U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #91, 99-07-14

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>

1067

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Wednesday, July 14, 1999

Briefer: James P. Rubin

DEPARTMENT
1	Barak Background Briefing
1	Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice and NSC Senior Director for
	 African Affairs Gail Smith Briefing / Reviewing Outcome of OAU
	 Summit in Algiers, Peace Agreements, Sec.Speech 
1	Kosovo Briefing Postponed
7	Shenwick / Holbrooke
TAIWAN
1-5	Taipei Talks / Cross-strait Relations / One China Policy / Taiwan's
	 Mainland Policy Unchanged / Meaningful Dialogue / Translation
	 Issue / President Lee / Meeting With Taiwanese Officials / Contact
	 with Chinese / Talbott 
SINGAPORE
5-6	Secretary's Visit
CHINA
6	Secretary Visit With Chinese Foreign Minister / Compensation /
	 Legal Adviser David Andrews In Beijing / Damage in Belgrade and
	 Beijing  
UK / ARGENTINA
6-7	Agreement on Falklands
CUBA
7-8	Cuban Policy / Coast Guard Action / Smuggling and Migrants
MEPP
8-12	Implementation of Wye and Final-status Talks / Rahman Statement /
	 Direct Negotiations Between the Parties / Partner in the Peace
	 Process / Timetable / Changes to Agreement / Syrian Track - US
	 Participation / Geneva Meeting / Barak Visit 
IRAN
12-13	Government-sponsored Demonstration / Protests / President Khatemi /
	 No Embassy 
INDIA
13	Demonstration in Washington
NORTH KOREA
13	AmCit.
PERU
13-14	Capture of Feliciano - Shining Path Leader / Systematic Human
	 Rights Abuses 
COLOMBIA
14,16-17	Minister of Defense and Chief of Staff Meeting About Peace
		 Process / Bilateral Agenda with Pastrana Admin. / FARC /
		 Intelligence-sharing / Counter-narcotics 
VIETNAM
14	Political Prisoners Meeting
SERBIA
14-15	Gas Leaks / NATO Strikes / Humanitarian Supplies
KOREAS / JAPAN / INDIA
15-16	Missile Launch / Ship with Missile Parts

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #91

WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1999, 1:15 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. RUBIN: Sorry for the delay. Let me say, just on an announcement note, first, welcome to the State Department briefing; today, of course, being Wednesday. There will be a briefing at about 5:15 p.m. in this briefing room on the visit of Prime Minister Barak - a background briefing. That will take place here at 5:15 p.m. Tomorrow --

QUESTION: Today or tomorrow?

MR. RUBIN: No, that's today at 5:15 p.m. Now I'm going to item two. Tomorrow, Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice and NSC Senior Director for African Affairs Gail Smith will hold an on-the-record briefing session for reporters at 2:00 p.m. in the briefing room. They will be reviewing the outcome of the OAU summit in Algiers, the peace agreements in Sierra Leone and the Congo and some of the points made in the Secretary's speech in New York yesterday.

With those announcements, let me go straight to - oh that, and the other briefing scheduled on Kosovo will be postponed, that was scheduled for this afternoon.

QUESTION: Has there been any word from the Taipei talks?

MR. RUBIN: Yes. On that issue, let me say that Darryl Johnson, the Director of the American Institute in Taiwan's Taipei office had a 40- minute meeting with President Lee Teng- hui today. During the meeting they discussed Lee's recent comments on cross-Strait relations. Director Johnson reiterated our policy, underscoring our adherence to the one-China policy. He noted the importance that we attach to meaningful, substantive dialogue between the two sides, and our view that it is not beneficial for either side to take steps which make holding this type of substantive cross- Strait dialogue more difficult.

President Lee reviewed what he had said in his interview. Let me point out that the official Taiwan central news agency commented after the meeting that what President Lee said to us was that Taiwan's mainland policy remains unchanged. They would have to describe their version of what was said in the meeting. So I'm giving you a source for what they've said occurred in the meeting. From our standpoint, we still believe that both sides should keep up their efforts to achieve the next round of cross- Strait talks envisioned and planned for taking place this fall. We hope and urge the parties to not make any statements or take any actions that makes it harder to have those discussions.

QUESTION: I understand that those talks had been held on a government-to- government basis without any problem. But the problem arose when the President wanted to have them on a state-to-state basis. Does the US have any preference or objections or view on all of this?

