U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #135, 99-10-29
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1213
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Friday, October 29, 1999
Briefer: James P. Rubin
ARMENIA
2 US Assistance to Armenia
2-3 Link between recent attack and Nagorno-Karabakh/Act of Terrorism or
a coup?
3 Any connection to the Pakistan military
AFGHANISTAN
3-4,5 Reports Usama bin Laden willing to leave Afghanistan/Security
Council Resolution
4-7 US-Taliban Talks/Where should Usama bin Laden go if he leaves
Afghanistan
6 Usama bin Laden relationship with the Pakistan military
7-8 US-Saudi Arabia discussions of counter terrorism & Usama bin Laden
financing
8 Impact of Usama bin Laden leaving on US-Afghanistan relations
RUSSIA/CHECHNYA
8-10,12-13 Readout of Secretary's meeting with Russian Interior
Minister Vladimir Rushaylo/Goals of IM's Visit/US position
on Russia's actions in Chechnya
11-12 Is this counter terrorism or a civil conflict?
13 Update on situation in Chechnya/Is US considering sanctions against
Russia
13-14 US assessment of conflicts in Chechnya and Kosovo
15-16 US graduate student detained in Moscow apartment
FRANCE
14 French police actions against Mujahidin
IRAN
14-15 US response to President Khatami's statement at UNESCO
ARMS CONTROL/CTBT
15 Efforts by several Senators to cut out US funds for CTBT
MEPP
16 Announcement of peace talks later this month/Impact on Oslo discussions
N. KOREA
16-17,19 US-N. Korea talks in Berlin/Visit to US of high-level North
Korean Official
19 Issuance of gas masks to American civilians living in Korea
MONTENEGRO/SERBIA
17-18 Montenegro-Serbia talks/Independent currency for Montenegro
18 Status of international sanctions against Montenegro/Aid to Montenegro
Y2K
19 Release of International readiness
INDIA
20 Dates for Presidential trip to India
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #135
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1999, 12:40 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department briefing this
Friday. We're going to have a special Halloween briefing on Sunday. I hope
all of you will be available. You will dress up like me, and I'll dress up
like you.
Let me say that, first of all, we have a statement on the situation in
Armenia, in which the situation is now peaceful there. The Deputy Secretary
had a series of meetings in Moscow, but also is in Armenia. There will be a
funeral mass at 2:00 p.m. on Sunday, and Assistant Secretary Julia Taft
will head the American delegation. We'll have a statement on that.
We will also have a statement on the Ivory Coast - for some of you news
services, that would be Cote d'Ivoire - as well as a statement on some
meetings that Assistant Secretary Inderfurth had with the Deputy Minister
of Russian Foreign Affairs on matters of South Asia.
With those statements, let me make one comment before going to your
questions: Secretary Albright just returned from Africa, and one of the
important things she was doing there was trying to develop regional
partners with the United States to deal with some of the terrible crises
that Africa has faced. In that regard, we were particularly pleased that
Kenya has indicated its willingness to join the African Crisis Response
Initiative, which is a way for Africans to deal with their own crises.
Unfortunately, as part of their cuts in our budget, Congress has decreased
the voluntary peacekeeping account that funds the African Crisis Response
Initiative by over 40 percent. This would undercut our effort to assist
Africans to deal with problems on their own.
We find this particularly unconscionable, because many of the same members
of Congress who oppose this funding are the ones that indicate the United
States should not get involved in dealing with conflicts in Africa; and if
we're not going to get involved - and very often we agree that we should
not take the lead in resolving these conflicts - we have to at least assist
the Africans in resolving these problems, themselves, through their own
capabilities.
So we think it's unconscionable to neither be supportive of action in
Africa to deal with conflicts like Sierra Leone and others, or to support
the kind of Africa-based solutions that we have tried to promote with the
African Crisis Response Initiative. So this is a terrible consequence of
these budget cuts - if they go through - that it not only would deter the
United States from acting by affecting these peacekeeping accounts, but
would also undercut our ability to create a better internal African
Crisis Response Initiative.
With that comment, let me turn to your questions.
QUESTION: Can we go back to Strobe Talbott being in Armenia? You know, we
remember what the Secretary said yesterday. She said, if we can be of help,
we would like to help you. She expressed concern about terrorism. Granted,
the situation has quieted down. But tell us a little bit please, if you
could, what transpired in his talks?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have a readout from Deputy Secretary Talbott's talks.
I do know that the United States provides a very large quantity of
assistance to Armenia. We have requested $71 million for FY2000. We are the
largest provider of aid to Armenia - 52 percent of their recorded
assistance.
This provides assistance in drafting their civil code, in professionalizing
their legal sector, in their judges and lawyers, in bank training and
support to the central bank of Armenia, and loan programs. So that is
something that we are going to continue. Deputy Secretary Talbott obviously
wanted to go, at the Secretary's direction, to demonstrate our continued
support for the president, and Armenia, as he deals with the aftermath of
this terrible act of terrorism.
With respect to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, clearly it is harder to move
forward on such a politically sensitive question in Armenia and Azerbaijan,
as the president has worked and must now work to create a new cabinet with
a new prime minister. Whether there will be a long-term setback for our
efforts, it's impossible to predict. But obviously, in the short-term, they
have a higher priority right now.
