U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #103, 99-08-12
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
794
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Thursday, August 12, 1999
Briefer: James P. Rubin
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 Secretary Albright will address Seeds of Peace on Monday.
1 Under Secretary Pickering will brief on his Latin American trip on
Monday.
1 Secretary Albright statement that US is concerned by the
pre-election situation in East Timor.
INDIA / PAKISTAN
2-3 US regrets deaths of Pakistani crewmen and continues to call on
both countries to exercise restraint.
2 US unable to confirm where Pakastani plane was flying when shot down.
INDONESIA
3 US deplores the recent violence in Ambon and other parts of Indonesia.
PANAMA
4 US has seen no interest on the part of China to disrupt Canal
operations.
CHINA (TIBET)
4-6 The Dalai Lama is visiting the US in his capacity as a religious
and spiritual leader.
6 US supports preservation of Tibetan religious culture and
linguistic heritage and protection of human rights.
6 US regards Tibet as a part of China.
ISRAEL
6-7 Minister of Justice Yossi Be'elin met with the Secretary today.
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
7 Most ongoing Israeli-Palestinian discussions are bilateral and direct.
7-8 No change in US view of Palestinian compliance with anti-terrorism
provisions.
IRAQ
8 US continues to hold Saddam Hussein responsible for the suffering
of the Iraqi people.
8 Oil-for-food program works in areas where Saddam Hussein isn't
manipulating the medicines and supplies.
RUSSIA
9-10 US condemns actions by armed groups from Chechnya against
authorities and civilians in Dagestan.
9 US urges all parties to refrain from harming innocent civilians.
CAMBODIA
10-11 US will continue to press for a speedy trial of former Khmer Rouge
leaders under international auspices.
CUBA
11-12 US will not comment on possible violation of Helms-Burton by a
Spanish company.
GENEVA CONVENTION
12-13 Today is the 50th anniversary.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #103
THURSDAY, AUGUST 12, 1999, 1:05 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Welcome to the State Department briefing. I have two
announcements for you. One is that Secretary Albright will be offering
welcoming remarks on Monday to the 1999 Seeds of Peace International Camp
for Conflict Resolution at 3:00 p.m. in the Dean Acheson Auditorium. In
addition, Under Secretary Pickering will be available on Monday to brief
you, we understand - I'm not sure we have a time yet - on his trip to South
America.
On behalf of Secretary Albright, let me also say - and this will come out
in a full statement shortly - that on August 30, the people of East Timor
will have the chance to accept or reject autonomy; an opportunity many
thought could never be realized. By allowing this process to go forward,
the government of Indonesia has demonstrated its renewed commitment to
democracy. Formal campaigning for this vote begins this weekend.
In that light, let me say the United States is deeply concerned by the acts
of violence and intimidation which have already marred the pre-campaign
period. It is critical, both to ensure a fair vote and to preserve the
credibility of Indonesia's own transition, that Jakarta meet its obligation
to provide a secure environment and promote the disarmament of all
paramilitary forces in East Timor.
The government of Indonesia has repeatedly assured the United States and
other nations that it will fulfill its responsibility to provide security
immediately after August 30, and other nations that it will fulfill its
responsibility as well, regardless of the outcome. Indonesia is also
finalizing an agreement with the United Nations to insure that the valuable
UN civil and military presence continues after August 30. The United States
will do its part to make sure this UN presence remains a robust one.
Indonesian officials - some officials - and anti-independence militia
leaders have suggested in recent days that a vote for independence will
result in extensive violence or even civil war. This is intimidation, or
worse; it is unacceptable.
Secretary Albright takes this opportunity to remind all concerned in the
strongest possible terms that they are obligated to respect the results of
the referendum and provide genuine security for all East Timorese. The
return of widespread violence to East Timor would be a needless tragedy and
would cast serious doubt on Indonesia's own democratic vocation. The United
States and our partners are doing all we can to promote this outcome, and
Secretary Albright indicated it was very important that the people of
Indonesia have this opportunity to make their decision. This will come out
in the full statement later this afternoon.
QUESTION: On the India-Pakistan front. You found no reason for optimism
yesterday. Has the situation changed in any way? Is the US finding any
reason to become a little more active in trying to restore some semblance
of comity?
MR. RUBIN: Funeral services were held today in Karachi for the 16
Pakistani crewmen killed when their aircraft was downed. Prime Minister
Sharif attended the ceremony. Let me take this opportunity to express our
regret at the deaths of the Pakistani airmen.
