure that this doesn't recur. And Secretary
Cohen and other Pentagon officials have made public some of the information
about what is known about at this time. Secretary Cohen also stated that as
far as responsibility is concerned, we are in the preliminary stages of our
investigation and we will consider appropriate action after the investigation
and we're not going to make any statements that would be premature at this
time.
QUESTION: Jamie, does the State Department feel that it was adequately
consulted and brought into the loop - perhaps the expertise of many
diplomats in this building - as to what is where in Belgrade? Does it feel
that the Pentagon and the CIA made full use of the resources in this
building?
MR. RUBIN: That's cleverly formulated. Let me say that everybody involved
has expressed their apology and everybody involved knows that a tragic
mistake occurred. Mistakes do occur; it is not a perfect world, and we will
continue to work with the Pentagon and other agencies to provide our
assistance and our help throughout the pursuit of this policy on Kosovo and
we will try to help more rather than less.
QUESTION: How does the United States feel about the way the Chinese have
handled this - specifically their refusal to recognize initially that any
apologies had been made? And secondly, their threat effectively to thwart
US objectives through the UN Security Council? Is there any irritation,
frustration of this behavior?
MR. RUBIN: We certainly were troubled by the security situation at the
embassy in Beijing and at several of our consulates. In that regard, let me
say that the intensity of demonstrations was substantially lower on
Tuesday. They remain peaceful as Chinese authorities stepped up their level
of protection and control. There were no protests reported at our missions
in Shanghai, Shenyang or Chengdu. There were roughly half a dozen
demonstrations at our embassy in Beijing, with crowds ranging from 15 to
150 people. Ambassador Sasser and about a dozen embassy staff remain in
the embassy, as the security situation has still not yet returned
fully to normal. Embassy staff and others are not able to move freely in
and out of the embassy campaign.
We continue to look to the Chinese authorities to maintain order and to
ensure the security of officials, US personnel, other American citizens and
American property, as is their responsibility. The embassy and the other
missions will remain closed for normal operations on Wednesday.
Although the Chinese official media have published assurances that
foreigners in China are safe, there have been a small number of incidents
involving harassment of foreigners. Our travel warning issued on May 9,
therefore, remains in effect. Meanwhile, Chinese official media have now
reported statements by the President and the Secretary of State offering
apologies and condolences for the accidental bombing of the embassy in
Belgrade.
With respect to the security situation, I think Secretary Albright was
troubled on Saturday night. That is why she took the unusual step - in
addition to wanting to express her apology - she took the unusual step of
going to the embassy and delivering the letter directly. I'm not going to
speculate on what the motivations of the Chinese officials and their
interaction with their official media were for the delay between the time
when apologies were expressed and the time when apologies were reported;
other than to say that they have now been reported and we were troubled,
again, by the security situation. But let's remember what's going on here
is there is a tragic error was made and people were killed and that is a
genuine problem that we've been trying to address.
QUESTION: With all due respect, that wasn't quite the question I
asked.
MR. RUBIN: You asked me about the publication of the apologies.
QUESTION: No, no, no. My question is, how does the United States feel
about what appears to be a concerted Chinese campaign to embarrass the
United States to the maximum extent and to possibly exploit this incident
to make diplomatic gains. But other than security aspects --
MR. RUBIN: All right. But you asked about the apology going on the
television, and what -
QUESTION: No. The Chinese spokesman came on and said they didn't even
recognize - came on CNN and other television stations saying they didn't
even recognize the fact that an apology had been made.
MR. RUBIN: Well, that spokesman ought to - or that representative ought
to look more carefully at the documents that were provided to the Foreign
Minister of China.
QUESTION: So what is the feeling about how the Chinese have handled
this?
MR. RUBIN: Again, I'm not going to speculate on the reasons why the
apology wasn't published for a day. As far as how the Chinese have handled
it, they've stated quite openly that they were supporting the demonstrations.
We think those demonstrations got out of control. We were troubled by that.
That's how I feel about it. That's how the Secretary feels about it.
QUESTION: Just following up on Andrea's question. I guess Secretary Cohen
yesterday announced that the Defense Department would work with the State
Department in mapping out locations of embassies around the world. I just
wonder, is this something that was normally done already, and when an
embassy moves locations, which agency in the Administration - who's
responsibility would it be to notify that that location has been made?
