U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #12, 00-02-17
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1046
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Thursday, February 17, 2000
Briefer: James R. Rubin
PORTUGAL
1 US-EU Summit in Lisbon March 3, 2000 / Secretary Albright's Travel
to Europe
LEBANON
1-7 Israel's Decision to Make Unilateral Changes to the April 16
Agreement / Latest fighting and Attacks on Populated Areas
Directed by Hezbollah / Attempts by Hezbollah to Interfere with
Peace Process / US Views on Situation in Lebanon / Impacts of
Attacks on Meeting of Monitoring Group
5 Protection and Safety of American Facilities in Lebanon
7 Five-Nation Organization
RUSSIA (CHECHNYA)
7-10 Human Rights and Humanitarian Situation / US Calls on the
Government of Russia to Conduct a Full, Comprehensive and
Transparent Investigation of Alleged Atrocities in Chechnya
/ Appointment of Vladimir Kalamanov, Chief of the Federal Migration
Services / Opening of OSCE Office in Region / Foreign Ministry
Criticizes State Dept's Meeting with Chechens / US Concerns about
Actions Toward Refugees, Displaced Persons and Indiscriminate
Bombing / Fate of Journalist Babitskiy
11 Secretary of State Meeting with Visiting Russian Security Chief
CUBA
10-11 Request for Consular Access by Cuba to visit Elian Gonzalez in US
OPEC
10 Oil Price Increases Caused by Production Cuts
IRAN
11-12 Parliamentary Elections
COLOMBIA
11-12 Under Secretary Pickering's Visit / Guerrilla support of Drug
Trafficking / Combating Drug Trafficking
CROATIA
12-13 Croatian Experience Will Prove an Important Signal to he People of
Serbia / Damage from Milosevic on People and Industry / US
Recognizes Support of Easing of Flight Ban and Sanctions
17 Milosevic's Rejection of Rambouillet Agreement
SECURITY
13-15 Potential Security Problem Identified Related to Unclassified
Computer Software
TERRORISM
15 Reward for Arrest of Usama bin Ladin Advertised on Matchbooks
Distributed Throughout Pakistan and Middle East and Africa
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #12
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2000, 12:40 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: We have all the wire services. We may begin. Today, being
Thursday, I want to brief. And there we have double action of all the wire
services. This is really a new development. I hope I don't disappoint
you.
A couple notices to the press, most of which you know about. No statements.
I'll go to your questions. Barry Schweid.
QUESTION: While you're packing up to go on this trip to Croatia and
Albania, could you tell us if the Secretary has plans or expects to be
seeing Mr. Ivanov in Lisbon, Portugal, early next month?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, she does.
QUESTION: All right. And could you tell us a little more about the
situation?
MR. RUBIN: That's a European Union-US meeting in Lisbon. It will also
include meetings with Foreign Minister Ivanov. The date is in the first
week of March. I can try to get you the precise day after the briefing.
March the 3rd.
QUESTION: Is the Russian presence sort of like the G-7 became G-8, an add-
on, or is he invited?
MR. RUBIN: I think you would have to discuss that with the hosts, the
Portuguese. But we are expecting a number of meetings surrounding that US-
EU Summit, and that will include probably meetings with this structure we
created of the European Union, the United States and the Serb opposition,
for example, but there will be a number of activities associated with that
US-EU meeting in Lisbon on March the 3rd
QUESTION: Will she be making other European stops?
MR. RUBIN: When and if I have new stops to offer you, I will be happy to
do that. But I'm happy to confirm the Lisbon stop.
QUESTION: Lebanon. What does the United States think of Israel's decision
to make unilateral changes to the way it carries out the April agreement
understanding?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say that we believe everything must be done to prevent
civilian casualties in this ongoing conflict in Lebanon. That means there
should be no attacks from populated areas in order to ensure that there are
no attacks against populated areas. The latest escalation in southern
Lebanon is cynical and it is a deliberate effort by the Hizballah to direct
fire from populated areas. This escalation, in the first instance,
puts Lebanese civilians and the interest of Lebanon at risk, in addition
to undermining the prospects for peace in the region and the pursuit of
Arab-Israeli peace.
At the same time, we do not believe that Israeli attacks against civilian
infrastructure and populated areas will solve the problem. Such actions
only add to the suffering of the people of Lebanon. We believe the April
1996 Understanding is an important undertaking which both sides need to
adhere to, and we believe that it only points up the larger point that
until we get a comprehensive peace and a political solution to resolve this
issue, these problems will occur.