QUESTION: Maybe that answers it. I wondered if it's the personnel change
that makes it harder, or the fact that this incident seems to have been
spurred extreme nationalism, and some of the people who lost their lives
were looking for reconciliation with --
MR. RUBIN: We have no reason to believe that the incident was related to
the specific discussions on Nagorno-Karabakh that were ongoing. That
doesn't mean that those responsible didn't have a generalized view of any
discussion with Azerbaijan on the issue. But we don't believe that it was
related to the moment where we hoping to push this process forward. That is
why Deputy Secretary Talbott went, and we don't have any reason to
believe this incident was related in timing or intent to those particular
talks.
As a practical reality, a president and a country that has just gone
through that kind of incident, and that kind of act of terrorism, is
obviously going to be preoccupied in restoring the government officials,
many of whom have been killed, and also reassuring the public and the
country that they are in a position to move forward.
So that's just a practical fact. We don't believe that this incident was
intended to set back a particular set of ideas on Nagorno-Karabakh, but as
a practical reality, obviously it will have some impact.
QUESTION: One last thing. You said terrorism.and I was going to ask you -
the Secretary made some reference to concern - and she didn't just mean -
it was clear she didn't mean just Armenia; she meant in the whole
devolution, the whole unrest and stability.
You used the word "terrorism." Terrorism is used sometimes just to describe
an awful act. Does the State Department have any evidence that there was
any real terrorism link here that these people were in a terrorist group or
something? I know they were charged with terrorism.
MR. RUBIN: An act of terrorism is an act --
QUESTION: It sounds like murder, but terrorism isn't synonymous with
murder.
MR. RUBIN: I would be happy to get a legal definition for you, and have
our lawyers make a determination as to whether this group fits our classic
definition. But as far as politically motivated murder of innocent
politicians sitting at their desks in a parliament, that fits my definition
of terrorism.
QUESTION: I'm just wondering: When these gunmen acted, they claimed that
it was sort of a coup, part of a coup or something. Was there any
indication, other than the actions in the parliament building, of anything
going on, or is there to this day any unrest?
MR. RUBIN: Throughout that day, our embassy reporting was very clear,
that there was calm throughout Yerevan and Armenia. There were no other
actions that might appear to be linked to what was going on the parliament.
This appears to us, therefore, to have been an isolated action, however
heinous the action was.
QUESTION: Do you think they were encouraged or they got encouragement
from Pakistan's military dictator - or any connection in any way?
MR. RUBIN: I have no reason to think that, and I suspect that the
terrorists may or may not have even known that there had been developments
in Pakistan.
QUESTION: Usama bin Laden has allegedly said that he is willing to leave
Afghanistan. I'm wondering if the US has any message for him or for the
Taliban.
MR. RUBIN: We've seen press reports to that effect. We have not received
any formal communication from the Taliban that Usama bin Laden is intending
to leave Afghanistan.
Let me say this: Usama bin Laden can run from Afghanistan, but he can not
hide from our determination to pursue justice. The heinous crime for which
he has been indicted is an act of terrorism that we have shown we will have
a long, long memory: whether it was the Kansi case, whether it was the
World Trade Center case, whether it was the Pan Am 103 case which took many,
many years. We have shown our determination to go the distance, and
ensure that suspected terrorists, indicted terrorists, are brought
to justice.
With respect to the resolution, however, let me say that the operative
paragraphs of the resolution that the Security Council passed indicate
that: The Taliban must promptly cease the provision of sanctuary and
training for international terrorists and their organizations; take
appropriate effective measures to ensure that the territory under their
control is not used for installations and camps, or for the preparation or
organization of terrorist acts; and also, that Usama bin Laden be turned
over to appropriate authorities in a country where he has been indicted, or
to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be returned to such a
country, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be
arrested and effectively brought to justice.
So Usama bin Laden may run from Afghanistan, but he cannot hide from the
long arm of the law, or the long arm of the Security Council's resolution.
QUESTION: Can you tell us whether, in the meeting earlier this week with
the Taliban, this scenario was one of the ideas they put forward?
MR. RUBIN: They put forward a number of ideas, including the idea of a
Ulema, which is a council of Islamic scholars who make a judgment under
Islamic law. That doesn't meet the civilian justice that has been laid out
in the Security Council resolution.
But again, what I indicated to you is that the Security Council resolution -
which obviously has gotten the attention of the Taliban, this resolution
which will come into effect on November the 14th, which is 30 days from its
passage - will cut off flights of the Arianne airlines and freeze assets of
Taliban authority. That's obviously gotten their attention, and they are
seeking a way to get out from under it.
Certainly, we would prefer a situation where the Taliban did not provide
sanctuary for Usama bin Laden but, as far as the requirements of the
resolution are concerned, I read them to you.
QUESTION: Same subject: At this point, if the Taliban does choose to in
some way hand over bin Laden before the sanctions kick in, is the US
prepared to offer anything to the Taliban in terms of recognition or
reward?
MR. RUBIN: Our view - first of all, the primary incentive for the Taliban
to see that Usama bin Laden is brought to justice is the avoidance of the
sanctions of this resolution, which is not a position of the United States;
it's a position of the international community. Certainly, a decision by
the Taliban to destroy their infrastructure, destroy their support for
terrorists and to ensure that Usama bin Laden was brought to justice would
improve their standing in the eyes of the world, including the United
States.