MR. RUBIN: What I would explain to you is that there's no simple, global
database of the location of embassies. It depends on what the purpose or
what the information is. Clearly a mistake was made, in terms of targeting
purposes, where the Chinese embassy was thought to be located. I think
we've been as frank and open as we could possibly be about that, and we,
here in the State Department, want to be as helpful as we can to the
Pentagon and others who may be interested in ascertaining that information
for whatever purpose - whether for the purpose of targeting or some other
purpose. But at this time, what I can tell you is that Secretary Albright
made clear to Secretary Cohen and others that she wanted to be helpful in
providing more rather than less information and we're going to do
that.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary try to reach the Chinese Foreign Minister in
the last few days on the phone?
MR. RUBIN: I know she tried initially a couple of times. She then
delivered the letter. I don't think she's tried again. I think that they
know we're ready to talk to them when they're ready.
QUESTION: Early on you said you didn't think that the mistake in the
bombing of the Chinese Embassy would have a significant impact - effect on
the military operation or the pace of your diplomatic track. Could you
explain that - the pace of a diplomatic track when it appears the
diplomatic track relied on Russia through the G-8 to the Security Council -
you have both Russia and China who are on the Security Council - I don't
see how you can say that the pace of the diplomatic track wasn't affected
when both of those countries are calling for a pause in the bombing
before they proceed with diplomacy. Is there some other diplomatic
track you're working on?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I would obviously disagree with most of what you just
said, but let me answer your question. We told you last week that I thought
- and I was very clear - that the next key moment in the diplomacy was
Deputy Secretary Talbott's trip to Moscow in which we were going to
elaborate on the five points and make - begin to spell out what is a
precise and rapid time table for the withdrawal of forces; how would one
compose an international security force with NATO at its core -- and that
that was the next step in the diplomacy. I mentioned that to you prior to
the incident on Friday night. That remains what Deputy Secretary Talbott
is doing and he will be meeting with Foreign Minister Ivanov and Mr.
Chernomyrdin tomorrow to pursue precisely that objective. Based on his
initial contacts, he has a sense that they are prepared to discuss these
issues in detail with him. Therefore, that work will go on on schedule. It
is no surprise to us, and I would expect it wouldn't be surprise to any of
you, that the Russian position and the Chinese position, which has been the
same from the beginning - calling for a halt to the bombing. There's
nothing that's changed.
QUESTION: If I could follow up - perhaps, but I don't - would you argue
that this incident has crystallized their - their statements, their
feelings -- if I can use that word - and that it has brought them together
in their opposition to the NATO air campaign?
MR. RUBIN: Diplomats don't have feelings, first of all.
QUESTION: Right. (Laughter.)
MR. RUBIN: That was a joke. The - we do not believe that the pace of our
work with Russia or the substance of our work with Russia is going to be
changed. And we believe that Russia can play a constructive role in its
diplomacy, working with us in elaborating those points - those conditions -
and then seeing whether President Milosevic, who is the ultimate person who
needs to answer the question - this is about whether President Milosevic
will wake up, see the writing on the wall, and accept NATO's five points.
The diplomacy can't work any faster than him finally answering that
question yes.
With respect to Russia, who had been our primary interlocutor on this
subject, the pace remains the same. So that is why I made those comments
and I stand by them.
QUESTION: Can you give us any more information on Mr. Talbott's visit in
Moscow - what exactly is going on? Who is he talking - you said a couple of
people he's talking with - how's it going?
MR. RUBIN: He just arrived earlier today. Basically the meetings are
scheduled to take place tomorrow and throughout the day with Foreign
Minister Ivanov; with a working group; there will be a plenary session and
then actual working groups will work on elaborating the points that I
described to you, among others. He will also be talking about the UN role
and the role of the G-8, which has to continue working on this. And again,
to get back to the previous set of questions, we had a schedule for the
political directors of the G-8 to begin to talk to each other about
elaborating these conditions because their role is important and that
remains on schedule.
So, Deputy Secretary Talbott hasn't had the important meetings yet as of
today; those are going to occur tomorrow. I just spoke to him a few minutes
ago and he expected to have a full day in Moscow running through the points
that I mentioned and then flying to Helsinki later in the day.
QUESTION: Has anything changed since Chernomyrdin is, in effect, coming
back empty-handed from China?