QUESTION: The words are kind of different from last time. When the
fighting was flaring last, the Secretary of State was asked exactly the
question and elicited a different response. And the response was Israel was
trying to send a signal. She avoided any suggestion -- implied, direct,
inferred or otherwise -- that Israel's attack on the electric facilities,
for instance at that time, was something the US disapproved of. She said
Israel, by doing this, was trying to send a signal.
And unlike -- well, I was about to say, it wasn't your basic -- it wasn't
restraint on both sides type thing. It was strongly condemning of Hizballah
and, by implication, of Syria for not controlling Hizballah. Have you now
changed your opinion that Israel should cease attacking the civilian
infrastructure? Do you think they've sent the signal already and they
needn't send it any more?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say I was there when the Secretary made those comments,
and she was studiously neutral as to the question of our view of that. She
merely recounted what the Israelis say that they were doing. She didn't say
that was a good thing. She didn't say that was a bad thing. She didn't say
we supported or we opposed it. She was noncommittal on that subject.
So I don't think we've changed our opinion when we say that we do not
believe that Israeli attacks against civilian infrastructure and populated
areas will solve the problem. Such actions only add to the suffering of the
Lebanese population. That does not mean we have changed our overall view
that the Secretary expressed at that time, that I made very clear here
today, that the cause of the problem in recent weeks has been a cynical and
deliberate attempt by the Hizballah to wreck the prospects for peace in
the region and harm the interests of the people of Lebanon, the people
of Israel, and the people of the region. That is the cause of the
problem.
That doesn't mean, however, that we think we should throw the April 1996
Understandings out the window. We do believe those Understandings are an
important undertaking and that both sides need to adhere to the commitments
contained in those Understandings.
QUESTION: All right, we're not questioning -- you've touched on three
points, and I didn't suggest that she ever said that by attacking
electrical facilities it would solve the problem. She never said that. She
never implied that. She said Israel's offensive was designed to send a
signal. She didn't say, "Israel says." She said.
MR. RUBIN: Right.
QUESTION: All right. If you say --
MR. RUBIN: That was an analysis of the Israeli intent.
QUESTION: Fine. Yesterday you heard two -- at least two members of
Congress on the committee, you head Mr. Lantos and -- I forgot the other --
Mr. Rothman -- Mr. Rothman, rather vehemently. Lantos said that Hizballah
are surrogates of Syria. You seem to put some distance between Syria and
Hizballah. You ask, repeatedly, Syria to use its influence; in fact,
sometimes you say, as the Secretary has, they should do more to use their
influence. That stops short of suggestions that they are turning the tap on
and off; that, as Mr. Lantos certainly suggests, that Hizballah is
an agent, a surrogate of Syria, carrying out a Syrian mission.
Is the US position that Syria is directly responsible for Hizballah attacks
or simply that they could have some influence on Hizballah behavior?
MR. RUBIN: Our position on this today is the same as our position on it
has been for some time: We believe that Syria does have influence over
Hizballah and that we have contacted the Syrians on many occasions seeking
that they exercise that influence more effectively.
QUESTION: Jamie, in the middle of it, are you calling on Israel to stop
the attacks?
MR. RUBIN: Again, I'm doing exactly what I said, which is indicating what
our views are on the situation in Lebanon.
QUESTION: That the Israeli attacks will not -
MR. RUBIN: -- solve the problem.
QUESTION: -- on the civilian infrastructure will not solve the problem?
MR. RUBIN: Right.
QUESTION: So do you think they should stop?
MR. RUBIN: Well, that is not a comment suggesting that we are supportive
of the attacks.
QUESTION: The Secretary yesterday spoke about the meeting of the
Monitoring Group and said it was impossible to have meetings while these
circumstances continue. Could you elaborate on that? This was understood in
Lebanon as a change of policy in the sense that you no longer saw the Group
as the mechanism for resolving these kinds of conflicts.
MR. RUBIN: Right, and that was an over-interpretation of the Secretary's
remarks.
QUESTION: Could you explain her remarks?
MR. RUBIN: I will do that right now. We recognized the day the meeting
was scheduled that there was a deliberate and cynical attempt by Hizballah
to wreck the meeting, to harm the interests of the people of Lebanon, to
cause suffering to the people of Lebanon by their expected reaction. And we
indicated that this was a deliberate attack to wreck this process.
We recognize that in light of that effort that the actual meeting probably
isn't going to take place for some number of days so, in lieu thereof, we
are working on ways to have the co-chairmen be in contact with the capitals
to begin to allow this process to take place and avoid giving the Hizballah
the opportunity to wreck the process of peace in Lebanon and the process of
peace in the region.
And we find it particularly ironic and self-serving when the Hizballah
authorities are claiming as their objective for Israel to leave Lebanon.