MR. RUBIN: I think we discussed this in detail yesterday, Barry. What I said was that yesterday we think any statements that make it harder to have the meaningful dialogue that we support, including the one you mentioned, are not something that we would like to see; they're not beneficial to the process. So both the original statement that you've just reiterated and the reaction in China to that statement are reactions that we think make it harder to resolve the problem.

The way to resolve tension and to resolve the issue is for the two sides to get together in a cross-Strait dialogue. And any statement that makes it harder for that dialogue to take place and to be successful is not something that we consider beneficial.

QUESTION: Did the President - are you satisfied with the meeting? Did the President alleviate the concerns that you or maybe Jim expressed a couple of days ago in the meeting? And do things seem to be back where they were prior to this interview with the German paper?

MR. RUBIN: Well, we expressed our point of view in the meeting. We expressed very much similar to what I said to you all yesterday. The official news agency of Taiwan has described what they said the President of Taiwan said. I'm not in a position to report to you precisely what he said in all its nuances, but our view is that only the Taiwanese themselves, and the President in particular, can assure that the necessary policies and statements that are necessary to allow for a cross-Strait dialogue to take place.

We've had a meeting; we've sought clarification. To some extent, there has been a clarification - certainly in the form of the official statement of the Taiwan news agency. So long as the meeting, cross-Strait dialogue, can occur, we will be satisfied. That's what will satisfy us, is to make sure that the meetings take place.

QUESTION: Does the US still have the position that there may have been a translation error in what the President said?

MR. RUBIN: You're like a dog with a bone.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, come on, I mean, yesterday, you alluded to the fact that there --

MR. RUBIN: You jumped on that bone with full teeth bared.

QUESTION: You know, come on - does the US believe that President Lee said this stuff in the first place? I mean --

MR. RUBIN: I don't think it's a translation issue.

QUESTION: But he didn't deny making the statements to the --

MR. RUBIN: I am not going to describe for you the meeting. I think the bone that you're picking on what I said yesterday about translation, you can take off the list; it's not relevant.

QUESTION: Is China saying - and are we hearing what Lee said as Taiwan saying that, as far as they're concerned, there are two Chinas -- one Taiwan, one China -- rather than one China? Did we also say to Mr. Lee that's not acceptable?

MR. RUBIN: I think we expressed to Mr. Lee the very same concern that I expressed yesterday about statements that would not be beneficial to the continuation of the cross-Strait dialogue that we want to see happen. That's the way we think that progress can be achieved and tensions can be avoided. So that is what we said to President Lee.

QUESTION: China warned Lee, saying he's playing with fire.

MR. RUBIN: Thank you.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Any comment?

MR. RUBIN: I don't know what you're referring to. China's a big country and when they accuse people of playing with fire, I'd want to see the quote and see who you are referring to. Certainly, our view is that both President Lee's initial statements and China's reaction to those statements were not beneficial to creating the necessary cross-Strait dialogue.

QUESTION: Just to be clear, when Sid asked you if the US was satisfied with the meeting, I didn't hear you say that the US was satisfied with the meeting that you had with the Taiwanese officials. What did you mean, the statement and the Taiwanese official agency is enough clarification for you that the cross-Strait dialogue will go on or -

MR. RUBIN: Wow, I missed this. That isn't what I intended to say; I didn't think I said that was the official - our view. I pointed you toward that as an example of what the Taiwanese are saying that President Lee said in the meeting, because I'm not prepared to reveal the private meeting to you publicly in all its nuances and details.

The official Taiwanese version of the meeting indicated there has been no change in policy; their policy on the subject is unchanged. That's significant; I, thus, report that to you. That is part of what we heard. I am not going to report all that we heard, but the fact that they're official version of the events indicated that their policy on the subject remains unchanged certainly, we hope, will yield the prospect for a continuation of the cross-Strait dialogue.

As far as what will satisfy us, it's up to the Taiwanese officials themselves to decide what positions to take. Our position is that we think the only way - the only realistic way - to achieve progress between China and Taiwan is to have a cross-Strait dialogue with meaningful, substantive exchanges. So we will be satisfied when that dialogue continues. It was expected to be resumed this fall. That will be the time when we will either be satisfied or unsatisfied.

QUESTION: Do you have an indication that it indeed will be -

MR. RUBIN: That's between the two of them, and I'm not in a position to report their intentions.

QUESTION: What's next? Is the US planning a --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: I don't want credit for that.

QUESTION: That's tough to follow. So is the US planning on any contacts with the Chinese, now that the US has had this meeting?

