U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #97, 99-08-02
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
655
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, August 2, 1999
Briefer: James P. Rubin
STATEMENTS
1 Rebel Signature of Congo Peace Agreement
1 Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (DV-2001)
CHINA
1-5 US talks with Beijing / Cross-Strait Dialogue / Seizure of Taiwan
Freighter /
7 Long-Range Missile Launch / US Missile Tracking Vessels / Dong Feng
31 / US Arms Sales to Taiwan / Democracy Party Organizers Sentenced
MEPP
5&6 Implementation of Wye River Agreement / Russia's Role in the Middle
East Talks
NORTH KOREA
7-9 Four Party Talks / Bilateral Talks in Geneva / US-North Korean
Development / Nuclear Capability / US-North Korea Multilateral
Agreement
11 Food Supply Situation
SERBIA (KOSOVO)
9&10 Newsweek Report / General Clark
MOZAMBIQUE
10 Opening of Embassy Maputo
DEPARTMENT
10 Official Commemoration Events in Washington, D.C. to honor those
who lost their lives in the 1998 bombings in Nairobi and Dar Es
Salaam.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #97
MONDAY, AUGUST 2, 1999, 12:30 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: This is a Monday and this is an on-time performance. I hope
you all noted that. It might even be worthy of news because that might be
all we get out of today.
(Laughter.)
I've looked carefully, and that could be it. We have two statements we're
going to be releasing after the briefing. One is on the signature of one of
the rebel factions to the Congo peace agreement, and also we have an entire
statement and package on the new diversity immigrant visa lottery that will
begin at noon on Monday, October 4, 1999, and we have a package on that
that we have for you.
With those statements, let me turn to your questions. Mr. Schweid.
QUESTION: New but familiar "we'll-smash-you" rhetoric coming from Beijing
to Taiwan. You've just had extensive talks with the Chinese, presumably
asking them to lower their rhetoric. Any reflections on the new tough
tone?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I don't know how to characterize it. Clearly, China has
never ruled out the use of force, and they continue to adopt that view. We
continue to believe that this conflict must be resolved peacefully, and we
continue to believe that neither side should make statements or take
actions that would make the Cross-Strait dialogue more difficult to occur.
So we do not support statements that make that dialogue more difficult.
QUESTION: What about the ship -- (inaudible) --
MR. RUBIN: With respect to the ship, we are aware of the reports of the
seizure and are waiting for greater clarification.
I would note that the vice chairman of the Taiwan Straits Exchange
Foundation indicates that Taiwan does not believe there is a relationship
between the controversy over Taiwan's recent statement about state-to-state
relations and this particular seizure.
We hope the two sides will resolve this matter in an appropriate fashion,
as they have similar incidents involving the seizure of vessels in the
past.
QUESTION: Can you give a reaction to China's testing of a ballistic
missile today?
MR. RUBIN: With respect to the missile, let me say that this missile
involves technology that we're quite familiar with. It's a new missile -
but its range is similar to already existing missiles developed by China.
We have expected this test for some time. We have no indication that China
intends to sell or otherwise transfer technology used in this missile. So
it's a test - we expected it's part of their intercontinental ballistic
missile program that we're quite familiar with.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up? On the one hand we're trying to prevent
the North Koreans from test launching a ballistic missile and we have the
Chinese now test launching. Is there no stronger reaction from the US that
we feel that this is something that's unhelpful in light of the fact that
we want the Chinese to put pressure on the North Koreans?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think there's nothing new about China having medium
and long range missiles; they've had them for a long, long time. What we're
trying to do is to stop a situation before the genie gets out of the bottle,
or the missile gets out of the program, that would prevent North Korea from
becoming a country that could have long range missiles. China already
has long range missiles, and therefore the fact that they've tested
a new missile is not a dramatic new development that requires massive
effort and diplomacy to try to deter.
On the North Korean side, we also are dealing with the regime that has not
shown responsibility in a number of cases around the world - a regime that
we have major problems with. So that's the difference.
QUESTION: Except the North Koreans have also launched a missile.
MR. RUBIN: Right. Again, if you want to do statistics with me, I'll do
it. If you've tested missiles thousands of times and you have hundreds of
missiles and you do another test, you haven't dramatically improved the
capability of your missile program. If you've only tested a missile once in
a particular mode and then you test a missile again in a different mode,
you are now developing a missile capability. That is the essence of
missile technology.