Israel has made it clear it is committed to withdrawing its forces from
southern Lebanon by the middle of the year. Hizballah's attacks only raise
the cost to the people of Lebanon and raise the question why, if Israel has
committed to withdrawal by the middle of the year, Hizballah continues to
provoke the Israelis and increase tensions and are clearly acting in ways
that harm the interest of the people of Lebanon.
We have no reason to doubt the Prime Minister's intent to follow through on
his goal of withdrawal from Lebanon, and the fact that Hizballah is
pursuing this in light of that new stated objective of the government of
Israel only demonstrates quite clearly they have no interest in the people
of Lebanon's interests.
QUESTION: On that, the co-chairmen being the United States and France? Is
that correct?
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
QUESTION: And earlier you said you didn't want to see any attacks from
populated areas so there wouldn't be any attacks on populated areas, and
you put it in a certain order. Does that mean that attacks from populated
areas justify attacks on populated areas?
MR. RUBIN: I don't intend to engage in any philosophical debate with you
here. We believe that there have been repeated attacks by Hizballah, in
contravention of the Understanding, from populated areas through the course
of January and February in direct contravention of the Understanding. And
those, in our view, have been the provocations specifically designed to
harm the people of Lebanon's interest and the cause of peace.
That is our view. There have been reactions. We have talked about those. I
have given you my views on the reactions.
QUESTION: On Lebanon. I just want to know if you have been in touch with
the Embassy there, what's going on? Any damage to the Embassy?
MR. RUBIN: With respect to the Embassy, we have been in touch with the
Embassy. This afternoon, approximately a thousand demonstrators rallied at
Awkar Circle about 300 meters from the Embassy compound. Lebanese security
forces were on the scene. The Embassy has received reports that Lebanese
security forces used tear gas and water cannons to control the crowd.
While the crowd eventually dispersed, some demonstrators did throw rocks
and riot police and we understand two policemen were injured. Of course we
support the right of freedom of expression and assembly. At the same time,
we're taking appropriate security precautions to ensure the safety of our
facilities. We've been in touch at the highest levels with authorities in
Lebanon, who have assured us of their support for protection and safety of
American facilities in Lebanon.
QUESTION: The Embassy is not open right now?
MR. RUBIN: With respect to the actual status of the Embassy, I will have
to get you what the exact status of the Embassy is right now. Obviously,
it's late at night so it's closed on that basis, but I will check that for
you.
QUESTION: Hold on, wait a second. Was there any damage to it?
MR. RUBIN: As far as I know, there was not any damage to the Embassy from
the report that I have just received.
QUESTION: Jonathan alluded to the way it's being interpreted -- the
business of the attacks and their impact on this group, this Monitoring
Group. Indeed, it was widespread; everybody seems to have interpreted her
saying, while the attacks are going on the Group can't do its job.
MR. RUBIN: Let me be very clear --
QUESTION: No, I thought it was a misinterpretation --
MR. RUBIN: I know the Secretary of State views on this subject. I think
the point she was making is that if you try to set up a meeting, and the
moment you have a meeting set up, Hizballah provokes an attack and kills
Israeli soldiers, then that makes it hard to have successful meetings.
That's the point she was making.
QUESTION: A long preface -- I had a long preface there -- to whether it's
her belief and the French and whoever else cares about what's going on,
that the chairmen conferring by telephone or something, is that a viable --
is that substitute for the Monitoring Group?
MR. RUBIN: Not in the long --
QUESTION: And is the Monitoring Group still a viable --
MR. RUBIN: We still support the Monitoring Group as an important tool in
trying to ensure compliance with the April 1996 understandings. At this
time, we are pursuing using the co-chairmen and the relevant participants
of the Monitoring Group - the process by - without having an actual that
can create a time and a place and a location for Hizballah to try to
destroy the process of peace in Lebanon. We don't think this rules out,
prevents, precludes, or otherwise changes the long term necessity for
having this forum and procedure. But at this time, that's the way we're
pursuing it.
QUESTION: The way you're proceeding, you know it took maybe a dozen
visits to Damascus by Secretary Christopher --
MR. RUBIN: Right.
QUESTION: -- to work this agreement out in 1996.
MR. RUBIN: Right.
QUESTION: It's a heavy Syrian input. Were these changes agreed to? Or
at
least --
MR. RUBIN: There's no change.
QUESTION: Procedural - temporary procedural variation?
MR. RUBIN: I think there's nothing new about one going and discussing
these things in capitals prior to or after a meeting. Obviously, there
hasn't been a meeting so, pending such a meeting, this is the way we're
proceeding. I wouldn't regard it as a substantial change in the modus
operandi of the April 1996 Understanding.