MR. RUBIN: I think we've been in contact with the Chinese over the last 24 hours. For example, I believe Deputy Secretary Talbott had a meeting with the Chinese Charge yesterday.

QUESTION: I just want to - maybe you can go at this one more way.

MR. RUBIN: As long as it has nothing to do with translations.

QUESTION: No, nothing to do with translations. Well, it may, actually. You're not - when you refer us to this official Taiwanese news report, you're saying that that's essentially -- it's accurate and you don't have any dispute with that as the content of the meeting, right?

MR. RUBIN: Right.

QUESTION: I'm going to be argumentative that the US or the State Department --

MR. RUBIN: You're always argumentative.

QUESTION: When you hear this, you can say that again because -

(Laughter.)

--you all seem more agitated, more aggravated by statements made of aspirations of people, of leaders of the people in Taiwan - and not all that upset, or not even equally concerned, with remarks from the mainland that - as my friend over here said - that you're playing with fire, we're going to beat the hell out of you. I mean, they've been rather aggressive in their rhetoric. For one thing, have you had a parallel meeting with the people in Beijing to ask them to calm down, to go ahead with these talks in the fall, et cetera? The focus seems to be on trying to assert a one- China policy - which you have a right to do - and to compel the Taiwanese to stop saying such things.

MR. RUBIN: Let me indicate I wouldn't agree with your characterization of what we have been doing. And we have, as I indicated in response to someone's question in just the last two minutes, met with the Charge d'Affaires of China here in Washington - Deputy Secretary Talbott's level. Perhaps that was the time when George was sharing that.

QUESTION: Yes, I was so intrigued with - (inaudible) - I didn't hear that.

MR. RUBIN: So we have had such a meeting, and urged them to go forward with the cross-Strait dialogue. With respect to the views, I think I've been quite clear: not only is it not beneficial to make statements that make the dialogue less likely or less successful, it' not beneficial to make statements that there shouldn't be a dialogue because of the original statement.

QUESTION: They're threatening statements.

MR. RUBIN: And so we've made quite clear that we don't think it's beneficial for either side to make these kind of statements. We want, and have always had, an abiding interest that this issue be resolved peacefully. So with regard to threatening statements, we've always been quite clear that we cannot support anything other than this issue being resolved peacefully.

QUESTION: You said that's part of what we heard?

MR. RUBIN: Right.

QUESTION: You're referring to in the meeting you heard the President say what he has been quoted?

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

QUESTION: Okay, just wanted to be sure.

QUESTION: Care to talk more about the Secretary's visit to Singapore next week, and how she will deal with this issue there?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I do expect her to meet with the Chinese Foreign Minister. At such meetings, it is normal for the subject of Taiwan to come up. At that meeting, she will reiterate our view that this issue should be resolved peacefully through cross-Strait dialogue and she will also work with the Chinese Foreign Minister on other issues, but I would expect this to arise.

QUESTION: On another issue that might come up, I understand there's somebody from the Department in Beijing to talk about compensation today. Do you have anything on that?

MR. RUBIN: Yes. The legal advisor, David Andrews, the Department's legal advisor, is going to be in Beijing for the next three days to meet with Chinese Foreign Ministry counterparts to follow up on our offer that Under Secretary Pickering made to provide a humanitarian payment to the victims' families of the errant bomb in Belgrade, and to discuss issues related to property damage.

That is the subject that they will be discussing for the next three days in a US delegation led by Department legal advisor, David Andrews.

QUESTION: When you say related to property damage, are you talking both about Beijing and Belgrade, or just Belgrade?

MR. RUBIN: He will be prepared to discuss the issue of the damage done to China's embassy in Belgrade. We understand the Chinese will discuss with us the issue of damage done to US property in China.

QUESTION: Just wondering - does that alter in any way, without going through the whole thing, but there was Pickering's explanation. There's a transcript. And it was brought out we asked about their desire then for another visit, more words, a written something or other; and the answer was, that's it, we're done.

MR. RUBIN: This is about one aspect of Under Secretary's Pickering's mission, which is the compensation question and the embassy property damage. These are much more technical issues. Under Secretary Pickering and his delegation were operating at a higher level.

QUESTION: And that's done with?

MR. RUBIN: And, as far as I know, that is all there is to that.

QUESTION: Very technically, how many people are in this delegation led by Andrews?

MR. RUBIN: At least - there will be members of legal staff from the Department of State and the Department of Defense. So it will be several.