QUESTION: Can we put it in the context of things we've been talking
about? Does the State Department get any impression that nerves are jangled
- Japan, et cetera? I mean, this is having an effect, isn't it, on that
area?
MR. RUBIN: Which missile?
QUESTION: No, no, not just the North Korean missile; the various things
China is doing.
MR. RUBIN: We have no - there haven't been any extraordinary military
developments in this area, in our view. We do not think it would be
beneficial for either side to take steps to increase tensions, and we've
urged dialogue. So we haven't seen any extraordinary military developments
in the form of exercises or other preparations that we watch very
carefully.
QUESTION: One thing that is unusual is that the Chinese announced this
test of this ground-to-ground missile, which is unusual. Is that the sort
of thing that you consider to be unhelpful? The announcement itself?
MR. RUBIN: Well, let me say this - the more that China is open about its
military programs, the better for the world. This is not a country that's
used to providing a lot of information about its own programs. The more
they do that, the less unusual it will appear to you or anybody else.
We do not have any basis to conclude that the timing of this launch is
linked to the issues with Taiwan. This test firing has been expected for
some time, and why they specifically chose today is something for them to
explain. But it's not an unexpected development in the course of their
modernization program.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the US missile tracking vessels
patrolling Northeast Asia, presumably with an eye toward watching what the
North Koreans do?
MR. RUBIN: Well, let me say this - it should be no secret that we have
trained a number of assets for a long time on the question of trying to
detect developments in North Korea in the missile and nuclear area. I
wouldn't be in a position to comment on any specific asset, but clearly
that's something we watch closely.
QUESTION: The fact that you haven't seen any extraordinary military
developments on behalf of China, do you consider that significant?
MR. RUBIN: That's a good question. I'm just trying to process it through
my brain. It's certainly significant that they have not taken any
significant development, in the sense that we're all watching very closely
what's going on in this part of the world and if they did take an
extraordinary action, that would be significant and we would obviously have
to take that into account in formulating our day-to-day policies.
Whether this means that China will eventually and Taiwan will eventually
find a way to resume the dialogue that we have been advocating, or whether
this is the beginning of slow steps by China to move away from those
dialogue is a question that can only be answered over time. The fact that
there have not been extraordinary military developments isn't a definitive
indicator that they're going in either direction.
QUESTION: You said it's not a new missile, but do you have any other
information about what kind of missile it was; what its range was and
whether, in fact, it was only launched on Chinese territory - where it was
launched from?
MR. RUBIN: I can tell you that the reported range of the missile is in
the 5,000-mile category and it's apparently capable of carrying a 1,500
pound weapon. The Dong Feng 31 is its nomenclature by the Chinese. This was
put out by the Chinese news agency. I don't have additional information of
our own to offer you.
QUESTION: Have the Chinese reacted angrily to the announcement on Friday
that the US is going to sell, or proposed sale of, fighter planes?
(Inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: Well, with respect to this issue, let me say that we should
have our guidance better organized. I'll be right with you. Ah-ha, it was
well organized; it was the briefer who was badly organized.
We do make available to Taiwan arms of a defensive character to enable
Taiwan to make a sufficient self-defense capability. We notified Congress
on Friday of our intent to sell E-2T early warning aircraft and aircraft
spare parts to Taiwan. The estimated cost for these two sales is approximately
$550 million.
We believe these sales are fully consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act
and the various communiques. We have supplied aircraft spare parts to
Taiwan for 20 years; Taiwan already has E-2T aircraft in it's inventory. So
there is nothing of a new character here that's a dramatic new development.
It is common and expected for China to complain about any transfer of parts
or aircraft like this. They have done so, and we have responded that it's
fully within our policy of providing for Taiwan's self-defense pursuant to
the Taiwan Relations Act. We regularly receive their complaints about such
sales and transfers and we regularly respond, as I just did.
QUESTION: Okay, I'm curious why the Chinese have complained about this --
especially given the current tensions. Why isn't the US, then, taking any
kind of a stronger position on this Chinese missile? It would seem to me to
somewhat related in the fact that it's taking place in the same environment;
and in fact the Chinese themselves - or some analysts in China - have said
that the Chinese know or the Chinese were expecting no protests from the US
over this missile test simply because of the fact that Washington
is so eager to mend its relations with Beijing. Is that at all true?