MR. RUBIN: Again, we do believe that China, as a permanent member of the
Security Council, when the time comes, will judge the situation as to
whether to support, oppose or abstain - I think he said going to China,
that's why - you said China -
QUESTION: Chernomyrdin's return from China empty-handed.
MR. RUBIN: From China - so we don't believe that China will, at the end
of the day, stand in the way of an agreement that could be struck by Russia
based on NATO's five conditions. And so the fact that the Chinese didn't
help him elaborate on the five points isn't a surprise to us, nor is it a
surprise to us that he and the Russian Government and the Chinese
Government when meeting expressed their view that NATO bombing should
halt. That's been their view all along.
QUESTION: Jamie, you said that Secretary Albright would like to talk to
Foreign Minister Tang. President Clinton -- through the White House, it's
been expressed that he also would like to speak to President Jiang. Why do
you think China's leaders aren't taking our phone call or at least not
welcoming the initiative? Why was the hotline set up between President
Jiang and Clinton in 1997 if we can't use it at a time like this?
MR. RUBIN: Well I don't think the hotline was tried, so I think that is
not on point. But on your basic question, you'll have to ask them. We're
clearly indicating our willingness to talk to them on the phone; letters
have been sent. They've chosen, obviously, that they are not ready to speak
to the Secretary or President Jiang -- not ready to speak to President
Clinton. That is their decision. A hotline or a telephone has to have two
people on both sides of the phone.
QUESTION: Jamie, can we go back to Talbott going to Helsinki - does he
then go - can you describe the meetings there? And then does he go back to
Moscow or does he go to Brussels?
MR. RUBIN: He'll be meeting with - is it President or Prime Minister -
President Ahtisaari of Finland and after that his schedule has not firmed
up.
QUESTION: Jamie, I understand the Secretary recorded another address to
the Serbian people today. I wanted to check if this was the first one she
did in English? Why she did it in English? And what - it's the second one
in English. Okay, there's that answer. But what's - what was the timing,
the message that she hoped to convey?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we'll be making available to you a copy of her remarks.
She has - this is the second one in English. She made the point that it's a
tragedy for the people of Serbia - that their leaders have not told them
what is going on in Kosovo, because it might help them to understand the
reasons why NATO has conducted the military campaign that it has conducted.
And when the Serbian spokesmen use absurd arguments that people are
paid to walk around in circles - that people are paid to become refuges.
This allegation by Mr. Matic is a despicable
allegation. And it's not just the raving of an isolated lunatic. Unfortunately,
it's all too typical of the propaganda they receive. It wasn't actors that
were killed in Kosovo. It wasn't actors that were raped in Kosovo. And it
wasn't pretend villages that the Serbs destroyed. They were real villages.
So, Secretary Albright will try to bring home some facts to them, because
we believe the more the Serbs understand the facts about what's going
on in Kosovo, the greater the chance they will understand the need
for President Milosevic to agree to a settlement. She also indicated in her
remarks that the agreement that we are offering the people of Serbia is a
fair agreement that will support the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia,
but will have an international security force in which both Serbs and
ethnic Albanians can live in peace with one another. She will also - this
one is especially for you, Charlie - will indicate that Yugoslavia should
withdraw all their forces from Kosovo.
QUESTION: Let me just ask, was the timing in any way in response to the
Yugoslav announcement of partial withdrawal -
MR. RUBIN: No, I think we're trying to develop a schedule that we've been
operating under, and I don't think this was put on the schedule because of
that partial withdrawal.
QUESTION: Do you have any evidence that people are hearing these messages
that she is sending? And do you have any sense of what is the most common
way that they are getting this message?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think it's primarily through the radio. All AM bands
in Serbia can receive this message, and increasingly FM as well. So, people
are hearing it. Again, it's hard to know exactly how many people. But by
anecdotal evidence, and occasionally reporters on the ground talking to
people who have said they've heard it, it's clear that it's being heard.
We've seen a lot of different evidence that it's being heard, but it's
something that given the long, long years of Serbian propaganda that spewed
forth from Serbian television and Serbian radio, it will take some
time before any effort, no matter how well organized, can break through.