As far as recognition is concerned, however, we have made clear that we see
the need for a broad-based government that includes all the factions in
Afghanistan. We have also expressed our outrage about many practices with
respect to the treatment of women. So it's not simply a matter of dealing
with this issue, and then everything's OK with the United States. At the
same time, I would believe that if that were to happen - and it's a very
big if and I hope the fact that we're even speculating on it doesn't
give you the impression that it's more or less likely to happen -
would be a step in the right direction. But there are other issues
of concern to us.
QUESTION: You said at the beginning of your answer on this thing that you
had seen reports. Has the US Government not had any direct contact with the
Taliban concerning this specifically?
MR. RUBIN: I had also said right after that that we have not received any
direct communications from the Taliban to that effect.
QUESTION: One of the countries where bin Laden has been indicted is
Yemen. Would the US favor him ending up in Yemen?
MR. RUBIN: The resolution says: a country in which he has been indicted,
or a country that would ensure that he went to a place that he was
indicted. We want him to be brought to justice. We're not going to express
preferences for which country he be brought to justice, but it has to be an
appropriate country where he would meet our standard of being brought to
justice.
QUESTION: The idea that he's floating is that he should basically vanish,
secretly, to some unknown location. Can you just say it clearly that, you
know, this is completely unacceptable for the United States?
MR. RUBIN: From the United States' standpoint, we will not rest until he
is brought to justice. Simply vanishing from Afghanistan is not the same as
being brought to justice And he can run from Afghanistan but he can not
hide from our determination to bring him to justice.
With respect to the Security Council resolution, I have described very
carefully for you what it says, and what it requires.
QUESTION: Could you clarify - you said something about a council, a
religious council but not a civilian. Is that one of the ideas that they
brought here? I'm lost.
MR. RUBIN: Again, I'd prefer not to go into too much detail about what
they said. I referenced an idea that has been out there, as an example of
what would not meet the standard of the Security Council resolution or our
requirements.
QUESTION: No, but can you say is that one of the ideas they brought to
Inderfurth this week, one of the old ideas, albeit?
MR. RUBIN: It's an idea that's out there, yes.
QUESTION: Do you have any idea if Taliban knows where he is going, which
country is willing to take him?
MR. RUBIN: I think what I just indicated, in response to your colleague's
question, is we've seen press reports about this and, obviously, we've had
meetings with the Taliban about various ideas they have. But none of the
latest reporting has been communicated to us in any official way, and I
just don't want to get into speculation about where he will go when, as far
as we're concerned, he's still in Afghanistan and must be brought to
justice.
QUESTION: He had connections with the Pakistani military in the past. Do
you think State Department is in touch with the military in Pakistan now
about it?
MR. RUBIN: We certainly would want to see Pakistan and the new government
in Pakistan apply the pressure on the Taliban that would be consistent with
being a responsible member of the international community. The international
community has just passed a resolution imposing sanctions on the Taliban if
they don't have him brought to justice. If Pakistan wants to be considered
a responsible member of the international community, then one way in which
they could demonstrate that is to use all their influence to bring to bear
on the Taliban to comply with this resolution. That would be something we
would encourage them to do, but we'll have to see if that yields any
success.
QUESTION: Could I go back to the Caucasus for a moment? This morning, the
Secretary had a session with the Russian Interior Minister.
MR. RUBIN: Did anyone else, before you do that, have more on Usama bin
Laden?
QUESTION: Could you just clarify? A top American official then talked to
the Taliban about the Taliban's ideas of to which countries he might be
expelled?
MR. RUBIN: I don't know how you could have drawn that conclusion from
anything I've said. What I've said is that we met with the Taliban
officials. Assistant Secretary Inderfurth discussed with them their ideas
on how to deal with the Taliban issue. None of those ideas have yielded a
communication from the Taliban to the United States that would meet the
conditions of the Security Council resolution.
I am not going to be quoted, or imply to you in any way, the full extent of
any conversation we've had with anybody about where he would go next. What
I can tell you is that they have not provided us with an official
communication -- or an unofficial communication -- that indicates that they
are going to see him brought to justice. Short of that, I am not going to
speculate as to what ideas and what names they did or didn't mention.
QUESTION: But in other words, they may have mentioned some places to
which he might be expelled?
MR. RUBIN: I gave you no indication to write that. I'm just telling you
that I'm not going to answer that question.
QUESTION: The question was asked, did you discuss where they might be -
he might be expelled to, and your answer - if I have got it down correctly -
was, we've had meetings with the Taliban about the ideas they have. That's
why I'm just wondering whether that was --
MR. RUBIN: Then I went on to say that I am not going to speculate on what
country he may or may not go to after he leaves Afghanistan when, as far as
we know, he hasn't left Afghanistan. We want him to be brought to justice
in a country that has indicted him, or in a country that will send him to a
country that has indicted him. That is our objective, and I think I've been
quite clear on that.
I'm not going to get into the details of every potential conversation an
American official has had, because it's impossible for me to know all the
details of all the conversations American officials have had, speculating
as to where he might go if he left a country that he hasn't left yet.
QUESTION: This is still on bin Laden - I'm sorry.
QUESTION: OK. Make it short.
QUESTION: The terrorism office has - no, it isn't short because he's
prepared to deal with it. The terrorism office has long ago reported that --
MR. RUBIN: By the way, I do not take a position as to whether it should
be short or long, on the remaining discussion of the Taliban.