QUESTION: I wanted to know if you have anything on the agreement that Britain and Argentina signed today on the Falklands.

MR. RUBIN: I do not. I will check on that and try to get back to you.

QUESTION: Just on the Linda Shenwick matter, are you able to tell me if anyone at the State Department was responsible for Ms. Shenwick being offered a position at the Department of Energy? And second, the June 30 letter from Barbara Larkin to Charles Grassley refers to the State Department's good faith settlement offers that would have allowed Ms. Shenwick to remain in New York in career enhancing positions. Do you know what those positions were?

MR. RUBIN: I know that the ability of the Department to talk about this issue in any detail has been constrained by Ms. Shenwick and her attorney's refusal to sign a waiver. I recall before I left that they appeared on the show Nightline. They presented elaborate descriptions of their side of the case, and yet refused to provide a waiver so that the Department could explain its positions, including the kind of detail that you have asked about. So pending Ms. Shenwick's willingness to sign a waiver of her privacy on this issue, I am constrained from discussing the matter in any significant detail in public.

QUESTION: On the same Holbrooke issue - has the State Department made any progress in convincing other senators, other than Grassley, to remove their holds now?

MR. RUBIN: Well, we continue to work on trying to ensure that unrelated subjects of disagreement between the Administration or partial agreement between the Administration and the Senate not be tied to or linked to in an unfair way the voting on a nominee. We think nominees should be voted on their merits, and we do not think that unrelated issues should be linked to them. That is our view. I would not be in a position to share with you the latest tally of anonymous holds.

QUESTION: Cuba. The President last night made some comments about reviewing the Cuban migration policy. I was wondering if you could elaborate a little on how you were looking into changing that?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I think that's probably more than the President said, but let me give you our view. Our commitment to the accords reached with Cuba in 1994 and 1995 remain unchanged. We must enforce our laws and protect our borders while directing migration into safe, legal and orderly channels to discourage irregular departures. We have programs that provide visas to at least 20,000 Cubans a year. That remains our policy and the President did not indicate a desire to change that.

As far as the question of the Coast Guard is concerned, as I understand it, the President indicated that he was concerned about aspects of one particular incident in the implementation of the Coast Guard's actions, and that he appreciates the Coast Guard's speedy action to investigate the incident and adjust practices accordingly. The President strongly supports the Coast Guard. The service has very difficult missions and performs it with professionalism. The President did echo some concerns voiced by Coast Guard leadership in the past regarding the use of pepper spray against migrants in the water. The policy on pepper spray has already changed.

The immediate problem that is posing a new challenge to the Coast Guard is the increased incidents of alien smuggling and aggressiveness by the migrants. Unlike in past cases, most migrants are now smuggled in criminal rings and some of them have threatened to harm themselves, other migrants with them and Coast Guard if interdiction is attempted. So we are not reviewing the migration policy in general. The broad migration policy remains the same. We must enforce our borders and our laws. What has happened is that we're working on some of the nuance details of how it is practiced.

QUESTION: Do you take any decision of the offer of the government of Cuba to give the United States some criminals involved in the traffic of human beings?

MR. RUBIN: I gather you asked that question to Mr. Foley several days ago. I'll get you his answer to it.

QUESTION: Jamie, since this is an on-the-record briefing and the one later today will not be, let's see if we can - at least let me try a couple of things to see if the US has an official position.

MR. RUBIN: I suspect we will. I'm ready, willing and able to help you out here.

QUESTION: I don't know; it may not be the same one you had two days ago, so let me do that one first.

MR. RUBIN: It always is - our positions never change, you know that.

QUESTION: Never changes - aspirations and all. I'm looking for Mr. Foley because had to deal with us two days ago and he might encourage -

MR. RUBIN: He's smiling, too.

QUESTION: Well, he hasn't heard the question.

(Laughter.)

The question is really whether it is the US view that implementation of Wye can be carried out simultaneously with final status talks. Now, State a couple of days ago said there was no contradiction between pursuing both simultaneously at the same time; and indeed, that seemed to be Arafat's view, so no problem.

Mr. Rahman, a senior Palestinian official, is being quoted now as saying Wye has to be carried out before we can get into the other stuff. So I wondered if the US still has the view that there's no problem doing both pretty much at the same time.

MR. RUBIN: That's a perfectly good question. I can't imagine even Mr. Foley getting upset by it.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Everybody was in agreement two days ago, and now it's tough because everybody may not be.

MR. RUBIN: They still are. Here's the situation; let me try to clarify it for you if you think it needs clarification.