QUESTION: Can you clarify, if you can, how you can mesh the call for
retaining the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia with the withdrawal of
all troops, presumably some of which were there before March '98, and
presumably some of which are involved in maintaining the borders of
Yugoslavia? How does that work?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, the simple point here is that in light of the atrocities
the Serb forces have committed, in light of the rape, in light of the
murder, in light of the burning of villages, in light of the terrible,
terrible forced expulsions and deportations, we believe the presence of
those Serb forces will make it not possible for the Kosovar refugees to go
home. So, therefore, we believe one must have an international security
force to provide the secure environment for those refugees, deportees, to
go home. It is not an act of sovereignty -- affecting the Serb sovereignty,
unless they choose to make it that. In other words, the Serbs in Bosnia,
agreement was struck to allow an international security force with NATO at
its core deploy in Bosnia, and nobody challenged the territorial integrity
of Bosnia. Believe me, the Serb forces and the Serb people in Belgrade
don't have to worry about NATO doing what is consistent with international
law, and we will deploy in order to get the refugees back. It's something
that is not inconsistent with respecting, in principle, their sovereignty
and territorial integrity. Obviously, this is a country that has lost some
of its rights in light of the wars they've started in Slovenia, Croatia,
Bosnia, and now the terrible, terrible atrocities that have been committed
in Kosovo. So, the international community is going to step in. It's going
to provide security for the people of Kosovo. It's going to administer the
territory pending political arrangement. But what we're saying to them is
we don't go in supporting independence. We go in supporting the territorial
integrity of Serbia.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. I spoke to Mr. Yu, the spokesman of the
Chinese Embassy here in Washington yesterday. And he was still very, very
angry about the bombing of his embassy. He outlined four points that I
think come from the Foreign Minister, and I just wanted to ask if -- one,
open an official apology to the government, people, and relatives; two,
complete a thorough investigation of NATO bombing attack; three, promptly
publicized detail results of investigation; four, severely punish those
responsible for the attack. Is that the message that the State Department
is getting? And is this doable? Some people at Defense yesterday said
that that was doable - these four points. What's your reaction?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I had this discussion earlier with one of your
colleagues about those precise same four points, and let me say that it is
the same four points. The Chinese spokesman is accurately describing the
points that the Chinese Foreign Minister passed on to our ambassador in
Beijing. And my answer to the question of how to proceed is the same as I
gave before - which is that right now we're doing a full investigation, and
we will provide China the results of that investigation, and the rest of
the issues are premature.
QUESTION: Is the punishment -- number four - part about punishing those
responsible - is that doable?
MR. RUBIN: Well, again, in response to discussions with one of your
colleagues just a few moments ago, I described our position on that and I
said that it would be premature to address that question until there has
been a full investigation.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- other Kosovo humans who yesterday - are you
going to use Greek air fields, too? And also, are you planning to ask
permission from the Yugoslav authorities?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I'm sorry you weren't here yesterday to hear the
discussion elaborated on. The question of air drops is, at this point, an
option. We are very concerned about the 700,000 people inside of Kosovo,
and we've been looking at all options to help address their needs. Air
drops are an option that is being explored along with a number of other
means to reach these people. There has been no specific timeline set for
air drops. The specific modalities, arrangements for such an operation are
still under discussion, but the concept here is that this is a private
organization that will conduct the air drops. And for us, the question is
whether we should be supportive and what the upsides and downsides
of that are, so it will be up to them to describe any issues related
to discussions with Belgrade.
QUESTION: Who is going to compensate the Chinese for the damage of their
embassy? NATO or the US government?
MR. RUBIN: I think as one of your colleagues and a second of your
colleagues and I just discussed this extensively over the last half an hour,
I indicated to you that we are examining this question of how this could
have happened. We're doing an investigation, and what follows from the
results of that investigation is premature for us to discuss.
QUESTION: Today's New York Times quoted the NATO allies is planning to
open two fronts against Yugoslavia - one is Hungary and the other one is in
Turkey. And they claim that if it's true, they are planning to base some F-
16s and some fighters in their western air bases in Turkey. Can you confirm
this?
MR. RUBIN: Well, let me say one of the reasons why we believe President
Milosevic keeps throwing out these new ideas - whether it be a phony half-
withdrawal, whether it be the release of the three Americans, whether it be
an interview with this organization, or an interview with that organization,
or meeting with Mr. Thaqi or someone else is precisely because our air
campaign is having its desired effect. It is really successfully taking a
part, piece by piece, this military machine. And the reason why it's
increasingly effective is because it's operating seven days a week. It's
operating 24 hours a day, and it's able to operate from 360 degrees.