Yesterday at the United Nations, Security Council members affirmed their
support for Secretary General Annan's statement regretting the loss of life
and expressing concern at repeated incidents.
Like us, the Secretary General urged that India and Pakistan resolve their
differences by peaceful means; called on both countries to exercise
restraint; and looked forward to an early resumption of the bilateral
dialogue. We support the Secretary General's statement and call upon both
countries to act in a responsible way to prevent further tragedy and to
reduce tensions.
We have continued our contacts with both governments to urge restraint and
dialogue. Our charge in Delhi will meet today with the Indian Foreign
Secretary. We continue to remain in contact with Pakistani authorities.
With respect to the overall comment, given what happened yesterday, I think
it's fair to say that today the situation is not worse.
QUESTION: You remember there was a lack of facts. The State Department
hadn't been able to ascertain what actually happened to provoke this stand-
off. US diplomats were going to make inquiries in both embassies, in both
capitals. Have you found out yet what happened, and do you find any reason
for assessing blame in one direction or another; or would you rather just
stay on the sidelines and hope that they will patch up their own disagreements
without any judgments from the United States?
MR. RUBIN: Yesterday we talked about a 1991 agreement that we indicated
was not respected. I indicated there was a difference between not
respecting the notification part and a much more serious not respecting of
the agreement by shooting down an aircraft. So I think that is certainly
one point.
With respect to the location of the plane when it was shot down, we cannot
independently confirm where the Pakistani plane was fired at. The border is
highly disputed in that area. We do not have thousands and thousands of
American military or other personnel in those obscure locations in the
region; therefore, neither our human eyes or any other capabilities are in
a position to affirm conclusively the location of the plane.
QUESTION: That would apply, I suppose, to both sides. They may not have
known where the plane is, right? Is it that --
MR. RUBIN: I don't know what radio signals were sent back and forth or
what information was obtained by the wreckage. Apparently both sides are
disputing the wreckage and where it's located, and various accusations have
been made by both parties.
QUESTION: In your contacts with the parties, have you received any
assurances that they will revert to respecting the 1991 agreement?
MR. RUBIN: Not at this point. We have been talking to them about it and
urging that they do so. I don't have any confirmation that both parties
have indicated that they will do so.
QUESTION: One or the other indicated it?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have any information that either party has indicated
it would do so.
QUESTION: Any signs on the military front that both sides are sort of
moving toward a wider conflict?
MR. RUBIN: No. I mean, other than the fact that conflict continues in
Kashmir and that there is continuing fighting in the Kashmir area. But
beyond that, I'm not in a position to detail everything we might know about
the Indian and Pakistani order of battle. But for now what we want to do is
urge restraint and to urge neither side to take any escalatory steps.
QUESTION: I want to go back to Indonesia but not East Timor. In other
parts of Indonesia, particularly in Aceh, there is continuing massacres and
another really horrible one, I guess, earlier today, in which up to 30
Christians were killed in a church in Ambon. I'm wondering, do you have
anything to say about that?
MR. RUBIN: Inter-ethnic fighting and rioting on the eastern Indonesian
island of Ambon claimed more than 25 lives since the beginning of this
week. According to accounts we've seen, the recent violence began to flare
in late July and, in our view, we deplore the outbreaks of rioting, looting
and violence while Indonesia is going through a difficult period of
hardship and transition which has generated tensions. We urge all parties
to show restraint and to refrain from violence.
Security forces have a responsibility to restore and maintain order, and we
welcome the government's efforts to bring an end to the violence while
accomplishing this mission. But security forces should act with due regard
for the protection of human rights. We haven't received any reports of
Americans endangered by this latest unrest.
QUESTION: On Panama, (inaudible) sent a letter to the Pentagon expressing
his worries for the potential dominion of a Chinese company of the Canal of
Panama. Do you have anything?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, we have seen no capability or interest on the part of the
People's Republic of China, a major user of the Panama Canal, to disrupt
its operations. We will maintain a close interest in Canal operations after
transfer of the Canal to Panama on December 31, 1999.
The neutrality treaty provides a guarantee for the security of the Canal,
although Panama's contract with the Hong Kong-based firm to operate two
ports in the Canal was passed into law in January 1997, that law contains
provisions ensuring that the Canal will remain open to vessels of all
nations on an equal footing, following its transfer.
QUESTION: I have a related question to that. The foreign ministers of
Central America have expressed support for the idea to have recognized
Taiwan as an independent country. Do you have any reaction to that?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not familiar with all the foreign ministers of Central
America making such a statement, but I will look into it.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - in fact, switch the order for commercial jets?