QUESTION: Going back a step, has the US Government been notified by the
Israelis that they won't attend any further meetings? Or are you just
assuming that they will be disrupted?
MR. RUBIN: It's our view that this current way of proceeding is the best
way to proceed. I don't know precisely what the Israeli position is on it.
I'm sure that wouldn't be too hard to find out. But our view of the best
way to proceed is the one I had mentioned.
QUESTION: This is just a factual question. It's a five-nation organization.
Who is the fifth? I've forgotten. France, United States, Lebanon, Israel,
who else?
MR. RUBIN: Syria.
QUESTION: Syria, okay.
MR. RUBIN: Right.
QUESTION: Different subject. I have some questions about Chechnya and
human rights.
MR. RUBIN: Right, yes.
QUESTION: Is there anything else that you can say on the Bechaev- I think
I'm pronouncing his name right - visit here on Monday, the Chechen, about
what he told the State Department about the human rights situation?
MR. RUBIN: Right, we are deeply concerned about the human rights and
humanitarian situation in Chechnya. We did have a meeting by our human
rights and humanitarian officials here in the Department earlier this week.
We received some information about developments there which only reinforced
our concern about the problems in Chechnya, the humanitarian problems and
the human rights abuses that took place there.
Clearly the international community has a role to play in making known its
concern about this. The UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson,
has now done so. We - Secretary Albright in particular - have pointed out
the need to investigate reports of human rights abuses and violations when
she met with Acting President Putin and in a number of meetings and
discussions with Foreign Minister Ivanov. These further alarming reports
have only heightened our concern. We did call in our meetings in Moscow
with Acting President Putin and Foreign Minister Ivanov for opening an OSCE
office in the region under the existing assistance group mandate,
which would be to promote respect for human rights.
We are aware, also, of reports that Acting President Putin has responded to
international concern about this matter by naming Vladimir Kalamanov, Chief
of the Federal Migration Service, as a special representative to respond to
complaints about human rights abuses in Chechnya. If true, we would welcome
that development because we call on the government of Russia to conduct a
full, comprehensive and transparent investigation of alleged atrocities
in Chechnya.
In our view, Russia has a clear obligation to investigate the numerous
credible reports of civilian killings and alleged misconduct by its
soldiers promptly. This prompt action would demonstrate Russia's intent to
adhere to international commitments and obligations, especially regarding
the treatment of noncombatants.
QUESTION: Is there anything that you can say more specifically about what
Bechaev said to you all about the situation?
MR. RUBIN: Right. I don't think it generated dramatically new information
about the situation in Chechnya, and we've all been aware of that. I will
see whether there is anything more I can say about what he said in a
private meeting with us, but we have been concerned about this problem,
deeply concerned. Recent reporting from him and others has only heightened
that concern.
QUESTION: Today, the Foreign Ministry released a statement criticizing
the United States for meeting with him. Have you --
MR. RUBIN: I'm not familiar with that statement and, so far, we've
checked and we haven't seen it. But it wouldn't surprise me that the
Foreign Ministry would in some way repeat its previous criticism of such a
meeting.
And let me simply say that we believe that it is appropriate for us to
receive a wide range of information from Russia. We have very carefully
calibrated our contact to not give the impression that it has changed our
view on the recognition of Chechnya, which has not changed. We met in the
Department because it was only with officials on humanitarian and human
rights issues and, therefore, that was the subject matter and we felt to
hold that meeting in our offices that deal with that was appropriate.
We are concerned about the situation in Chechnya. We need to get a wide
range of information. If the Russian Government wants to avoid people
seeking out specific individuals to get information, they would be well
advised to provide the necessary accreditation to journalists to go down
there and tell the world what's going on in Chechnya. We wouldn't all be
operating from this vacuum of information, and then we could have less of a
need to seek information from sources they might not wish us to seek
to.
So I think it's ironic that the Russians are denying the required
accreditation for journalists to go to Chechnya, report the facts, let the
facts speak for themselves, and then concerned when we seek the facts from
other sources because there is no real freedom to report from that war
zone.
QUESTION: Could I have one more, please? How would this government
characterize how they have treated their citizens in that region? I mean,
there are human rights groups who are saying that these are war crimes.
MR. RUBIN: Well, we have been concerned about actions that have been
inconsistent with international obligations in a number of areas with
respect to activities in the early days where refugees and displaced
persons were not allowed freedom of movement and with respect to indiscriminate
bombing. I'm not ready to make the broader judgment. That's a legal
judgment that requires a substantial amount of evidence and a substantial
assessment.