QUESTION: Well, anyhow - bin Laden and financing --
MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't want to get into the details of that discussion,
either.
QUESTION: I don't think we're going to get a lot of details on this. But
I think you probably would be in a position to say whether the Secretary
will talk to Prince Sultan next week about Saudi financing of bin Laden. By
Saudi, I don't mean the government necessarily - Saudi companies, et cetera
-- providing funds and that a government audit provided to US officials
disclosed some of these specific transactions.
MR. RUBIN: Well, I wouldn't give an excessive amount of credence to that
reporting at this time.
QUESTION: Most of it was in the terrorism report already, so I give it
credence.
MR. RUBIN: Some of the specifics that you're referring to --
QUESTION: The specifics are new. That's right.
MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't assume that they are correct.
QUESTION: All right.
MR. RUBIN: The question of counter-terrorism cooperation between Saudi
Arabia and the United States is one that comes up in every major bilateral
discussion that deals with security issues. Therefore, I would expect that
Secretary Albright would be discussing with Saudi officials next Friday,
when she hosts a lunch for the Saudi defense minister, the full range of
counter-terrorism issues. That is normal and expected, but I wouldn't
assume that there is a link between that and anything you may or may not
have read in the papers today.
QUESTION: All right, specifics aside, though, because as I say, the State
Department has reported its concern about links. Can we pad out the
sentence? Will she talk to him, or talk to Saudi officials, about US
concern that Saudi firms are helping bin Laden?
MR. RUBIN: We always talk about counter-terrorism cooperation. The
meeting is a week away and I think it would be appropriate for the
Secretary to make some decisions about what she intends to talk about
before I make those decisions for her.
QUESTION: One last thing. Was an audit even - the specifics aside?
MR. RUBIN: I have no information on that detail and, frankly, the people
that know a lot about this subject that I inquired with this morning didn't
know much about it. So that's why I suggest that there may be less there
than meets the eye.
QUESTION: I'm sorry, one more. Let's say Usama bin Laden leaves --
MR. RUBIN: Any question that begins, "Let's say," I've already got my
answer going: It's called a hypothetical question. But go ahead.
QUESTION: If he leaves Afghanistan, you think situation in Afghanistan
and the relations between US and Afghanistan will change?
MR. RUBIN: We would prefer a situation where the Taliban was not
harboring an international criminal who is wanted for the killing of
Americans and Kenyans and Tanzanians. We would prefer that, and that would,
thus, be a step in the right direction. But as far as the Taliban's
relations with the international community, the guidelines for that are
laid out in the resolution.
QUESTION: The Secretary had a meeting with the Russian interior minister.
Did the Chechen episode come up? What did she say, and what reaction did
she get?
MR. RUBIN: The Secretary met this morning for roughly an hour with the
Russian Interior Minister, Vladimir Rushaylo. The subject was nearly
exclusively Chechnya and, to some extent, some of the counter-terrorism
cooperation that Ambassador Sheehan and FBI officials have been discussing
with the minister, as well.
With respect to Chechnya, the Secretary did hear him out, in terms of
Russia's explanation for the reasons for their actions and the intention of
their actions. But I must say: At the end of that presentation, she was no
more convinced than she was before that the endgame has been thought
through.
We are deeply troubled by the casualties that have resulted to civilians.
We do not understand how the Russians expect to get to a point where a
political solution can be achieved through negotiation, based on their
current strategy, and we are deeply concerned about the lack of access for
international organizations to ensure the freedom of movement for
internally displaced persons.
We are deeply concerned about the need for the international humanitarian
organizations to be able to provide for the needs of the 200,000 or so
people that have been moved out of their homes, or have left their homes as
a result of this fighting. So she expressed her profound concerns about
those issues.
She heard out the interior minister with respect to their strategy, but she
did not come away any more convinced by him than she had been by Foreign
Minister Ivanov, that the Russians are going to be in a position to achieve
the political solution that we believe is the only solution.
QUESTION: Was that why he was sent here, to be an advocate for the
operation?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think it's more complex than that. I think that ever
since the apartment buildings were destroyed and hundreds of people were
killed in Moscow, we have tried to encourage greater cooperation of our
counter-terrorism experts with Russia, because of our shared concern about
the problem, and our view about the cowardly acts that caused those deaths.
So that had been in the works.
In addition, I think Foreign Minister Ivanov and other officials had
indicated that we weren't getting the whole story from the media reporting
and from other reporting, and that it was more complicated than we had been
reading about or seeing on our television sets, and wanted Secretary
Albright to hear out the Interior Minister, which she did.
All I am saying is that we are no more convinced -- or less convinced --
than we were before, that this strategy doesn't seem to have an exit to a
political solution. And that, in the meantime, we have profound concerns
about not only the humanitarian effects of the military operation, but also
the reports that the Chechens and others from the Caucasus are subject to
intimidation or other actions inside Russia.
So those were the issues she expressed her concern about, but the minister
has also talked to the FBI officials and Ambassador Sheehan about counter-
terrorism issues, not just related to the Chechen operation, but related to
our general cooperation.
QUESTION: I'm sorry, maybe I misheard you. Did you say that - I know you
said, "no more convinced" and then you said something like "less convinced."
Did you mean are you less?
MR. RUBIN: I don't know. I was confused by my own formulation, so I
wanted to make sure that I indicated that --
QUESTION: But wait, I just want to get this straight. Are you less
convinced now? Did the operation of sending the interior minister here
backfire?
