U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #14, 00-02-23
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1082
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, February 23, 2000
Briefer: James P. Rubin
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1,13 Secretary Albright's Travel to Portugal, Czech Republic, Bosnia and
Belgium in March
NIGERIA
1-2 Violence in Kaduna/Status of American Missionaries
UK/NORTHERN IRELAND
2-4 Secretary Albright's Meeting with UK Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland
CHINA/TAIWAN
4-7 Deputy Secretary Talbott and Deputy NSC Advisor's Meeting with PRC
Ambassador/Discussion of China's White Paper on Taiwan
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
7-8 Ambassador Ross' Travel in Region/Meetings/Contacts
ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
8-9 Secretary of Energy Richardson Signs Letters of Intent for Energy
Cooperation
IRAN
9 Election Results/Prospects for Better Relations
9-11 Department's Position on World Bank Loans to Iran
IRAN/SYRIA
11-12 Reported Iranian Shipment of Arms to Damascus for Hizballah
ETHIOPIA/ERITREA
12-13 Reported Attack by Ethiopia on Eritrea/ Interagency Team Visit
RUSSIA
13 Plans for Secretary Albright to Meet with Russian Foreign Minister
Ivanov in Lisbon
SPAIN
13 Secretary Albright's Luncheon in Honor of King of Spain
MOZAMBIQUE
14 US Flood Assistance
CUBA
14-15 Cuban Diplomat Declared Persona Non Grata/Departure Plans
SERBIA (Kosovo)
16 Situation in Mitrovica/Milosevic's Actions/KFOR Efforts
EUROPEAN UNION
16-18 Reported Industrial Espionage Report
GERMANY
18 Nomination for New US Ambassador to Germany
18 Status of US Embassy
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #14
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2000, 12:30 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Welcome to the State Department briefing, those of you from
wire services, television networks and occasionally a newspaper.
First off, I do have an announcement on the Secretary's travel. The
Secretary will travel to Lisbon to attend the March 3rd EU-US European
Union Ministerial and to participate in other high-level meetings.
From March 5th through the 8th, the Secretary will be in the Czech Republic
to participate in events marking the 150th anniversary of the birth of
Tomas Masaryk, the first Czechoslovak President. During her stay, she will
also meet with President Havel, Prime Minister Zeman and Foreign Minister
Kavan.
March 8th and 9th, the Secretary will be in Bosnia to welcome significant
advances in implementation of Dayton and to urge the parties to accelerate
progress in refugee returns, economic reform, the functioning of central
institutions and other actions needed to make peace in Bosnia self-
sustaining.
The Secretary will then go to Brussels on March the 10th for meetings with
EU and NATO officials. We will have more details on the precise stops in
Bosnia and in the Czech Republic in the coming days, but that is the
overall calendar.
We also have a statement on Nigeria of the communal violence in Kaduna, and
that will be released after the briefing.
QUESTION: Can I ask a question about Nigeria?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have any more information about these 20 American
missionaries who are trapped, and is anything being done to try and get
them out - and details on what church they're with?
MR. RUBIN: We have been in close touch with the authorities in Nigeria
regarding the situation in Kaduna and the missing American citizens. We
urge Nigerians of all beliefs to find peaceful constitutional solutions to
their differences. About 20 American missionaries live there. These
Americans are safe but they were forced to take refuge on a local military
base to escape the violence.
QUESTION: I'm sorry. Is there any thought of trying to get them
out?
MR. RUBIN: Well, right now they're safe but, obviously, we're trying to
do our best to monitor their welfare. But that's the latest information.
QUESTION: On Ireland and Ireland's --
QUESTION: On Nigeria, can you do another one?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Nigeria is one of the four countries, prime candidates, to be
fully fledged democracies and so on. Does this communal violence - how does
this - how big a setback is this to Nigeria's position as most favored
democracy?
MR. RUBIN: Nigeria is Africa's most populous nation and its successful
transition to democracy and civilian rule is of great importance to the
region and the continent. We want to do all we can to see Nigeria
consolidate its democracy and build a solid foundation for stability, peace
and prosperity.
There have been a number of actions in other parts of Nigeria, including
the Niger delta. There clearly are profound ethnic problems in Nigeria.
It's a very large country with a very large number of ethnic groups. And we
certainly do not want to see violence be used, but that doesn't change our
desire to try to assist Nigeria's successful transition to democracy.
QUESTION: You mentioned something about the missing American citizens.
Are there missing citizens?
MR. RUBIN: There was a report about that, and I said that they were safe.
The 20 American missionaries were safe.
QUESTION: So there aren't other Americans who have disappeared?
MR. RUBIN: Not to my knowledge, but I can get our staff working with you
on that after the briefing.