At the time of the Wye agreement, it was envisaged that there would be three phases of further redeployment and that very soon after the signing of the agreement, that the permanent status talks could begin and be accelerated and moved very quickly. So there is nothing inconsistent about the implementation of an agreement already signed and the negotiation and discussion of an agreement for the future. Those two can happen at the same time. Just as we believe you can work on the peace process with Syria at the same time you can work on the peace process with the Palestinians and that you needn't put one over the other but can work on both, you can also implement an agreement even as you're working on the next agreement.

Obviously, we want to hear from Prime Minister Barak about his views as the best way to move forward. In that regard, let me say that it has long been our belief that the best way to resolve problems is through direct negotiations between the parties. One of the big challenges we've faced over the last several years is that there was a deterioration in the ability of the parties to negotiate and solve even small problems.

As a consequence and in order to prevent the process from collapsing, we had to play a role that we had neither envisaged for ourselves nor was in the best interest of the process of peacemaking.

Since Rabin's time, we have made it clear that we are a full partner in the peace process. We will do whatever we can to help promote the achievement of peace. But with respect to the specific role of the United States, as a result of the decline in trust and confidence between the parties and based on the provisions of the Wye River Memorandum, we assume certain responsibilities in support of the parties' efforts on security. Clearly, the more the parties can do themselves, the less we will need to be involved.

I know you didn't ask me about that, but it's related to the -

QUESTION: God knows, we know why you're saying it. And Mr. Miller, who is on the record in an article he wrote for Middle East Insight, added, and you were asked by the parties to play this role.

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

QUESTION: Now, the other - and you're answering, obviously, Barak's interviews with two newspapers.

MR. RUBIN: Why he didn't give interviews with the wire services, you'll have to take up with him.

QUESTION: I didn't ask you that. It's a Labor government; they have their priorities. Time table - Mr. Barak had some things to say about maybe the time table of Wye isn't really suitable. He might not want to follow it entirely. I suppose his position is that it's a tight time table. Do you have a view of that?

MR. RUBIN: Well, our view is the same as it's been since Wye was signed: we want both parties to implement the agreement that they were signed. If, of course, another arrangement can be made to the mutual satisfaction of both parties, that would be fine with us, too. But we believe that the agreement that was signed should be implemented.

QUESTION: You mean another arrangement or time table; you don't mean another agreement, do you?

MR. RUBIN: Or any other aspect. I mean, remember, this was an agreement that we believe can and should be implemented; and we think it can and should be implemented now. But if there is some desire to make modest adjustments and both sides agree to them, we would not stand in the way of that. But in the meantime, it is our view that the agreement should be implemented as signed - both parties should implement it as signed. That remains our policy.

QUESTION: When you talk about the agreement, as I recall, the agreement does in fact contain a very detailed time table. So the time table, in your understanding, is an intrinsic part of the agreement?

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

QUESTION: But if they want to change it, it's okay, I think you just said. If they want to adjust it.

MR. RUBIN: No, I think we've said from the beginning and have always said - and there's nothing new about us saying - that if there are issues the parties raise together with each other and they have issues where they want to move this a day or that a day, adjust this a point, that a point, there are myriad consultative mechanisms built into that agreement. You recall how many committees we had set up -

QUESTION: Modest adjustments, we'll call them.

MR. RUBIN: Pursuant to the consultative arrangements envisaged by the agreement. So we're not suggesting that the agreement should be changed. On the contrary, we think that both sides should implement the agreement, period, full stop.

QUESTION: Since this is taking on some importance, the time table in the agreement has now been superseded by -

MR. RUBIN: By what happened in the last government, yes.

QUESTION: How would you propose to reset the clock on that time table?

MR. RUBIN: Well, we are, again, what we'd like to do is to have the Prime Minister come here -- it's a new government - make clear his intentions. He's had a chance to talk to some of the leaders: Chairman Arafat, President Mubarak, King Abdullah. There have been several meetings. He is now going to have a chance to go through all this with the President. We would like to give him that chance, to go through with the President his ideas about how to move the peace process forward.

As I indicated not in response to a question, it has been our view that we only got involved to a level where we would answer questions like you just asked me - what is our view as to the best way to get started, what is our view as to how the time clock should be reset, what is our view on whether the terrorism fighting has reached the right threshold. Those are issues that we didn't use to get involved with. We used to be a partner in the peace process without getting involved in every single detail. We got involved in that because of a breakdown in trust and confidence.