And that is extremely important. Our allies have said that Hungary
and Turkey, as NATO members, are participating fully in Operation Allied
Force - this includes provision for a possible basing of military assets on
their territory. I'm not in a position to discuss operational details. But
because of the contributions and basing rights and over-flight rights, we
are in a position to strike at Serbia 24 hours a day, seven days a week
from, as I said, 360 degrees. This 360 degrees is so important because it
makes the task of an already crippled Serbian air defense even more
difficult, and it makes it increasingly difficult for the Serbs to
conduct offensive operations.
QUESTION: New subject - (inaudible) -- Turkish Government?
MR. RUBIN: We're in regular and extensive contact at the military and the
political level of the Turkish government.
QUESTION: A minor detail, but could you elaborate perhaps on why Mr.
Talbott is going to see President Ahtisaari in Finland? Is this a Kosovo-
related trip? And what -
MR. RUBIN: Yes, it is. President Ahtisaari is a very respected former UN
official who has extensive experience in the Balkans. He is someone who has
indicated a willingness to be an advisor to us as we proceed and to play a
role if that becomes necessary. So, President Ahtisaari has a long history,
a very distinguished history in working on the Balkan issues, and in
addition, Finland is going to be the next rotating president of the
European Union.
QUESTION: Does anyone envisage President Ahtisaari going on any missions
anywhere?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I wouldn't want to rule that out. He said he's prepared
to play a role as appropriate, and we want to discuss with him, as we
discussed with others, various ways in which to achieve our diplomatic
objective. Let me say that President Ahtisaari has met with President
Chirac, with Chancellor Schroeder. He's been in touch with Kofi Annan in
recent days, and so he's someone who we have a lot of respect for, and we
want to stay in close touch with and seek his advice on this subject.
QUESTION: Could you go back briefly to the Security Council question - I
may be mistaken, but was it not your strategy - was it a matter of timing --
you wanted to go to the Security Council to get a resolution prior to
Milosevic accepting a settlement so that you could then illustrate to him
that all the Security Council - Russia and China - favored your goals, and
that he was completely isolated. Now it appears you're switching the
timing around and saying that Milosevic - your goal was actually to
have Milosevic accept them all and then have it embodied in a Security
Council resolution.
MR. RUBIN: Well it may appear that way to you but that isn't what we
said. What we've said is that it's an open question, and we've said this
ever since the meeting in Bonn; ever since the meeting in Oslo, as to
whether Russia would be prepared to move ahead of where Belgrade was. So to
suggest that we had adopted one position and then switched positions would
be a fundamental misreading of what Secretary Albright and I have said on
this subject. We want to pursue the substance - we want to get agreement
amongst the G-8, including Russia, but particularly Russia since, as you
know, Italy, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and
Canada are all members of NATO. So the G-8 is NATO members plus Japan and
Russia. So the Russia role is very important and we've always stated quite
clearly before Friday's events and today that it's an open question as to
whether Russia would be prepared to do that. I think when journalists have
asked that question to Foreign Minister Ivanov he's signaled that they
wouldn't be prepared to do that. So I would disagree with your assessment
of where we were and therefore would disagree with your claim there was an
apparent shift.
QUESTION: You mentioned, in regard to Hungary and Turkey, that they have
agreed to take some air assets. Are those combat aircraft or just tankers
and such?
MR. RUBIN: I think I indicated I wouldn't be able to discuss operational
details. That would constitute an operational detail. I will check with my
Pentagon colleagues to see if we can get you more information.
QUESTION: Jamie, does the State Department have any view - any reaction
to what the Israeli Supreme Court did on -
QUESTION: Two more.
MR. RUBIN: Yes. Two more -
QUESTION: Can you bring us up to date on the status of the effort on the
oil embargo or where that stands -
MR. RUBIN: Yes. My understanding is there is a whole list of countries
that have now agreed to prevent their nationals from shipping oil to
Serbia. I can get you that list after the briefing -- and that NATO is
proceeding on a two-track approach beginning first with a voluntary system
to work with countries that are prepared to be visited and searched as they
enter into Yugoslav waters and that they are still consulting on the second
track of that approach which would involve more than a voluntary regime.
QUESTION: Could you give us an update on how Ambassador Sasser is
doing?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. He is still in the embassy. He's there with a dozen
people or so. The ability to move in and out freely is not yet available.