That came up a couple days ago. I'm wondering what --
MR. RUBIN: This morning I haven't seen a press report - back to
Boeing?
QUESTION: No, no, back to Airbus.
MR. RUBIN: Oh, I thought that happened a week ago they went to Airbus.
QUESTION: You'd said it wasn't confirmed and there was no real comment.
MR. RUBIN: Right. I don't have any information on whether - I'm not aware
that we believe that this is a decision other than on a commercial
basis.
QUESTION: Somewhat related to that, on the Dalai Lama's visit to New York,
I'm wondering if you have an answer to the question I asked yesterday about
what his status is and what the State Department's plotting his every
move.
MR. RUBIN: I surely do; I surely have an answer to that question. The
Dalai Lama is visiting the United States in his capacity as a religious and
spiritual leader. US Government representatives meet with him in this
capacity and not as a head of state. Any meetings we have, again, are in
his capacity as a religious and a spiritual leader.
The US Government is not involved in the Dalai Lama's schedule or plans. My
understanding is that the Dalai Lama will not be traveling to Washington on
this trip. Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues Julia Taft will be
meeting with the Dalai Lama in New York on Friday. And that meeting will be
in the Dalai Lama's capacity as a spiritual and religious figure.
QUESTION: So they'll be discussing spiritual matters?
(Laughter.)
MR. RUBIN: She's a very spiritual woman, Julia.
QUESTION: Does this mean that basically he's getting the same treatment
that someone like the Pope would get?
MR. RUBIN: I don't know the exact protocol, but certainly the Pope is a
religious leader. Also there is a fact that the Vatican has its own special
status. So I'm not sure it's precisely the same. But certainly both the
Pope and the Dalai Lama are spiritual and religious leaders.
QUESTION: Jamie, do you have any sympathy for the aspirations of the
Tibetan people besides their spiritual interests?
MR. RUBIN: Our position on that hasn't changed.
QUESTION: The agenda for the meeting Friday - what sort of things will
they be discussing?
MR. RUBIN: I think that in the past the Special Coordinator for Tibet has
worked with the Dalai Lama and others to try to encourage dialogue between
the Dalai Lama and the government of China in order to protect the heritage
and rights of the people who live in Tibet.
QUESTION: What about the whereabouts of the Panchan Lama?
MR. RUBIN: I think that regularly comes up. I'd have to check with Julia
Taft whether that is a subject for this meeting. It's not something that
comes up every meeting, but it does come up.
QUESTION: I'm sure you don't have it there, but if you all do have an
opinion as to his safety and whereabouts, if you could get that.
MR. RUBIN: We'll try to get that for you.
QUESTION: Jamie, can you just address how or if it's somewhat politically
difficult when the Dalai Lama comes to the US for the Administration trying
to sort of not make China angry as well as balance the other issues
involving the Tibetan people?
MR. RUBIN: Well, the objective of our diplomacy in many cases is to
balance the national interests of the United States with respect to other
countries and the national interests of the United States to promote human
rights and respect for human rights and religious freedom and cultural
heritage around the world. Balancing those two national interests is
something that we here in the Department do every day.
QUESTION: You won't say every time the Dalai Lama comes it poses somewhat
of difficulties for the Administration?
MR. RUBIN: Those are times when these two interests need to be particularly
balanced.
QUESTION: Does the US feel that the Dalai Lama has a legitimate
claim?
MR. RUBIN: I think we feel that the spiritual and cultural heritage of
the people in Tibet is important to us. We do support the preservation of
the unique religious, cultural and linguistic heritage of the Tibetan
people and greater protection for their human rights. We certainly have
great respect for the Dalai Lama as a spiritual leader.
We do regard Tibet, however, as a part of China. That has been a position
we've had since roughly 1942. We do not recognize the Tibetan Government in
exile as a sovereign entity, but we do believe that restoration of a
dialogue between China and the Dalai Lama is an important component of a
peaceful solution to diffuse tensions. That's why we've encouraged direct
substantive dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Dalai Lama or
his representatives as the best way to resolve these differences.
We have no blueprint in mind and would welcome any formula agreed to by the
two parties.
QUESTION: Sovereignty you seem to --
MR. RUBIN: Well, we regard Tibet as a part of China; that is our
view.
QUESTION: They can talk about how Tibet fits into a Chinese state.