We would far prefer a situation where Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat were able to restore the trust and confidence that existed before and that they could come up with ways to restart the clock or make any modest adjustments or do any other aspect of the peace process directly, without the need for the United States to play a role on even the most simple and small problem.

QUESTION: On the Syrian track, in that case there may be greater need for US participation in at least setting up initial meetings. Do you have any thoughts at this stage on how you might go about that process?

MR. RUBIN: Again, that's the kind of question that I think others may be willing to entertain after Prime Minister Barak has come and shared with us his views on how to move forward on all the tracks.

QUESTION: Back on the Wye timetable, though, it's fair to say that the United States is relatively hopeful that this can be achieved now?

MR. RUBIN: Yes. Yes. It's the stated policy of the Prime Minister of Israel and the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority.

QUESTION: Have you seen the statement by the Palestinian Authority that basically they're going ahead with this Geneva meeting, but they're making it a non-substantive meeting - (inaudible) -- say a couple of words and then split.

MR. RUBIN: Sort of like a background briefing.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: They're going to hold it on background?

MR. RUBIN: That might be an improvement. We should have thought of that. We made it clear that we don't think this meeting should take place at all, either now or at a later date. The Geneva Convention should not be politicized in this way. It will not be a productive way of resolving the issue of settlements. This is an issue to be dealt with in permanent status negotiations between the parties, not in international conferences.

So not only do we think it's a bad idea politically, we think legally it is highly questionable; because a meeting of the parties to address application or enforcement is not provided for by the Convention and is inconsistent with the Convention's treaty regime. The Convention does contain enforcement provisions, but these do not entail highly public meetings of the parties.

Indeed, during subsequent negotiations of the Protocol in 1977, the idea of meetings of this sort was specifically considered and rejected precisely for fear of politicizing these instruments. That is our political and legal view of that meeting.

QUESTION: Given the fact that they are going ahead with the meeting despite your strong feelings, is it a good idea, you think, if they just do a pro-forma session?

MR. RUBIN: Well, given the view that we didn't think there should be a meeting at all, the shorter and the less significant the meeting is the better.

QUESTION: Apropos the US role in the peace talks, a warm reception obviously is being planned for Barak. How important do you think warm personal relations between US and Israeli leaders are for progress to be made in the peace process?

MR. RUBIN: Look, at the end of the day, the real decisions about peace in the Middle East are made based on the national interests of Israel and the other parties concerned. They are not made based on good feelings; they're made on hard-headed, national interest calculations.

However, given the nature of the peace process, where trust and confidence is part of what gives the other side the confidence to move forward in a very difficult situation, we do think it is important for the President and the Israeli Prime Minister to have a close, warm relationship -- the kind of relationship that our two peoples have and our two countries have. There is no closer ally for the United States than Israel in the region, and we've had incredibly warm ties between our two peoples. The closer the relationship between the President and the Prime Minister, the better it is for avoiding miscommunication, avoiding problems before they get out of control and being able to have the United States do all we can do to assist the process of promoting peace in the Middle East.

QUESTION: Okay, I'm going to try a question on Iran. There was another large demonstration today in Tehran, which was government-sponsored - people bussed in, things were very quiet. Do you think that this is the end of this wave of protest; is there anything else?

MR. RUBIN: And I'm going to try to answer. We believe that the current events in Iran are significant. We're obviously following them closely. Without an embassy, we are not in a position to follow developments on the ground as closely as we would like, and it is difficult to make authoritative assessment about events which are rapidly unfolding. So we're not going to speculate about it. That is what I have for you.

QUESTION: Follow up?

MR. RUBIN: A follow-up on that?

(Laughter.)

I welcome you to try.

QUESTION: Not on that. I guess in part. Obviously today -- in the rally today - or the demonstration - some people were chanting "Death to America." And there are some statements coming from some of the extremists that the US and other countries have been behind the six days of protest. I mean, how concerned is the US about that?

MR. RUBIN: Well, we think it's utter nonsense to suggest the United States is behind what's going on there. The United States doesn't interfere in the internal affairs of Iran. We do have differences with the policies of the Iranian regime, but not the regime per se. We have differences on terrorism, on the pursuit of peace in the Middle East, on weapons of mass destruction. We've been quite clear on that. None of the events of the last few days have changed our interest in having a dialogue with the government of Iran on the issues that concern us and them. That view has not changed.

QUESTION: Without an embassy, can you - where is the US? Where is the State Department getting its information?