Clearly the situation has calmed down. We do expect additional protests
tomorrow. He is still there, working with a core staff of about a dozen
people, but the situation has calmed substantially outside the embassy. As
I indicated to you, the numbers of protesters today were quite small
compared to over the weekend - we're talking about 15 people at certain
times.
QUESTION: Why would it be impossible for him to leave since the numbers
are so small?
MR. RUBIN: Well, it is the collective judgment of the Ambassador and his
diplomatic security and others that it is preferable to wait until there is
completely free access in and out for him to leave. I know he indicated a
willingness to go to a ceremony today at which the remains of the Chinese
individuals who were killed were returning to China - I guess that ceremony
would be tomorrow - and they declined that offer. So it's not as if
he can't leave, but it's the view - the collective view is that until
there's complete access in and out that he will stay there with his core
staff.
QUESTION: How can you say you expect demonstrations tomorrow - is that a
hunch or have you heard word from the government that spontaneous
demonstrations would happen? I mean, it's totally government engineered - I
mean, you say you expect them - they have time frames apparently - this bus
load of demonstrators has from 11 to 11:30 and the next one has 11:30 to
2:00. Have they given you tomorrow's schedule already? Is that why you
expect them tomorrow? Or is it just the feeling you get from looking
out of what isn't really a cell that the Ambassador is in; sort of a kind
of a place he wants to stay for the foreseeable future?
MR. RUBIN: Wow.
QUESTION: Isn't he a prisoner in his own embassy? And how do you know
there are going to be demonstrations tomorrow?
MR. RUBIN: It is from our contacts with the Chinese authorities. They
told us to expect demonstrations. Whether that is a result of their
orchestration or their intelligence information, is something between them
and the protesters.
QUESTION: I just wanted to clarify an answer that you gave a little bit
earlier - you said that Secretary Albright initially tried to call by phone
and then she gave the letter and as far as you know she hasn't tried since
then?
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
QUESTION: And you said that the Chinese know that you're willing to talk
to them when they're ready - does that imply that you're waiting for the
Chinese to let you know when they're ready or will Secretary Albright
continue to try to call them?
MR. RUBIN: These things have to be handled properly and I think maybe we
would be in a position to feel confident that if she tried again, that
there might be a response and that she would have the discussion. But
exactly the sequencing of that would be something we would work out
diplomatically.
QUESTION: She may try again?
MR. RUBIN: She might, yes.
QUESTION: At what level are the Chinese communicating to us? Which
contacts are affected by their displeasure over the embassy bombing? And
have they had anything to say about the next round of WTO talks?
MR. RUBIN: With respect to our contacts, I know Under Secretary Pickering
has been in touch with the ambassador here; I know the foreign minister has
been in touch with our ambassador there, so that's a fairly good description
of the level of our contacts.
The Chinese have now informed us of the suspension of certain military
exchanges and have announced their intent to suspend various dialogues and
exchanges relating to human rights, non-proliferation, and security issues.
It is not clear at this point what other visits or discussions could be
affected by China's temporary suspension or postponement of these
exchanges.
QUESTION: This suspension means that Einhorn and John Holum are not going
to China? Is that -
MR. RUBIN: As I told you, that was -
QUESTION: It was on hold yesterday -
MR. RUBIN: That was something where the dates weren't really nailed down
at this point.
QUESTION: I understand.
MR. RUBIN: So what we're mostly dealing with is situations in the near
term - this month, where the dates have been nailed down. We'll have to see
how that develops.
QUESTION: To get back to that oil embargo - can you give us an update on
the level of oil supplies reaching the Port in Bar? And the nationality of
ships bringing it in - is this Russian also arriving in the same -
(inaudible) - as before?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware there are any Russian tankers going into the
Port of Bar. As I indicated to you in the past, the Russian petroleum that
went in, other than those that may have been on a long term contractual
basis, were through the humanitarian shipment that was admitted by Hungary.
Let's bear in mind that all the countries around Serbia now have agreed to
not allow oil to be shipped to Serbia. So that is making it very difficult
for Serbia to get oil. That doesn't mean there isn't what we call
- what's that name for the little traffic - they have that funny name for -
there's a name for small groups of people who go in - anyway -
QUESTION: Smugglers. (Laughter.)
MR. RUBIN: No, no. There's a name for it that we use in Iraq. I've
forgotten it and now I've told you that I forgot it. We'll go with that.