MR. RUBIN: They could talk about ways to protect all of that --
QUESTION: With protection of cultural --
MR. RUBIN: -- and whatever they could agree to would be fine with
us.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - Yossi Bailin is here and I wondered if he had
finished his meeting with the Secretary in time for you to get sort of a
handle on what went on. Perhaps terrorism came up because he is the justice
minister.
MR. RUBIN: Yes. The Secretary did have a meeting - roughly 45 minutes
long - with Mr. Bailin. They had an opportunity to review a number of
bilateral issues that he will be discussing with the Attorney General,
including things related to intellectual property rights, as well as other
matters between us and the United States.
In addition, they also discussed the peace process as would be expected;
he's a member of a new government and we respect that new government's
views and sought his opinion as to the directions the peace process was
taking. They also discussed the importance of the legal committee pursuant
to the Wye River agreement getting up and running. They also discussed the
importance the United States attaches to the prosecution of terrorists who
are responsible for terrorist incidents that killed Americans - another
subject I expect to be raised at the Attorney General's meeting.
QUESTION: Did they discuss or did the Secretary inquire into the release
by the Palestinian Authority of Hamas leaders and whether that violates the
Wye Accords; did that come up?
MR. RUBIN: I don't know. I wasn't in the whole meeting so I don't know
the answer to that question.
QUESTION: Pollard?
MR. RUBIN: Sorry?
QUESTION: Jonathan Pollard - on the other side - Jonathan Pollard?
MR. RUBIN: Normally that is a subject that only comes up by prime
ministers in their discussions with the President. It's not a subject that
normally comes up in most of the meetings I've been in with the Secretary
on the Middle East. For many, many years now I've rarely heard it come up.
It does regularly come up by the prime ministers of Israel in their
meetings with the President.
QUESTION: Jamie, do you find that the Clinton Administration is more
involved in the Israeli-Palestinian talks now than you might have thought a
month ago when there was all the chatter about them wanting to do it on
their own and not --
MR. RUBIN: No, on the contrary we find that most of the discussions that
are going on are bilateral, direct discussions between the Israelis and the
Palestinians. They have been meeting regularly. We continue to get reports
of such meetings and we believe that there is a lot of good discussions
going on directly. I would say it's about what we expected, which is that
there would be a lot of direct dialogue between the Israelis and the
Palestinians with an open question as to how far that dialogue would get.
But certainly we think it's a good thing in principle for these issues
to be dealt with through direct discussions.
QUESTION: Jamie, do you remember - can I just follow on that subject? Do
you remember when -- roughly speaking, you'll find this a fair enough
summary - when the scorecard here as to Palestinian compliance to the
terrorism provisions was good, could do better, though, was basically the
US appraisal? I wonder if you could bring us up to date now. There's a new
Israeli Government and I don't know their stance particularly. It might be
different from the previous government. But the US must have an opinion.
MR. RUBIN: Right, I don't believe there's been a significant or
substantive change in our view dramatically one way or the other.
QUESTION: There have been little outbreaks recently of incidents, and I
just wondered.
MR. RUBIN: Right, I would point out that those incidents have not
involved the kind of capabilities that we saw in the past that were so
dangerous.
QUESTION: Does the State Department have a reaction to the UNHCR study on
how nine years of sanctions have affected the health of --
MR. RUBIN: Yes, I do have a reaction to that UN study. The United States
is very concerned about the death of children in Iraq. That's one reason
why we support the oil-for-food program and have consistently emphasized
food, medicine and the rapid delivery under that program. The report on the
mortality rates of children in Iraq indicates that rates are declining in
the autonomous northern regions, which is under the same sanctions
regime as the rest of Iraq but where oil-for-food delivery is managed by
the United Nations. In contrast, the report shows Iraqi failure to deliver
humanitarian aid in South and Central Iraq has led to a doubling of the
child mortality rate.
The clearest conclusion to be drawn, therefore, is that the oil-for-food
program is working in the regions where it is allowed to work freely. We
are committed to working with the UN and others to ensure that conditions
for all Iraqis improve. We support UNICEF's work in Iraq. The bottom line
is that if Saddam Hussein would not continue to horde medicines and
capabilities to assist the children of Iraq, they wouldn't have this
problem. So clearly, the blame for the suffering of the Iraqi people falls
squarely on the shoulders of its tyrannical leader.
QUESTION: Well, that's not what Ms. Bellamy had to say. She said the
blame falls squarely on both Saddam Hussein and on the sanctions.
MR. RUBIN: Right, and you may continue your dialogue with Ms. Bellamy as
much as you want.