Could you arrange for a separate briefing for our reporter here on Nigerian
consular affairs? And that briefing should go on from 2:15 to 3:15 in his
office with relevant officials from the Consular Affairs department. Thank
you.
QUESTION: Jamie, Ireland. The crisis, Northern Ireland, the troubles. The
British minister for that area is here speaking, I think, and saying that
Mitchell is not going to take on that role again. I'm trying to get a sense
of how active, or maybe inactive, American diplomacy now is. This was once
one of Clinton's two most promising foreign policy areas. The other isn't
doing too well either - the Middle East.
Is there a special mediator? It isn't intended as a joke. It's just, you
know, it's slow now.
MR. RUBIN: But your commentary is always welcome.
QUESTION: Well, all right. Is the Clinton administration policy
succeeding in Ireland and the Middle East and, to help it succeed even more,
what is the administration doing about Northern Ireland?
MR. RUBIN: I knew you could do it if you tried.
QUESTION: Or will you give up and leave it to the British where other
Presidents have left it?
MR. RUBIN: Boy, we haven't even started yet and we're going --
QUESTION: And I have another one on Nigeria.
MR. RUBIN: Okay, let me take a deep breath.
QUESTION: Or would you like me to ask about Russia?
MR. RUBIN: With respect to Northern Ireland, the President and Secretary
Albright, particularly the President, have been working on this very, very
hard. They continue to work on it very hard. They continue to be in touch
with the parties, as appropriate.
The Secretary will meet this afternoon with the UK Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland, Peter Mandelson, to review with him the prospects for
getting the peace process back on track. Obviously, we want to see all the
parties to think creatively, flexibly, about how to build on progress that
had been achieved. We want local institutions to be restored as quickly as
possible with the involvement of all parties.
With respect to what steps the President of the United States might take in
this regard, all I can say is that the administration will continue to play
a role that we see fit, as appropriate to the particular circumstances. We
are not interested in Monday morning quarterbacking on things that have
happened. We are interested in trying to be helpful. Obviously, a number of
important players will be in town over the next week and again in a few
weeks time, and we'll continue to do what we think is appropriate. I
don't want to speculate on what George Mitchell's role would or wouldn't
be.
QUESTION: Well, I'm trying to look ahead to Saturday's game rather than
Monday morning quarterbacking, looking forward.
MR. RUBIN: Right.
QUESTION: You know, the administration's approach was a breakthrough. It
was involving the US very directly - first President, first administration
to do this. And is it fair to say that the administration's posture now is:
Let it just settle for a while, let the British use their best judgment and,
if they need us, we're there?
MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't put it that way. What I would say is that the
process of making peace in a place like Northern Ireland will inevitably
have fits and starts. These are extraordinarily difficult things to do that
they don't succeed overnight; they succeed over time, and they only succeed
through persistence. And we will adopt the same persistence in the coming
days as we have in the past, based on the circumstances and our best
judgment as to how we can be helpful.
QUESTION: Change of subject? China. I understand there was a meeting here
yesterday at the State Department between State Department officials and
Chinese Embassy officials on this White Paper issue. Other than stating
well-known positions, can you tell us - can you give us a readout on what
transpired?
MR. RUBIN: The "other than stating well-known positions" kind of takes
the wind out of my sails. (Laughter.)
Seriously, boy, we've managed to joke about every subject so far. I hope we
don't get to a place where - anyway --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - the answer's no.
MR. RUBIN: Let me say this. Deputy Secretary Talbott and Deputy National
Security Advisor Jim Steinberg did meet yesterday with Ambassador Li from
the People's Republic of China. During the meeting, Deputy Secretary
Talbott delivered a very strong message. He indicated our concern over the
substance, the timing and the tone of China's White Paper on Taiwan, which
we found troubling, as I indicated to you yesterday. He stressed our
concern over the statement in the White Paper that indefinite delay
in negotiations on unification would be a reason for the PRC to use
force.
Our view that he made very clear is that the resolution of cross-strait
differences should be peaceful and that the threat that China has made in
this regard is therefore counter-productive. We have called for peaceful
resolution of the differences between China and Taiwan and our support for
cross-strait dialogue is quite clear as the best way to resolve those
differences.
For those of you who might have asked, our view is that we continue to have
a One China policy.
QUESTION: The Chinese Embassy spokesman today was arguing that, in fact,
the White Paper offers various - certain flexibility to Taiwan, in the
sense that it treats the Taiwan authorities on an equal footing and offers
to talk about their future political status.
Do these elements, in your view, mitigate the unfortunate effect of the
threat of military force?