But, certainly, we've been profoundly concerned by certain cases and
certain actions that appeared to be inconsistent with international norms
of behavior and instruments the Russians have entered into.
QUESTION: Has the Russian Embassy complained to the State Department
about the meeting on Monday with the Chechens?
MR. RUBIN: I heard this as well. We're not aware of such a complaint. I
sought out information, expecting that this question might be raised, and
we're neither aware of a statement nor of an expected demarche, as we call
it in this business.
But I know that Secretary Albright and Foreign Minister Ivanov spoke a
couple of days ago and that issue did not come up. She did raise the issue
of Mr. Babitskiy and the fate of Mr. Babitskiy, and expressed our profound
concern that Russia resolve this matter and that Mr. Babistkiy's whereabouts
become clearer. She made clear that we hold Russia responsible for his fate,
that we regard it as unacceptable to trade a working journalist as if they
were some kind of prisoner of war
QUESTION: Okay, what I don't understand from your earlier comments about
the meeting on Monday that you actually went out and that Bechaev was not
seeking a meeting with people here and that you went out and --
MR. RUBIN: No, I didn't say that at all.
QUESTION: Well, you said you were seeking --
MR. RUBIN: No, I didn't say that at all. What I said was it is our view
that if there weren't such a dearth of information about the situation in
Chechnya, it wouldn't be as necessary - as necessary - as it is to seek
information from whatever source you can get it. One of the discussions we
had was about the human rights and humanitarian situation in Chechnya. So I
don't know who called who, but that's not the point I was making.
The point I was making is if Russia wants to make it less likely that
countries around the world will seek information from Chechen officials,
they could make it less likely that people will feel that's necessary by
providing journalists the access to Chechnya and international organizations
the access the Chechnya that would make it possible for people to have
independent information that they may otherwise seek from such contact.
QUESTION: How convinced are you that there's any hope that this newly
appointed human rights envoy will be able to uncover what's been going in
Chechnya, given that Yasterzhembskiy, at the same time as his appointment,
has been denying reports in several media that there was a special
detention center where people had been tortured, raped and executed?
MR. RUBIN: Right. I don't have specific information that I can provide
you. I don't want to exaggerate our hopes. But when the international
community is as united as it is on the importance of accountability in
these cases and accountability for human rights abuses and human rights
violations, one would hope -- as a matter of principle -- that Russia,
which seeks to be a member in good standing of the international community,
would respond to that concern and would want to follow through on the
widely expressed concern of countries all over the world for accounting
to occur for what's happened there.
QUESTION: On Elian Gonzalez, the Cuban Government is asking the State
Department for permission to send Cuban consular officers to meet with him
to see how he is doing. Any comment?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, we are evaluating the request for consular access and we
expect a decision will be made shortly. And once a decision is made as to
whether the INS will permit Cuban diplomats to visit Elian in the United
States, and once that decision is made, we will inform the government of
the status of their request as soon as possible.
QUESTION: It sounds like the announcement will come from INS?
MR. RUBIN: It is their decision that would have to be made, but we would
be in contact with the Cuban Government. That's tended to be our role as
being the entity that has been in touch with the Cuban Government.
QUESTION: On another subject. Oil prices and - well, basically oil
prices. In addition to enriching people like Saddam Hussein and causing
hardship in this country, the oil prices are devastating parts of Africa,
for example the (inaudible). And this price rise doesn't just happen. It's
the result of a cut in production by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, chiefly. Has
the United States contacted either of those governments to ask them to
increase their production in order to drop the price?
MR. RUBIN: Well, without getting into the specifics of any kind of
contact like that, let me certainly say, as I did two days ago, that senior
American officials are in touch with those governments to assert our views
about the question of oil cartels seeking to manipulate the price through
production quotas and expressing our views about that issue. So we are in
touch with them, but I wouldn't be in a position to be more specific
about what we've said to them.
QUESTION: Ivanov -- do you have anything -- the other Ivanov -- do you
have anything on the visit of the Russian Security Council chief today to
Washington? Anything else you can give us on his meetings with Albright and
what the agenda will be?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, he's expect to meet with her in about an hour and a half
here at the Department. She will be reviewing - it's, I think, one of his
first, if not his first visit to the United States and first opportunity to
get a full set of discussions with American officials here in Washington.