MR. RUBIN: No, no. What I'm not convinced of is how many double negatives
were in my sentence, that required me to ensure that I protected myself
both on the "more" side or the "less" side. That's what I'm not convinced
of.
QUESTION: In other words, the Russians aren't deeper in a hole with the
US now than they were before; they are in the same hole?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say it in my version of English, and hopefully it will
pass muster with you. Secretary Albright was profoundly troubled about the
strategy underlying Russia's actions in Chechnya, and the fact that there
did not seem to be an exit to a political solution.
She heard out the minister, during a lengthy presentation, about their
reasons for their actions and the actions that they are taking. Following
that presentation, she remains deeply troubled and concerned by their
strategy.
QUESTION: I'm totally convinced that you don't approve of their strategy,
and you care about the loss of life. What I have no notion of is how the US
- well, I have a little notion of - but I would like, please, you to deal
with what the Russians are trying to accomplish. They seem to be trying to
keep Chechnya in Russia, and they seem to be trying to extinguish militant
fundamentalism, which they see as a threat - not only there, but in
Dagestan and in other areas of the former Soviet Union, as it's always
called.
MR. RUBIN: Well, we don't --
QUESTION: Do you have any position on their goals? You sure don't like
the way they're going about it. You think, in fact, it isn't going to work.
But what do you think about --
MR. RUBIN: We don't question - let me answer your question.
QUESTION: OK.
MR. RUBIN: We don't question Russia's right to deal with terrorism within
its borders; and we do recognize Russia's territorial integrity, including
Chechnya inside of that. The difference between their right to act and the
wisdom in the way they're acting is the essence of the discussions. And,
again, there is often misunderstanding about the whole question of internal
conflicts and rights and all of that.
Let me restate very clearly our views: We don't question the fact that
there is a terrorist threat in Russia. Apartment buildings were blown up.
People died in their beds in their apartments. It was horrible. We don't
question the fact that armed attacks against lawful authority in the
Caucasus occurred, prior to the Russian military action.
But -- we are profoundly concerned, as a matter of principle, with
indiscriminate attacks against civilians. We are profoundly concerned, as a
matter of pragmatism, with the lack of a method to get to a political
solution. So that is our view, as cleanly as I can state it.
QUESTION: Can you just elaborate a little bit? The Russian view is that
the attack in their operation in Chechnya is a counter-terrorist action,
partly in response to the assaults on these apartment buildings. Do you
accept that explanation?
MR. RUBIN: We accept the sequence of events as follows: that armed
attacks by groups, including using acts of terrorism, occurred in the
Caucasus against lawful authorities in the Caucasus, especially in Dagestan,
prior to the Russian actions in Chechnya and Dagestan. That is an objective
fact. We take Russia at its word, that their action is responding to those
original attacks against lawful authority.
In the midst of that process, there were apartment buildings destroyed in
Moscow where innocent civilians were murdered in their beds. We regard
those as horrifying tragedies. We don't have - to my knowledge - confirmed
evidence as to who was responsible for them.
But again, what we do recognize is Russia's right to act against terrorists
internally. What we also believe as a matter of principle is that there
should not be indiscriminate use of force against civilians.
QUESTION: Well, the problem here is that the Russians, in a sense, the
government has certainly stirred its public behind its actions in Chechnya,
its enormous efforts there, by referring to this terrorist attack against
civilians in Moscow, and they are portraying this whole thing as a counter-
terrorist action, and; whereas, it may simply be a military operation in a
civil conflict. In other words, they are going far beyond - and they've
managed, in a sense, to get Russian public opinion rather silent and also
Russian media silent.
So if you have the interior minister coming here today and sort of arguing
the counter-terrorist thesis for the entire intervention, all you're saying
is that that element is not proven. I mean, and that's the major element,
though, in their entire presentation.
MR. RUBIN: I think you missed an important point that I did make.
QUESTION: Please.
MR. RUBIN: Which was: We do believe attacks were made in Dagestan against
lawful authorities; terrorist actions were taken against lawful authorities
by armed groups. OK? That preceded the Moscow bombings. So there is - in
our view - justification for dealing with an internal security threat,
where armed attacks were taken against lawful authority.
At the same time - and I hope both parts of this sentence are understood
and communicated, how and if they are going to be communicated at all - we,
as a matter of principle, have opposed the use of indiscriminate violence
against civilians, by both the Russian authorities and anyone who may be
acting against lawful authority. That precedes the apartment explosions.
I hope that answers your question.
QUESTION: So are you viewing this then as a civil conflict is my
question?
MR. RUBIN: You know that my legal skills pale in the face of those kinds
of very carefully, artfully constructed questions - and with all their
consequences. So let me study up on that, and see whether there is some
meaning to the word "civil conflict" in international law that may or may
not apply.
QUESTION: Then, secondly, when you say you're against - obviously you're
against indiscriminate attacks against civilians, do you regard the assault
on the marketplace, for example of a couple of days ago, as one of those
indiscriminate attacks against civilians?
MR. RUBIN: I think we called that a deplorable and ominous development so,
obviously, we regarded that as a deeply troubling attack where civilians
were killed, yes.
QUESTION: But the words "indiscriminate attacks against civilians" is a
term under international law meaning war crime.