It is our view that the fact that in Northern Iraq, the infant morality
rate is improving with the same sanctions regime under the rest of Iraq
shows that in places where Saddam Hussein isn't manipulating the medicines
and the supplies, that this works.
We can't solve a problem that is the result of tyrannical behavior by the
regime in Baghdad. They are responsible for their people. We can work very
hard to put the maximum pressure on them; we can provide oil-for-food
programs; we can provide medicines, et cetera. But if Saddam Hussein is
going to restrict that medicine to his own people, then he is responsible.
That is our view.
QUESTION: So you disagree with her?
MR. RUBIN: I've just described our view.
QUESTION: New subject. Anything new from yesterday relating to the
conflict in Dagestan? There's been some rather heavy Russian military
involvement.
MR. RUBIN: Yes, we continue to follow this very closely and there
continue to be armed clashes between Russian Federation authorities and
armed groups there. The insurgents have declared that their leader, the
notorious outlaw Shamil Basayev, Chechnyan President Maskhadov disowned the
actions of these groups and declared they do not have the sanction of the
Chechnyan Government.
Russian authorities continue to assert that they will succeed in dislodging
the insurgents but cautioned that it may take time. The casualty reports
vary widely and we, as I said, continue to follow them.
We must, however, again condemn action by armed groups from Chechnya
against lawful authority and innocent civilians in Dagestan, which has
resulted in significant loss of life. However, we also underscore the
importance for all concerned to act responsibly and to respect human
rights. We urge all parties to refrain from indiscriminate or disproportionate
use of force which could harm innocent civilians.
QUESTION: Has the US been in touch specially with the Russian Government
on this? Because I wonder - take some time now to put it down - the initial
hubris from Moscow was that they would squelch this thing real quick. Also,
does the US have any basis for believing or disbelieving the Chechnyans are
not involved in this? It's their disavowal but that --
MR. RUBIN: But Barry, I indicated also the field commander - a Chechan,
Shamil Basayev - is saying and is part of this operation. What the
president is saying is that he's disowning the actions of groups within
Chechnya.
Now, with respect to our contact, yes, we're in regular contact with the
Russian Government on this subject, including every day, because it's a
subject of concern to us. But as far as what their views are, they're not
much different than what the Russians have said publicly.
We're watching it closely; we're concerned. We've sent clear messages on
both sides in condemning the unlawful actions and urging that all sides
refrain from disproportionate use of force that can harm civilians.
QUESTION: Trying to figure out what to make of it will take time, which
sounds a little more --
MR. RUBIN: That's what they're saying.
QUESTION: Yes, but, initially they were saying it would be over - I
forgot their --
QUESTION: Two weeks.
QUESTION: -- two weeks and they --
MR. RUBIN: Right, and now they're saying it may take time, meaning longer
than that.
QUESTION: Meaning what - meaning it's tough going; meaning --
MR. RUBIN: Meaning that it's difficult to dislodge these rebels in these
outlying areas; yes, it's difficult.
QUESTION: Do you think there ought to be some discussion between the
rebels and the Russian Government?
MR. RUBIN: I don't know that we have a view on that, and I will check.
I'm not sure that we have a view every time - first of all, our view is
that the use of force against innocent civilians is troubling. On the other
hand, we recognize that there have been actions taken by known terrorist
leaders who conducted terrorist actions against the lawful authorities. So
it's a complicated situation for that reason.
QUESTION: Do you have anything today on the Cambodian Parliament's
decision on the Khmer Rouge trials, especially in light of the fact that
the UN team is going there at the end of this month to present the
proposals to the Tribunal?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, with respect to this law, let me point out that the law --
we understand it, under current Cambodian law, Ta Mok could only be charged
on charges of violating a 1994 law outlawing the Khmer Rouge and that such
a trial would necessarily focus on his activities since 1994. We also
understand that charges under this law could not be brought against Duch,
who left the Khmer Rouge before 1994. So the change in the law doesn't
make it impossible for there to be the kind of trial that we're looking
for. On the contrary, it might have forced an early trial in a way that I
indicated.
Let me just get it all out and then you can pick at it. We believe that
credible justice would be best achieved if senior Khmer Rouge leaders were
brought before an international tribunal endorsed by the UN. We are
continuing our ongoing consultations with the Cambodian Government and in
the United Nations on this issue. We hope that these discussions will soon
lead to credible justice for the gross violations of international
humanitarian law during the 1975-79 period. Our principal objective is to
seek credible justice for that period. We will continue to press for a
speedy trial on these charges under international auspices, and we
welcome efforts by the government of Cambodia to achieve accountability
for these crimes.