She will be covering the broad waterfront, including Chechnya, including a
number of the issues that I described with you, including nonproliferation
will be a prime item on the agenda. We think it's very important to have
Russia exercise the kind of export controls that can ensure that material
needed to produce weapons of mass destruction or long-range missiles is not
falling into the wrong hands and that they are following through on
previous laws by tighter enforcement of those laws. And we will be
going through specific cases with them. That's what we've tended to
do in a number of these sessions
QUESTION: Back to Elian. This request for consular access is actually the
second request. They made one on January 10th. And I wonder, since the
United States often seeks consular access for its citizens when they're
abroad -- and that's a position that you've stated here numerous times --
doesn't the State Department, on principle, support the Cuban request to
visit one of its citizens?
MR. RUBIN: I have no comment about what our position would be in any
internal deliberations on that, but I do take your point.
QUESTION: On Iran, tomorrow there will be the parliamentary elections. As
you're aware, the Ayatollah Khamenei has come out and, in so many words,
told citizens to vote against reformers to send a strong signal to the
United States. Do you have any comment on that?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we'll be watching very carefully the results of the
elections in Iran. This is something that we and the Secretary and the
President have indicated that we will watch very carefully. We'll obviously
be interested to see, and intrigued to see, what the results of the
elections will be in terms of what it might signal for the rule of law
inside Iran and the prospect of improved links between Iran and the rest of
the world.
I think that, given that the election is just a few hours away, I think it
would be probably counter-productive for me to make any more specific
comments than that, other than to say that we have made our willingness to
have a dialogue with Iran very clear and that we would want that dialogue
to be based on mutual respect and mutual interests, one in which the
Iranians would be in a position to raise issues of concern to them and we
would raise issues of concern to us.
QUESTION: Do you think it's reasonable after these elections that there
would be some kind of shift in the Iranian position so far to engage with
the US?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, I certainly understand the question and it's well on
point, but I think it's our view that to speculate as to what this election
might mean in the hours before it could only harm the chances of positive
speculation bearing fruit.
QUESTION: In Colombia, Under Secretary Pickering there now has made a
comment that, "Our goals in the military field are to eliminate the
transport and production of narcotics. If the guerrillas are taking part --
and I have no doubt they are -- then they will be the targets of our
fight."
Isn't that finally admitting that these two issues are not discernible?
MR. RUBIN: I've been saying pretty much that for years. Every time your
colleague just two seats down asks me this question, I say pretty much the
same thing, which is that to the extent that guerrillas are engaged in
support and assistance to drug traffickers and our assistance is designed
to combat drug trafficking, that will naturally involve conflict with the
guerrillas. To the extent that there are guerrillas and opposition groups
that are not engaged in drug trafficking -- and there are, not everyone
is -- then that won't come into conflict.
So it's been our long-standing policy to make clear that this is not part
of a broader war on the guerrillas, but is part of a war on drug trafficking,
and; to the extent the guerrillas -- or paramilitaries, for that matter --
are engaged in drug trafficking, obviously that will involve conflict with
the Colombian forces that we're assisting.
QUESTION: But how would someone fighting drug traffickers look any
different than somebody who is involved in the counter-insurgency,
then?
MR. RUBIN: Well, to the extent there are in areas, for example, where --
I mean, obviously it depends on each sector. But to the extent that a
specific sector is controlled by the guerrillas and there is drug
trafficking that we clearly see is going on simultaneously and with the
cooperation, support, acquiescence and involvement of the guerrillas, then
that is a legitimate target for drug trafficking efforts.
So what we've said is, to the extent that the guerrillas don't want to be
the target of our support for the Colombian operations, they should stop
supporting the drug trafficking and stop being part of that. But I don't
think that constitutes a new statement of policy at all.
QUESTION: If we could just return to Iran and try the question a
different way. Do you think that one of the reasons why the Iranian
Government has thus far not engaged or taken up the US offer to re-engage
is based on the makeup of the Majlis? Do you think that that has influenced
the decision of the government?
MR. RUBIN: There are a number of different power centers in Iran, and
it's not a simple question of a President and a legislature. It's a much
more complex society that has often made it difficult to answer your
question as to what extent a change in the legislature would affect changes
in their foreign policies.
So I think, like many things in this business, we will only be able to
judge that by what they are prepared to say or do differently following an
election, and we can't make a prediction as to what extent it would or
wouldn't have that influence. Certainly, the more Iran supports the rule of
law domestically and the rule of law internationally, we would think that
there would be more for us to talk about.
QUESTION: On the Croatia trip, how high are US hopes that the Croatian
experience will filter over the borders into Serbia?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we recognize the limited nature of our leverage on the
situation in Serbia. We have supported the opposition. We have made clear
in every way we can the damage that Milosevic has done to his own people.
It's quite clear that they are worse off every day that he's in charge and
every day that democratization is delayed. It's quite clear that Serbia's
isolation is a direct function of his repressive rule. That's why, in
recent days, he has tried to shut down semi-independent news organizations
because he knows that the more they tell the truth, the more the people
of Serbia will want to know why Serbia is the last place in that part of
the world that can't seem to have a normal relationship with Europe and the
world.