MR. RUBIN: Well, you notice that I was avoiding using terms of art that
draw conclusions about a case where we don't have all the facts. So it's
very important, until you reach a certain threshold of analysis and fact,
to avoid drawing legally significant conclusions. That doesn't mean we
can't express our general views on the subject without making legal
declarations, as you correctly point out.
QUESTION: A final point - please - let me just finish.
QUESTION: Please, would you yield?
QUESTION: Do you mind if I would finish a question, please. That is, did
the Secretary, in any way, issue a warning today? The Russian Army seems to
be on the verge of entering Groznyy. Is there any kind of a warning or a
strong statement of her views and the United States view on the Russians
entering Groznyy?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I don't know how you define that. I think in many
respects they've entered the region of Groznyy already. As far as the city
is concerned, I think she made clear - very clear, crystal clear - that we
don't understand, and we are troubled by the direction the operation is
taking in Chechnya. I'm not going to be more specific about what happened
in a meeting between a foreign official and the Secretary.
QUESTION: Mr. Rubin, did you gather from the conversation with Mr.
(Rushaylo) this morning - did you get an idea what was intended by what Mr.
Yeltsin said about the "center of international terrorism in Chechnya,
that's the goal of the Russians being in there" - did you get an idea? They
are only six miles outside of the center of Groznyy now? Is Groznyy their
target, do you think?
MR. RUBIN: Again, I think that, certainly, these are all legitimate
questions about Russian intent, and I urge you and your colleagues to pose
those questions to Russian officials. Those are the kinds of questions that
we've posed to Russian officials.
The result of our dialogue with Russian officials has not yielded a
judgment, on our part, that the strategy can work: that they can get to a
point where they won't face the same issues they faced in 1994, which led
to the terrible tragedies in Chechnya, without obtaining opportunity for a
political solution. So those are legitimate questions about Russian intent,
and I urge you to pose those to Russian officials.
QUESTION: Just one follow-up if I could on this one. The follow-up is:
NPR was reporting this morning that the Russians were saying they were
going - that they were using their air forces to go after pockets of
terrorism from fundamentalist terrorists in Groznyy. Does this tally with
anything that we know about what they're doing there? Is there bombing -
are there actually concentrations of such terrorists in the city of
Groznyy?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have hard information on that kind of thing. Clearly,
Russian forces continue air and artillery attacks across Chechnya. The
Russian forces appear to have moved closer to Groznyy from the east, the
west, and the north. The Russian Defense Minister, however, has told the
press publicly that Russian forces do not plan to storm the city of
Groznyy. That is what I can say about that.
QUESTION: Under these conditions, is the United States considering taking
any action or sanctions against Russia?
MR. RUBIN: We continue to discuss this matter with Russia. We continue to
express our views. Other countries in Europe and elsewhere are expressing
their views. I have no points to make to you on the question of sanctions.
QUESTION: Do you think that there is any similarity between what Serbs
did in Kosovo and what Russians are doing in Chechnya now?
MR. RUBIN: No, we don't think those are analogous situations at all. I'll
tell you why. The Serb authorities, as far as we knew, had a plan to expel
huge numbers of people, and commit massive war crimes. That was part of the
plan, for which its leader has been indicted. And the way and the method
they used to achieve their military objectives resulted in the war crimes
that we documented. That is a very different situation, from our standpoint
- in addition to the fact that the international community was engaged in
Kosovo, the Serb authorities had broken a series of agreements that
they had made with the international community, and violated those
agreements completely.
QUESTION: How do you know the Russians don't have a plan? I mean, they
didn't tell you there was but -- (inaudible) - to expel Chechens in large
numbers.
MR. RUBIN: Again, there are two points I made: One was about violating
agreements with the international community, and the second was what we
knew. The fact that we don't know something doesn't mean it is true or it
is not true, but the difference is we know it in the case of Serbia. Good
try, though.
QUESTION: Given your attachment to freedom of expression and assembly, do
you have any comment on the behavior of the French police in conduct
towards your friends the Mujahidin Khalq?
MR. RUBIN: I believe those people have been put on a certain list, so I
would hardly call them our friends. As far as what the details of the
actions of the French police are, I just don't have those details.
Yes, as a matter of principle, we support the right of assembly and protest,
but there are limits to those rights that need to be controlled for civil
order purposes, and I just don't know the facts in order to draw a
conclusion as to the actions of the French police.
QUESTION: Well, about the same thing, a --
MR. RUBIN: It's one of these days where there doesn't seem to be enough
big news so we're down there in the tomatoes.
QUESTION: Well, the tomato is going to lead to something else. A tomato
did manage to elude this massive French dragnet and hit Khatami's limo.
Anyway, so it couldn't have been all that great.
But I'm just wondering if the US has any comment on what Khatami said at
UNESCO and then later on: kind of this appeal to the West but bashing the
United States for being the technological leader of the world which wants
to be pursuing its hegemonistic aims kind of thing.
MR. RUBIN: I think that Iran's President is not the only leader who
occasionally calls us hegemonic. If we took that personally, we couldn't do
any business in the international community.
QUESTION: Well, now wait. No, but do you have any comment - do you have
anything to say about what he did say?
MR. RUBIN: I have not seen the full text of the remarks.
QUESTION: On CTBT, one of the unusual aspects of it is that, even before
it entered into force, a whole mechanism of monitoring systems was under
construction, of which we were paying 25 percent of the cost. Now there
seems to be a move afoot in the Senate by the same people who killed it -
or killed it this time around, anyway.