MR. RUBIN: A variety of sources.

QUESTION: Such as other embassies there?

MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't be able to specify the ways in which we get information, but in a case like this, much information comes from the media.

QUESTION: Are you in any sense disappointed that President Khatami has not taken a more forceful stand in favor of freedom of expression and so on?

MR. RUBIN: Given the distance and the lack of an embassy and the lack of perfect assessment, we're not privy to the internal decision-making, and therefore wouldn't want to make a judgment like that.

QUESTION: Without an embassy there perhaps there could still be some concern here in Washington. Has the concern about the stability there changed at all, six days into the --

MR. RUBIN: Well, I think we've expressed our - we've deplored the use of violence against people pursuing their freedom of expression and their freedom of speech; we've condemned the use of violence. We want everyone to have the right in Iran and everywhere in the world to demonstrate peacefully. We believe in the rule of law in Iran and everywhere else.

QUESTION: On India, according to an ad in world newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, India Globe and so forth, army and the government in Pakistan they are divided on Kashmir, on India-Pakistan conflict. Now, according to this ad, army in Pakistan has its fingers on the nuclear button. That means it can - (inaudible). And the Indian- American community for the first time in Washington in front of the Pakistan Embassy tomorrow is holding a demonstration in protest against Pakistan terrorism and human rights and also mutilation of the Indian soldiers. And what they're demanding is really just like in the case of Kosovo and Yugoslav leader -- that US State Department or the UN or world leadership should consider putting Nawaz Sharif and his army leaders responsible behind brutalizing, killing the Indian soldiers on a war crimes trial.

MR. RUBIN: I can assure those protesters that there's no consideration being given for their idea.

QUESTION: Do you have anything new on the American woman being detained in North Korea?

MR. RUBIN: Nothing new.

QUESTION: Well, do you have any comment or reaction to the arrest of the Shining Path leader by the Peruvian Government?

MR. RUBIN: The capture of Feliciano, the senior Shining Path leader who is still at-large, is a major blow to the Shining Path. We hope that it helps to end the terrorism that has long plagued Peru.

QUESTION: There have been a number of reports of systematic human rights abuses and use of torture by the Peruvian Army. This isn't new, of course; the late Bella Abzug in 1993 had said there were more rapes committed by the Peruvian Army than by the Shining Path. Then yesterday in The Washington Post, there was a long article on President Fujimori's covert suppression of the press in Peru. What is our position on all of these questions?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I think our position on Peru with respect to human rights and women's rights and freedom of the press is laid out very carefully in our human rights report, which I don't have in front of me but I'd be happy to get you the relevant section of.

QUESTION: This is going on and on and on and on under that administration.

QUESTION: I have one more on Colombia. The Defense Minister of Colombia is arriving tonight and he is going to have some meetings with the US Government. My question is if there is any plans for him to meet somebody from this Department?

MR. RUBIN: The new Colombian Minister of Defense and Chief of Staff are scheduled to arrive in Washington for meetings with US officials on the peace process. There are meetings scheduled at the State Department, I believe, with Under Secretary Pickering, Under Secretary Loy and Acting Assistant Secretary Romero.

These meetings occur on a regular basis and are a part of our broad bilateral agenda with the Pastrana Administration. We expect that the Colombians will also discuss the recent fighting in Colombia, where the Colombian security forces successfully rebuffed a series of nationwide FARC attacks and inflicted heavy casualties on the FARC.

At the State Department, the Minister and General Tapias will meet with the under secretaries, as I said. We understand they also have appointments at the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

QUESTION: Bennett Freeman recently went to Vietnam with a list of people that the US Government regards as political prisoners. Can you say whether anything has come of that meeting?

MR. RUBIN: I had something on that meeting that was taken away from me at the last minute.

QUESTION: Yesterday you said something about it.

MR. RUBIN: We're going to get you that; sorry.

QUESTION: This is on Serbia. Would the United States or NATO consider providing some healthcare to the areas that have been affected by large gas leaks and chemical leaks? Is there some humanitarian effort to deal with that?

MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of any plan to do that. We have no independent assessment of the damage resulting from the bombing of the Pancevo oil refinery, if that's what you're referring to. During the air campaign, NATO made every effort to reduce collateral damage to the absolute minimum. The Pancevo oil refinery was a very important strategic target, as it was providing petroleum and other elements to Serbian forces carrying out the attacks and atrocities in Kosovo. By striking the refinery, NATO cut off supplies of crucial material to those forces.