MR. RUBIN: Well, the previous question you were asking me about sending
announced transfers of aircraft and spare parts to Taiwan that irritated
China, and now you've asked me why we're being nice to China about the
other missile. So obviously we're doing what these analysts are suggesting.
Let me say that analysts have to analyze because otherwise they wouldn't
get paid. But what we've tried to do is to pursue the same policy that we
have for some time, which is to use available ways and means to encourage
dialogue, to continue to provide Taiwan the defense it needs, to judge
developments based on the facts and not speculation. As I indicated, we
have no reason to believe or no basis to conclude that the long-expected
long-range missile test was related and is related to the Taiwan situation.
Therefore, we can't make policy or judgments based on speculation the
way analysts can.
QUESTION: On one of the talk shows over the weekend it was suggested that
the situation with General Clark is --
MR. RUBIN: Let's just make sure that everybody's done with Taiwan. Is
everybody done?
QUESTION: This is related to China.
MR. RUBIN: Related to China?
QUESTION: You'll like this one. It was suggested that his being moved out
- for lack of a better word - from the position was the head that China was
looking to have roll as a result of the bombing of its embassy in Belgrade.
Can you comment on that?
MR. RUBIN: I've heard a lot over the last week and in the aftermath of
this announcement and that's the first time I've ever heard that from
anybody inside or outside of the government.
QUESTION: Israel and the Palestinians --
MR. RUBIN: And are we done with Taiwan and China?
QUESTION: I have a China question. Two more members of the China
Democracy Party were apparently just sentenced to long prison terms. I
wonder whether you have any comment on that situation.
MR. RUBIN: We do deplore this sentencing of citizens merely for their
pursuit of the right of free expression, for exercising their internationally
recognized freedoms. We have made our views known for some time when these
sentences were first received. We continue to be deeply concerned by the
crackdown of organized political dissent in China that is ongoing.
According to available information, in recent weeks there have been five
political activists sentenced since May. None of these activists have done
anything other than exercise rights protected by international human rights
instruments. These new arrests continue the steps that China has already
taken - steps that we have identified as steps in the wrong direction.
QUESTION: I'd like to figure out exactly what the Israelis are doing -
the new government - on the West Bank - setting a deadline to give up some
land but then again asking for a delay of final stages. And the Palestinians
are issuing this despairing statements I don't know what the US - maybe you
feel half a loaf is better than none -- but do you have any response to all
this? How are you calibrating your interaction?
MR. RUBIN: That was really one of those just draw it out there --
QUESTION: I can't figure out what they're doing, frankly.
MR. RUBIN: Right. Let me say this -- even with the best of intentions,
it's not surprising that the differences that developed over three years
will not be worked out overnight. The Israeli Government has said that it
will implement the Wye River Memorandum, and there has been no change in
that commitment as far as we know. But even with the best of intentions,
it's going to take time to work out these differences. We expect this to be
difficult.
What's important now and new now and something we're encouraged by is that
there is real contact, effective contact, greater contact and discussions
between the two parties themselves without the need for the United States
to involve itself in every single way. Whether that will prove to yield
progress or not is an open question. But certainly we think that there's a
will to deal with each other directly that we encourage and we are
supportive of.
Clearly, both sides will need to work together if we're going to determine
ways and means to carry out and implement the Wye River agreement. So we're
therefore pleased that those discussions are continuing. I think there's
often a difference between what's going on behind the scenes and what be
said publicly; that would be the first time that you would find that in
this part of the world.
QUESTION: I haven't checked in the last five minutes but I thought the
lower-level talks - the Palestinians - (inaudible) - canceled or broken
down, no?
MR. RUBIN: They had an initial meeting. I don't know where the next set
of meetings stand. I'm just telling you that our impression is that the
discussions that are going on privately tend to be a little more constructive
than the characterizations some might put on them.
QUESTION: Is the US part of those private - no - you're saying no.
MR. RUBIN: There's a direct -- it's direct.