MR. RUBIN: Unnamed, this time. Unnamed senior congressional officials.
QUESTION: A cabal of some kind. But to either cut out US funding for this,
or something to basically keep it from coming to complete --
MR. RUBIN: We think - I understand your question. We think that people
should put the national interest over their ideological opposition to arms
control agreements. It is in our national interest to be able to detect and
know what is going on around the world, with respect to the testing of
nuclear weapons. And the more we know, the more we're capable of knowing
what potential threats there are in the world, the safer we and our allies
are.
It is unfathomable to me why any person would oppose more knowledge about
the potential of others testing nuclear weapons. And one should not let
their blind and ideological opposition to specific arms control agreements
stand in the way of the US national security. Some obviously care more
about hurting a treaty than helping the United States and our allies.
QUESTION: Would you care to direct that at any --
MR. RUBIN: They were anonymous senior congressional aides, so they know
who they are.
QUESTION: There are those who have made those kind of comments publicly,
and are well known for having them. Are you intentionally avoiding naming
names here?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware that they've made the point that was in that
story, no.
QUESTION: An American-owned company in Guatemala has security guards who
allegedly have - I put this to your people today --
MR. RUBIN: Yes. It didn't quite make it in, and we will get you something
after the briefing.
QUESTION: Do you know anything about this American graduate student who
is apparently detained for hours in his apartment in Moscow, and is
complaining about this bitterly? Does the US have a position on what he
underwent?
MR. RUBIN: I do have something on that. Mr. Joshua Handler reported to
our embassy in Moscow on Thursday that the previous day - that would be
Wednesday - he was interrogated in his Moscow apartment by officers of the
Russian State Security Service, the FSB. According to Mr. Handler, his
interrogation lasted approximately seven hours.
He told us that the FSB officials who questioned him presented him with a
warrant permitting them to search his apartment. They removed a number of
items, including his computer. He received a receipt for his property, and
was told that it would be returned to him in approximately two weeks.
We do not know the reason for this event. We have approached the foreign
ministry at the - our charge has approached the foreign ministry, or
perhaps our DCM has approached the foreign ministry to try to get more
details about the case.
We have no reason to believe that Mr. Handler's movement is being
restricted in terms of leaving Russia. It does not appear that any charges
have been filed against him, from the description of the events.
QUESTION: Would you care to comment on the announcement on the Middle
East today about talks starting later this month, and will it in any way
change the nature of the discussions in Oslo?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. Well, we do believe that the Oslo discussions are an
important moment in our effort, by President Clinton and Secretary Albright,
to add a sense of urgency to the permanent status talks. The Framework
Agreement for permanent peace between Israel and the Palestinians must be
completed, according to their own schedule, by February, and we do want to
add a sense of urgency to that.
By having the official negotiations scheduled to start, we know we can be
in a position to work the technical issues. But obviously, the questions of
Jerusalem, water, borders, refugees are profound questions that will
require political decisions, and President Clinton and Secretary Albright
will be seeing whether they can promote those kind of tough decisions in
the weeks remaining.
QUESTION: In a statement yesterday, you said that US and North Korea will
resume talks in Berlin next month. Why should it be Berlin again, instead
of Washington? And could you tell me about the topics?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, I think Berlin has proved to be a good city. In Berlin,
we were able to obtain an understanding that prevents future tests of North
Korean missiles, so Berlin has good memory for us. Obviously, we want to
preserve a positive atmosphere, conducive to improved bilateral relations.
The North Korean side has announced that it will suspend the testing of
long-range missiles of any kind while talks about improving relations are
underway. We remain resolved to continue working diligently to effect a
serious dialogue on the settlement of pending issues. We hope that the two
sides can work constructively towards building a new relationship.
We welcome the opportunity to have discussions in Berlin in November and we
look forward to conducting a high-level visit by a North Korean official
some time after the Berlin talks. No date has been set and, when one is
scheduled, we will make an announcement.
QUESTION: Do know what level that might be?
MR. RUBIN: High-level usually means up there, way above my level.
QUESTION: Who was the last senior North Korean --
MR. RUBIN: I would have to check the exact level of those we've met with
in the United States. Obviously, former Defense Secretary Perry went to
North Korea and met some very high-level officials. We'll check that for
you.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on Montenegro, Serbia, and particularly
there were talks this week between the two republics of Yugoslavia?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, we continue to believe that Montenegro is led by a
president -- who the Secretary actually spoke to on the phone today -- who
has done a great deal to benefit his people by promoting a democratic path:
President Djukanovic We want to encourage the Montenegrin authorities to
obtain the support that they need in any discussions with Belgrade to
ensure that their rights are protected under the Serbian system. And we
support their efforts under the Yugoslavian system. We support their
efforts in that regard. We want them to obtain the rights and privileges
that they should under that system.
Our policy on Montenegro has not changed, in the sense that we don't
support an independent Montenegro. But we strongly support the democratic
and economic reforms that President Djukanovic has taken. We welcome the
willingness of both sides to pursue a peaceful course of discussions in
that regard, but we want to still do all we can to support President
Djukanovic as he deals with the terrible situation of having to live next
door to Slobodan Milosevic.
QUESTION: One of the terrible problems they are facing now is inflation.