I'm not aware we're making any consideration at this time to deal with that specifically. I am aware that we do have a policy of support for humanitarian supplies - that is, food and medicine - to the people of Serbia. That is all that we've decided. We will obviously want to apply that humanitarian criteria to real problems. To the extent there are problems, we would want to provide medicines that could deal with those problems. How extensive that would be and when humanitarian medicines become some other form of assistance, I'm not qualified to answer.

QUESTION: Jamie, on the subject I raised yesterday concerning Japan, North Korea and the potential for a missile launch, does this Administration have reason to believe that the North Koreans are making progress toward their missile launch, in spite of all the negative reaction from Korea, from Japan? Is this nervousness on the part of the Japanese indicative of something to come?

MR. RUBIN: Let me say that we and Japan and the Republic of Korea, South Korea, continue to consult closely on issues related to North Korea. We have indicated that another North Korean missile launch will have serious consequences for our relations. Japan and South Korea have made public comments along the same lines.

What I know is that speaking from this podium of what we know and don't know about North Korean missile preparations would be undermining the national interest and our ability to ascertain important information like that; and thus, I don't intend to engage in a dialogue about it.

I do have an answer for you in the back. I'm not in a position to provide you intelligence information on what the intentions or capabilities of North Korea are with respect to any imminent launch.

QUESTION: Cannot comment with regard to progress toward launch; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

QUESTION: One more on North Korea.

MR. RUBIN: Hold on. In the back, we did share a list of people - this is on Vietnam -- that we believe are held as prisoners of conscience. We welcomed the release last year of a number of prisoners, including some who had been on our list before. We continue to urge the Vietnamese Government to release those held for the peaceful expression of their views, and the Administration continues to pursue gradual normalization of our relationship with Vietnam. This includes the extension of normal trade relation status to Vietnam once a bilateral trade agreement, which is currently under negotiation, has been concluded and approved by Congress.

QUESTION: Are these meetings over?

MR. RUBIN: I believe they are finished, yes.

QUESTION: Jamie, any idea how many are on that list?

MR. RUBIN: I'll have to check whether we can provide sort of a rough number on that. Can you check on that?

QUESTION: India is holding a vessel from North Korea, which they said was carrying nuclear parts and other nuclear material headed to Pakistan.

MR. RUBIN: I think they said missile parts, but anyway.

QUESTION: -- to Pakistan.

MR. RUBIN: Right, missile parts, not nuclear parts. But that is what the press reports say, and I will have to keep it at press reports for now. So I don't have any additional information for you.

QUESTION: Can I go back to Colombia? This week in The Washington Post, there was a story saying that the US Government is giving intelligence information to the Colombian army about the movements and whereabouts the FARC leaders. I just want to know if you can confirm that.

MR. RUBIN: Our basic intelligence-sharing policy with regard to Colombia is, as Barry would say, unchanged. We share intelligence with Colombian security forces in support of Colombia's counter-narcotics efforts. The amended policy is intended to ensure that information can be passed which is critical to the protection of both Colombian security forces involved in counter-narcotics efforts and US Government and personnel and contractors providing technical assistance and training.

We have explicit guarantees from the government of Colombia that shared information will be used only for the purposes for which it is intended and will not be shared with any outside groups. If information comes to our attention that this intelligence is being misused or passed to others, we will reconsider the policy. To date we have no such information.

QUESTION: Jamie, you said that this is unchanged, and then you said amended. Did I mishear that?

QUESTION: When was it amended?

MR. RUBIN: The overall policy remains unchanged; and as far as the amendment was concerned, the last one was March 1999.

QUESTION: You amended it?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, in the way that I just suggested. So the way I just suggested is the amended public version -

QUESTION: So it has changed, then?

MR. RUBIN: No, what I was pointing out - if you want to get into this quibble, you're welcome to; we could do it for another hour, hour and a half - that our overall policy never changes. I nodded in the direction of Barry, as I said that, because that's what we always say.

However, I wanted to answer the question, so I offered an answer to the question, which was that there was an amendment to the policy that never changes -

(Laughter.)

- and I offered you the substance of that amendment.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- changes, not here.

QUESTION: I have a very strange question for the State Department. There's a fountain across the street from the Press Office and the sign said, "Drink water at your own risk - you might get killed." I drank some water there. I mean, are you worried about the safety of the Press Office?

(Laughter.)

MR. RUBIN: Can we have him examined immediately?

(The briefing concluded at 2:00 P.M.)

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article