QUESTION: As you know, Prime Minister Barak is in Moscow right now. Is
there a useful and a helpful role that Russia can play in the Middle East
Talks; and if so, what is that role?
MR. RUBIN: Russia is a fellow cosponsor with the United States of this
whole process and has been constructive cosponsor of the process for some
time. To the extent that Russia can encourage those it has influence on to
be as constructive as possible in pursuing ideas that can lead to real
solutions to these problems, then I think Russia can be helpful. I think
that to the extent that Russia, for example, can encourage Syria to adopt
positions that will make it easier to achieve solutions, then they can
be a constructive player.
They are constructive in the sense that they, like the United States, are
co-hosts and we've always worked very well with them in the various ways we
need to do. To the extent they have unique leverage or unique influence in
some of these countries in the region, it would be helpful for them to
encourage constructive positions. Whether that occurs or not is obviously
an open question in the weeks and months ahead.
QUESTION: Back to Asia and North Korea, tomorrow and Wednesday I
understand there's going to be bilateral talks in Geneva ahead of the Four
Party Talks. What exactly is going to be discussed in particular in the
bilat between the US and the North Korean side?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we normally have bilateral discussions with all of the
participants in the Four Party Talks, and so clearly, we would be talking
about the importance of focusing on the substantive work of tension
reduction on the Peninsula. We will be looking for small first steps that
could be taken to reduce tensions on the Peninsula. Some of the bilateral
discussions will be, obviously, focused on things that we're going to say
in the larger group soon thereafter.
In addition, we will take the opportunity to make clear that we have strong
concerns about a possible missile launch, and that we have been indicating
to the North Koreans for some time. As you know, the Secretary in Singapore
also pointed out the possibilities and the opportunities that exist for a
more effective and greater relationship with North Korea, if we can work
ourselves through these problems.
So I think the message to North Korea in the bilateral meeting will involve
this positive potential for the future, as well as making clear our serious
concerns about the missile test if it occurs.
QUESTION: Well, hasn't Japan --
MR. RUBIN: Do you want to follow up?
QUESTION: I just want to ask if you know which day that the US-North
Korea talks is.
MR. RUBIN: The timing of these talks - the plenary begins on August 5 and
will be proceeded by deputy preparatory meetings on the 4th. The bilateral -
-
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: Do you have a date on it? I think the 3rd, it looks like that
will be on the 3rd; so that's two days.
QUESTION: Bilaterals with each of the --
MR. RUBIN: It's normal, customary to have ways to meet with the other
three of the four.
QUESTION: I don't know if the Department has responded because I can't
remember -- I've been away, and so have you, I guess - to Japan's threat to
perhaps stop the economic assistance promised under the old agreement about
North Korea turning off its nuclear program. Has State - (inaudible) -
various ways. How do you feel about that way? That's a little bit --
MR. RUBIN: We've taken the view that we think that regardless of what
serious consequences there might be for the potential for the US-North
Korean development, if the North Koreans test we shouldn't cut off our nose
to spite our face. The agreed framework has played a critical role in
preventing North Korea from developing nuclear capability in large measure;
that it has frozen these particular capabilities at Yongbyon; that, as you
know, when we had concerns about another site that developed that enabled
us to go an inspect that site and ensure that it won't be used for
their nuclear weapons program.
So the agreed framework is a very important instrument that benefits the
security of the United States and the countries in the region, and we would
intend and want to see that program and agreement continued even if we have
problems and serious concerns about the missiles.
QUESTION: So, Jamie, what would the serious consequences be, then?
MR. RUBIN: I think we've been very careful not to spell those out and I
don't intend to change that today.
QUESTION: Have you spelled them out to the North Koreans in specificity?
MR. RUBIN: I don't intend to discuss that issue in any greater detail.
QUESTION: Do you have any reason to believe that you'll get any response
from the North Koreans to the Perry framework tomorrow?
MR. RUBIN: If they know what's in - if they see what's their own interest,
they will see that moving towards a better relationship with the United
States based on better practices and better agreements on the missile side
and on the nuclear side and on a number of other issues will bring great
benefit to the people of North Korea. If their calculus is based on what is
good for the people of North Korea, we believe that they will see
the benefit of improving relations with us.
QUESTION: Have you got any heads-up that they were prepared to sort of
address this issue?