That doesn't mean that there aren't small amounts of oil getting through in
small groups. But as far as organized traffic getting in through the
countries -
QUESTION: Through the port?
MR. RUBIN: As far as the port is concerned, I'm not aware of a Russian
entry and I will have to get some data and see whether I can provide that
data to you with respect to entry into the port in Bar.
QUESTION: Jamie, at the NATO summit there was an awful lot of lofty
rhetoric about the hypocrisy of sending pilots in bombing runs of
refineries and then not enforcing an oil embargo. The President of the
United States even talked about hoping it didn't come to violence with
Russia and others. Why has there been this rather dramatic climb down from
that position? Does it have anything to do with the events of the
weekend?
MR. RUBIN: Your editorial commentary something I fully disagree with. But
with respect to the substance of your question, let me say that at the time
that this visit and search regime was begun, there were substantial traffic
heading for Bar, and had occurred, and we had given you some rough numbers
about that. There hadn't been an agreement with all the countries around
Serbia to voluntarily commit to not allow their territory to be used
for oil and petroleum products to get in. So, the nature of the problem has
been greatly reduced precisely as a result of the concern that we expressed
about allowing petroleum to get it. It doesn't mean the problem is
resolved. It's not resolved. But it's substantially improved.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the - does the State Department have
any reaction to the Israeli supreme court's tactical decision to delay
Netanyahu to closing down Orient House?
MR. RUBIN: We note the ruling by Israel's supreme court to delay the
closure order against Palestinian offices in Orient House by at least one
week. It appears that a confrontation is being avoided, and we welcome
that. This remains a very sensitive issue and it is important that both
sides continue their efforts to resolve it peacefully.
QUESTION: Should I ask about 181, or let it go another day?
MR. RUBIN: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Hey. Well, you know about 181, right? Arafat embraces it, so do
the Europeans in the context of Jerusalem not belonging to anybody - and
that the Europeans and others should leave Palestinians there if they feel
like it? Because it's an international city under a 1947 resolution.
MR. RUBIN: The United States --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- is the only government besides Israel that
deposes that judgment?
MR. RUBIN: Well, that I'll have to check for you. But as far as our view
of the resolution, the US view is that the objective of the negotiating
process is the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and
338, including land for peace, and all other agreements under the Oslo
Process. I'm not going to comment on the views of others. Our view, and I
think America has played the leading and crucial role in brokering and
assisting and mediating the Middle East peace process -- is that UN
Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and land for peace, form
the basis of the peace process.
QUESTION: Your basis - so far as resolutions - are they the only
resolutions that - you needn't answer this if you don't feel like it, or -
I mean, if you're not in a position to - but are they the only resolutions
that should have a bearing on the negotiations?
MR. RUBIN: The US view is that the objective of the negotiating process
is implementation of UN Resolutions 242 and 338, including land for peace
and all other agreements. If we had other views and other additional views,
I would provide them to you.
QUESTION: That's an answer.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: The other day, the office of Senator Jesse Helms stated that it
would be insane for his committee to proceed with the admission of
Ambassador Holbrooke as the new US representative of the UN. Do you know
whether this is your stand today?
MR. RUBIN: What I know is that Secretary Albright strongly believes that
our country would be well served by having Ambassador Holbrooke in New York
confirmed by the Senate and that would advance our national interest, and
it would improve our ability to pursue our national interest in New York.
That's why she so strongly supported his nomination, and has done all that
she can to try to move it along. It is now obviously in the Senate's
hands.
QUESTION: The Middle East?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: President Khatami is going to Saudi Arabia and Qatar. I was
wondering if you had any comment on that?
MR. RUBINI: Well, he's done a lot of traveling in the last year, and our
policy on Iran has tended to focus on what substance occurs at the meetings
with us, than the fact of meetings. And he's entitled to travel.
QUESTION: It's not at all disconcerting that your close ally, Saudi
Arabia and Iran, are inching closer and closer together?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I don't know whether they would agree with your
characterization. I do know that a NATO member, Italy, recently played host
to Mr. Hot*.
QUESTION: Is the fact that Mr. Sasser and those who are at the embassy
with him - are they able to get supplies? Can they get things in and out of
there? And does he feel like he's safe?
MR. RUBIN: I think he feels safe in the embassy and, I think, although he
hasn't had all the creature comforts we all deserve, that he's able to get
necessary supplies.
QUESTION: Thank you.
|