QUESTION: That first bit there about the change in the law not really
being much of a concern - I ask if you could re-look into that again
because I don't think someone has done their particular research exactly.
Because even the UN has come out against this in saying that not only does
it make is less likely that these people will ever be brought to trial
given their advanced age, but also it makes it unfair to them to be held in
jail, basically, with no hearing at all for three years. Does the United
States support that?
MR. RUBIN: That's a domestic matter for the Cambodians as far as that
aspect is concerned.
QUESTION: Well, certainly you believe in the idea that trials should be
speedy and fair and just?
MR. RUBIN: If the answer to this question will in any way make the trial
of these butchers less likely, I don't want to answer it.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - one big trial of everyone. I may be wrong; I
didn't read the story that closely. If that's so, do you think justice can
be served if all these butchers, as you call them, are tried at one time,
or would that even be fair to them? I mean, they do have rights as
well.
MR. RUBIN: We think the UN proposal is quite a constructive idea - a way
to resolve a very difficult issue. It's a UN idea that they are putting
forward; we think it's quite constructive. There are always going to be
different concerns and different sides of this situation. But so far
there's been no trials and so getting trials is important. Having an
opportunity for the people responsible for these massive violations of
international humanitarian law is important to us. We think the UN
proposal for a mixed group of judges is a constructive idea and we're
working within the UN system to be supportive of it.
QUESTION: What was that?
MR. RUBIN: To be supportive of it.
QUESTION: So it's not perfect but it's something.
MR. RUBIN: It's a constructive idea.
QUESTION: Cuba - (inaudible) - Spanish company apparently has received a
letter of intention by the State Department saying that they are in
violation of Chapter IV of the Helms-Burton law. They are saying if the law
applies to them, they are going to support laws by the Spanish Government
against the United States in terms of business between the two countries.
MR. RUBIN: The Department reviews a broad range of economic activity in
Cuba for the possible application of sanctions under Title IV. To protect
the integrity of this process, we studiously avoid commenting on an
individual case that may or may not be under review.
QUESTION: I actually have the same subject. The State Department has
already announced last month that it was investigating the Sol --
MR. RUBIN: I don't know that we made an announcement. Some people who may
not respect the -
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: That says the name of the company?
QUESTION: Maybe in response to a question about the name of the company.
There's a catchall --
MR. RUBIN: Right, but see, we try to respect the integrity of this
process so we studiously avoid commenting formally on an individual case
that may or may not be under review.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: I don't know; I'll have to check that.
QUESTION: Can I say formally thank you? Do you have more?
QUESTION: With Cuba, but not with the issue.
MR. RUBIN: We'll do another Cuba issue.
QUESTION: Today there is an editorial in The Washington Post saying that
the Clinton Administration has to improve the relations with Cuba in terms
of -- in the war against narco-traffickers. Have you been saying that the
Cuban Government by itself is doing a good job against narco-traffickers?
Do you remember you mentioned cases when they give cooperation to the DEA
agents? Do you consider Cuba as an ally in the war against drugs?
MR. RUBIN: That sounds like a land mine kind of question for me so I'm
going to check with the experts.
QUESTION: There are new reports in China that they are mobilizing more
troops against Taiwan. I wanted to know if you have a comment on that.
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware there's been any change in our view since
yesterday, which was that we have not seen that kind of - what I said
yesterday holds; I wouldn't want to screw up the words.
QUESTION: I'm sure you all are aware that today is the 50th anniversary
of the Geneva Conventions?
MR. RUBIN: As a matter of fact, we are.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: So just throw it out.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about that?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. The International Committee of the Red Cross organized a
ceremony held in Geneva today commemorating the 50th anniversary of the
Geneva Convention. Our charge attended for the United States. The Geneva
Conventions are the most significant international instruments ever
designed to defend human dignity in war.
As the community of nations has grown in the past five decades, so too has
the number of nations that have ratified these conventions. Today they are
among the most universally recognized treaties in the world. We are
committed to the conventions and to their crucial role in respecting and
protecting human dignity and fostering respect for all victims of armed
conflict.
QUESTION: Do you think they should be amended to deal with television
lights in the briefing room?
(Laughter.)
With them beating on the back of my neck now, may I say thank you and it's
also Christie Mathewson's birthday.
(The briefing concluded at 1:35 P.M.)
|