MR. RUBIN: Which issue?
QUESTION: The issue of the presentation that Dr. Perry made.
MR. RUBIN: You're asking - please reformulate the question; I don't
understand it.
QUESTION: Have you gotten any indication that when this bilateral meeting
takes place on the 3rd that you will get any formal reply from the North
Koreans to - (inaudible) --
MR. RUBIN: The first - I see -- I don't believe we see this as a dramatic
meeting; but you never know.
QUESTION: I mean, do you think that the agreed framework, which is a
multilateral agreement and also depends on the US and on Congress' funding
certain aspects of it - do you think it would survive a second North Korean
missile test?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we think that if the United States and the other
countries do what's in the United States' and the other countries' interest,
rather than, as I said, cutting off our nose to spite our face, they would
see that the agreed framework serves America's interest and the world's
interest by preventing North Korea from becoming a dangerous nuclear
weapons state.
The fact that they may increase their missile capability doesn't change the
fact that we wouldn't want them to become a nuclear weapons state. Arguably,
it makes it even more important. So if the members of Congress and the
other people involved make a calculation based on what's in the national
security interest of our country, they would not want to throw the baby out
with the bath water and lose the benefits that this agreed framework
provides to us.
QUESTION: Jamie, could you comment on a Newsweek report that said that
General Clark and Mike Jackson were clashing because -- during the time the
Russians took over the Pristina airport. It also says that Clark was ready
to do a full airborne assault on the airport and occupy the airport but the
Brits wouldn't pay attention and wouldn't listen to him. Could you comment
on that and --
MR. RUBIN: It was interesting reading, and I think it's really up to
historians to talk about what did or didn't happen during that period.
QUESTION: So you're saying the report is false or that this didn't
happen?
MR. RUBIN: I think it's up to historians to write and talk about what
transpired during that period. It's just not relevant anymore.
QUESTION: The Secretary was face-to-face with Jackson at that point --
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
QUESTION: Did she offer him any advice on anything remotely like
that?
MR. RUBIN: It was an interesting meeting.
QUESTION: It was a long meeting; it was much longer than anybody --
MR. RUBIN: Some of us had to wait and some of us got to listen.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, she must have had some things to say.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Did she get a straighter answer than she got from the Russian
Foreign Minister that day?
MR. RUBIN: We got straight and effective and good answers from General
Jackson, yes.
QUESTION: At the time of that meeting, you didn't have any idea that the
Russians were getting ready to - at least you told us that there was no
hint of that at the time of the meeting.
MR. RUBIN: No, I didn't say that; I remember that day very well. That was
the meeting in which General Jackson informed the Secretary of State that
the Russians were moving towards Kosovo and had left their locations in
Bosnia, hadn't yet crossed the border into Serbia. That was precisely the
meeting in which that information was provided to the Secretary.
QUESTION: That was the same - it was in minutes or maybe hours when she
also heard from Ivanov that the Russians were not going to do this;
correct?
MR. RUBIN: That's also true. You guys have great memories. You should
probably provide some information to those historians who are going to be
working on this subject.
QUESTION: It was a big day.
QUESTION: Is the embassy - I understand the embassy in Mozambique has
reopened; is that correct?
MR. RUBIN: Yes; it reopened on Friday, actually.
QUESTION: You want to mark any anniversary while you're at it?
MR. RUBIN: No, Wednesday we're going to brief on the -- August 7 - there
will be briefing here.
QUESTION: Can you also say something about the - not today - whatever -
about the - that little display that's downstairs now with all that?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, Wednesday will be a full briefing on all those issues in
lieu of the daily briefing.
QUESTION: Are events planned on August 7?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, there are events planned on the 7th of August; I can give
you more detail after the briefing. But we will have a full-fledged
briefing here on Wednesday, leading up to the August 7 anniversary.
QUESTION: Is there a real crisis, as was described this morning, in the
Israeli-Palestinian negotiations?
MR. RUBIN: I think I responded to that.
QUESTION: Sorry.
QUESTION: Another - back to North Korea - are there any updates on the
food supply situation in the North? I understand they've had a drought and
now a flood. What's their outlook for this year's --
MR. RUBIN: Let me get you some information.
QUESTION: You've got some? Okay.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:00 P.M.)
|