It seems to be going out of control. One of the solutions might be an
independent currency, or a currency tied to the Deutsche mark. What is the
US view of that now?
MR. RUBIN: That's the kind of thing that would be discussed privately.
That is the subject that came up between the President and Secretary
Albright today. We want to encourage them to have the economic and
political freedom they deserve. There are a lot of technical issues with
respect to a currency tied to the Deutsche mark. It's not a simple matter.
Those are the kind of issues that we have discussed with --
QUESTION: But is there a general attitude that if they go that direction -
provided they take care of the details - that you'll be supportive?
MR. RUBIN: I would prefer to let our discussions continue before making a
public statement on that.
QUESTION: Main Turkish opposition party --
QUESTION: A follow-up on Milosevic? Can you just say what the occasion
for this conversation was and who initiated it?
MR. RUBIN: I don't normally know who initiates what but, clearly, the
topic of Montenegro's discussions with Serbia has been very much on our
minds. Ambassador Dobbins just returned from a trip to the region, where he
met a number of senior officials in a number of countries, including most
of the opposition figures, and including president Djukanovic. I suspect
this call is a follow-up from discussions Ambassador Dobbins had with
President Djukanovic.
QUESTION: Can you bring us up to date on the state of sanctions against -
as they apply to Montenegro?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have all those specific facts in front of me, but we
have done our best to make sure that Montenegro does not suffer, in any way,
from the sanctions the international community has imposed on Belgrade.
QUESTION: The other question is just aid - funds flowing into Montenegro.
Somebody told me the other day that not a cent has gone to them since the
end of the Kosovo conflict. Is that possible?
MR. RUBIN: That's not possible, as far as what I know. I know that tens
of millions of dollars of support exists for Montenegro in our budget.
QUESTION: Budgeted - but do you know whether the funds actually
go?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have real-time knowledge of what dollars are sent on
what days. That's not possible for a single human being to have that
information. But I can assure you that we support providing assistance
directly to Montenegro in a variety of ways.
QUESTION: Main Turkish opposition party is the Mutiu Party; leader and a
large group of the officials, they are coming to Washington, D.C. I believe
they are scheduled to meet several high-level State Department officials.
Did you schedule for the Secretary to see them also?
MR. RUBIN: I am not aware that the Secretary is scheduled to see a
delegation of Turkish opposition officials, but I will check our scheduling
for you.
QUESTION: Back to North Korea. Regarding with a high-ranking official of
the United States, there are lot of rumors which says that the --
(inaudible) -- is coming, or other high-ranking official is coming.
Basically, do you have any agreement between North Korea who is coming to
the United States?
MR. RUBIN: Obviously, in response to your colleague's question, I did not
want to say what the level and the name of any high-level envoy is. So I
still wouldn't want to answer that question, even though you asked it
slightly differently. That is the subject of the discussion in Berlin.
QUESTION: Fourteen thousand American civilians in Korea are apparently
going to be issued army-surplus gas masks next month. Is there any
particular threat or reason for this?
MR. RUBIN: Right. In order to provide parity between Department of
Defense and other US agencies employed in Korea, we have obtained gas masks
similar to those used by US forces in Korea. This step was not related to
any specific threat or event. It is the fulfillment of a project initiated
more than a year ago.
Of course, if we do become aware of any specific and credible threat, that
information will be provided to the public at large. Obviously, the US
government can't provide protective gear to every private American citizen,
and our assessment of the security situation in Korea has not changed. This
is the fulfillment of a project begun a year ago, to make sure there was
parity between the non-DOD agencies and the DOD agencies.
QUESTION: These are people like the embassy staff and so on?
MR. RUBIN: Right. I can give you more details on all the people but, yes,
other US agencies. It's more than just State Department. It's others.
QUESTION: As I understand it, this is just masks and not protective suits,
and so it wouldn't be effective against many types of chemical and
biological threats, correct?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. Again, what we're describing here is parity with gas
masks. I don't know that every DOD official has a full protective gear
either. But I'll have to check that for you.
QUESTION: Last month, Undersecretary Bonnie Cohen testified to a
congressional committee that the Department would be getting some new
assessment of Y2K readiness in the rest of the world. She told the
committee that she would have this done by October 29th. I wonder if you
have a sense of what the story is with that?
MR. RUBIN: Well, today is October 29th and I'm sure Undersecretary Bonnie
Cohen intends to fulfill that commitment. So you will just have to stay
tuned. You only have ten-and-a-half hours to go.
QUESTION: On India.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, I understand you said about two weeks ago that
the Presidential trip to India is in trouble because of the circumstances
in Pakistan.
MR. RUBIN: No. What I said was the environment in Pakistan was uncertain.
That's all I said.
QUESTION: But Ambassador Celeste to Delhi, the American ambassador, told
us in a video conference, here in Washington, that the presidential trip
will take place to India between mid-January and mid-March.
MR. RUBIN: I don't know that Ambassador Celeste would want to get cross-
wise with Joe Lockhart in announcing the President's travel schedule. I
don't know that a trip has been finally decided upon. I don't think it has
been, and perhaps you must have misheard him. Maybe that's a timeframe
they're looking at for a trip, and I know the President is interested in
going. But I would be stunned and surprised if Ambassador Celeste were to
step on the Spokesman of the President's prerogative to announce the
President's travels.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded 1:43 P.M.)
|