On the other hand, we recognize that we should try, and that is why we have
put so much effort into this. It's why the Secretary of State has met many
times with opposition leaders. It's why we responded to their request that
we that we support an easing of the flight ban in and out of Belgrade. And
it's why we continue to look for ways to sharpen the sanctions because we
believe we should try -- for the sake of the people of Serbia who are
suffering under the boot of Milosevic's oppression, and for the people
of the region who know that without Serbia the region will always
be one step back.
But I wouldn't put high hopes or low hopes. We're doing what we can, what
we reasonably can. But it's really a question for the people of Serbia to
take the necessary steps that will enable democratization to occur.
QUESTION: Can you mention Croatia at least once --
MR. RUBIN: I see. I see -- dumb me. I didn't think about that, right. I
tried to actually answer the question. Let me try to rephrase my answer.
Okay, we certainly hope that the Croatian experience will prove as an
important signal to the people of Serbia that their ticket to a return to a
normal relation with Europe and normal relations with the outside world is
to pursue the kind of unity and united front that the Croatian opposition
developed, get a democratic election, win that election, and then see the
fruits of integration with Europe become more possible.
Was that that better the second time?
QUESTION: Yes, that was perfect.
MR. RUBIN: Okay.
QUESTION: There seems to be concern that some software that the State
Department was using to produce a budget document was developed by citizens
of the former Soviet Union and, thus, there seems to be some concern that
it could have hidden code in it. Can you tell us how the State Department
is reacting to those concerns? And are there any other situations in which
similar investigation are going on?
MR. RUBIN: I cannot answer a broad question about is there an investigation
going on anything anywhere. I can say that, having identified the potential
problem here, that the Bureau of Diplomatic Security informed the FBI, and
there is an investigation going on related to the unclassified computer
software at the Department of State. And the Office of the Inspector
General is looking into the way in which the contracts were awarded.
Given that it is an ongoing investigation, it's hard to say more than that.
I can say that the contractors were not authorized access to classified
computer systems and we have no indication that these contractors had
access to classified materials. All the software has been removed from
State Department systems worldwide. We're conducting a thorough analysis of
it.
At this time we have found nothing to indicate that this software is
corrupt in any way but, obviously, we're going to continue to look into
this question.
QUESTION: Yesterday in the hearing, Chairman Gilman told the Secretary do
not ignore funding support for the Mexican electoral process. My question
is: In any way is the United States Government thinking to fund this
support for the Mexican electoral process?
MR. RUBIN: I'll be happy to check that for you.
QUESTION: On the computer software. Was there anything other than the
ethnicity of the people who wrote the software that caused -- for both --
several investigations to be launched and for the software to be pulled
from the computers?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I don't think ethnicity would be the correct word. But
certainly foreign contractors doing work in this was brought to our
attention at that time, and that was an issue that we thought merited
further examination.
QUESTION: But in his testimony to a Senate subcommittee, Ambassador
Carpenter said that there's actually no --
MR. RUBIN: You just promoted him.
QUESTION: No, I think he is an ambassador, actually.
MR. RUBIN: Is he an ambassador? Assistant Secretary?
QUESTION: But he also has that title because part of the Office of
Foreign Missions. But at any rate -
MR. RUBIN: Well, he's going to love you. We'll give him this exchange for
his reading on Sunday.
QUESTION: At any rate, under questioning by a senator, he said that
there's actually no requirement at the State Department to have contractors
who work on unclassified systems to be backgrounded or cleared.
MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to try to know more than David Carpenter about
procedures. That's not really the point, though. The concern that we had
and the reason why we're conducting the investigation and trying to make
sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again is the potential for work on
unclassified systems to have some ability to go beyond that. And that's
what we're investigating. That's what we're looking at. I indicated we
haven't found any such evidence yet, but we think it's prudent and
appropriate to look at.
QUESTION: Could you tell anything about Turkish President Demirel's
postponed visit? What was the reason to cancel it?
MR. RUBIN: I think it would be really up to him to speak to his reasons .
It was at his suggestion the visit was postponed.
QUESTION: Actually on that, he is going to be Zagreb for the -- do you
have a --
MR. RUBIN: I don't have a list of all the people she may run into at that
event, but I will try to make sure that the able staff that is accompanying
you on that whirlwind visit will provide you all the help they can.
QUESTION: I have something else. This morning as I was fishing around in
my pockets unable to find ignition for a cigarette, one of your very
helpful staff handed me these Usama bin Laden matches. I understand there
was a report a network news show last night. Is this anything new -- this
reward -- these reward matchbooks?
MR. RUBIN: It just so happens that I have a pack of such matches here,
the matches in Arabic. We did announce a $5 million reward for information
leading to Usama bin Laden's arrest, and we said we would vigorously
advertise that reward. We have been distributing these matchbooks
throughout Pakistan and the Middle East in a number of locations. They are
printed in a number of languages, including English, French, Arabic, Dari,
Baluchi and Urdu. The focus has been Pakistan, the Middle East, and
Africa. And that is why we have them.
Now, that is not to say that we are encouraging people to smoke. Let me
take a deep breath, consider recusing myself from what comes next, and say
that people use matches for a variety of reasons, including cooking.
QUESTION: Just as a point of clarification -- a $5 million reward? Or a
reward up to $5 million, which is the standard wording?
MR. RUBIN: The up to $5 million reward. Thank you for that clarification.
We hope that becomes an issue that some day down the road we actually have
Usama bin Laden and they pull out that first version of my answer and
demand the full $5 million.
QUESTION: Peru. Former President Jimmy Carter has been saying that the
electoral process in that country may not be --
MR. RUBIN: Where?
QUESTION: Former president - in Peru.
MR. RUBIN: In Peru.
QUESTION: Do you share the view of the former President that the
electoral process in Peru is not legal?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I am not familiar with former President Carter's
statements on this matter. He's a former President -- and we had a
statement on it last week.
QUESTION: About terrorism. Turkish police and the security forces, they
are capturing the extreme religious -- Turkish Hizballah group terrorists
lately. And then they find out they have a connection with both training,
financially and the weapons -- or materiel from Iran. Do you have any
comment on this?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, we do have some information on that I'll be happy to get
you right after the briefing.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on Joerg Haider's visit to Canada --
Haider, sorry -- Haider's visit to Canada and anything new on Austria? And
I also would note that, apparently, Lou Reed has decided not to play a
concert in Vienna to protest. Do you have anything to say about that?
QUESTION: Does he smoke?
MR. RUBIN: Somehow I have a feeling that if there were a Lou Reed concert
in Austria, smoking would take place. But it's really up to individual
artists and individual countries to make their own decisions on how to deal
with this. I think we've stated our policy quite clearly.
QUESTION: You're not encouraging it. You don't want to come out and
encourage any American performers not to --
MR. RUBIN: Well, we have had contact -- we don't have a no-contact policy
with Austria.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. RUBIN: We have been in touch with Austrian officials. We have
expressed concern where there has been justification for concern. We've
expressed positive responses to the program's publication. And now it's our
job to hold them to the implementation of their program.
QUESTION: Mr. Rubin, according to reports, nearly 200,000 Serbians have
left Kosovo, along with I think another 40,000 gypsies. And one of the
reasons is they can't -- they aren't finding work, and I think there also
is a lot of hostility toward them. Does this mean that the policy of the
settlement, the KFOR implementation, is it not working properly or
what?
MR. RUBIN: No, on the contrary. Earlier I was asked about President
Milosevic -- it's terribly ironic and terribly sad for the people of Serbia
that President Milosevic, had he authorized his delegation to negotiate
seriously, could have had an agreement at Rambouillet that would have
provided numerous protections for the people of Serbia, would not have gone
-- including those Serb citizens in Kosovo -- would not have gone as far as
the international community has now gone with its UN resolution and its UN
control over Kosovo. There was to be autonomy under that agreement,
but Serb citizens could look to Belgrade to deal with a number of
legal and other needs that they had.
So the terrible tragedy is that President Milosevic rejected an agreement
that would have been better for the people of Serbia and better for the
Serbs in Kosovo than what the result was, and then initiated this terrible
ethnic cleansing campaign. And the departure of the Serbs primarily came
about when it was clear that President Milosevic's gambit and his terrible
atrocities had failed and NATO had forced him to capitulate to remove
all Serb forces.
Under Rambouillet, the Serbs could have maintained significant police and
military forces in Kosovo, and these Serbs who left would have felt more
secure, presumably. But because he rejected that agreement, there were no
Serb forces in Kosovo, no Serb police in Kosovo, and the vast bulk of the
departures of Serbs from Kosovo occurred at the time of the war's ending
when it became clear that President Milosevic had lost Kosovo by failing to
pursue a peaceful solution.
And I find it ironic that often we're told that we somehow were making a
hard deal for Milosevic at Rambouillet. It was a much better deal for the
Serbs in Kosovo, but he made the historical blunder of rejecting it.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:30 P.M.).
|