MR. RUBIN: Let me tell you our view of those statements. Clearly, this is
a lengthy statement. There is more in the White Paper than just what we've
been talking about for the last two days. It does include various elements
of China's policy, including China's stated interest in peaceful reunification
and cross-strait dialogue. That said, one can't simply dismiss the fact
that there was a new public articulation of a threat to use force. And
we've made our views about that threat quite clear that that threat
was counter-productive.
That doesn't mean that every part of the document was troublesome to us.
There were some parts that were not troublesome. There were some parts that
included and expressed clearly China's interest in a peaceful resolution of
the cross-strait issue in obtaining reunification through a cross-strait
dialogue, and those parts were not counter-productive. But I don't think we
can dismiss the existence of this new language simply because there were
other parts that were constructive.
QUESTION: Who does the State Department think was the intended audience
of the White Paper? The Chinese Embassy says, no, it wasn't the elections
and the Taiwan people; seemed to imply that the audience was, one, here in
the US, specifically those who are supporting the Taiwan Security
Enhancement Act.
MR. RUBIN: Well, if that was their audience, I'm not sure they hit the
nail on the head. With respect to who their audience was, we can not know
that. It's unknowable. They have indicated their Embassy here that was
their intended audience, and it's unknowable what their intent was, what
was in their mind.
QUESTION: Jamie, they're making a threat to a US ally and a nation that -
or an entity that the United States has protected in the past. Dismissing
it as counter-productive, it sounds kind of weak. I mean, it doesn't sound
like it's a real response to a threat. Can we expect that something more is
going to be said on this at some higher level?
MR. RUBIN: I don't think, if you had followed carefully what we have all
been saying over the last 48 hours, that you would regard our response as
mild. We don't regard it as mild. We clearly rejected the threat in very
clear terms. We had a discussion with their ambassador yesterday about it.
It was discussed in Beijing.
I'm not going to comment on your assessment of the level of our reaction. I
am happy to tell you what our reaction was. And that's what our reaction is
and I'm not going to speculate on the future.
QUESTION: Jamie, was the only new thing you found the one you talked
about yesterday in this White Paper?
MR. RUBIN: I believe that those who are studying it carefully also
indicated there was new language on the peaceful unification as well.
QUESTION: Well, are you saying that was a new position as well?
MR. RUBIN: There was aspects of the way it was described publicly that -
you know, it's hard to write a 20-page document without saying anything new,
although we try here at the State Department as best we can. I think there
was a rather extensive discussion of the Chinese position on peaceful
dialogue that included elements that were interesting to those who follow
this closely. But, at the same time, I don't think that means that the
clear threat that was contained for the first time in their public
language can be dismissed.
QUESTION: I am not sure whether you answered this yesterday, Jamie, but
does this affect - what effect does it have on your resolve to promote
permanent normal trade relations with China and your opposition to the
Taiwan Security Enhancement Act?
MR. RUBIN: On the first, our view about permanent normal trade relations
with China and about the World Trade Organization's admission of China is
essentially on the merits, that this agreement is substantially in the
interest of the United States because it will provide for reduced tariffs
and non-tariff barriers for our products to be sold in China, requiring us
to take very little action. So this is a win situation on trade terms.
We have also made clear that we regard the possibility of the rule of law
becoming inculcated in Chinese society as beneficial for the people of
China and for China's relations with the outside world. In our view,
therefore, China's entry into the World Trade Organization is a win for our
trade stance and it is a win for the potential role of the rule of law in
China and, therefore, we believe it should be judged on its merits and we
believe that this statement, despite it being counter-productive at this
point, is a statement and it shouldn't interfere with us doing what
is right for our national interests as I just described them.
With respect to the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, it has not changed our
view. We engage in quite substantial support for Taiwan, pursuant to the
Taiwan Relations Act. In 1998-'99, for example, we notified Congress of our
intent to approve the sale of a number of items to Taiwan, including an E-
2T early warning aircraft equipment for the F-16 and other aircraft in
Taiwan's inventory, Hellfire air-to-surface missiles, Knox-class destroyers,
Chinook helicopters, Chaparral missiles, M-46 torpedoes and Harpoon anti-
ship missiles. Therefore, anyone who suggests on Capitol Hill or anywhere
else, that we are not interested in ensuring and working for the defense
of Taiwan pursuant to the Taiwan Relations Act just isn't following what's
been going on.
We're second to none in the world in supporting Taiwan's defense and this
is a system that has worked well. We have a policy based on three
communiques. It has served us well. It served the people of Taiwan well and
it served the United States well and, if it's not broke, we don't think it
ought to be fixed with a law that will only complicate the defense of
Taiwan.
QUESTION: Actually, Jamie, much of what you just cited there was used as
an example by the Chinese Embassy as proof that the US is exceeding what it
had agreed to do in the three communiques in the Taiwan Relations Act and
has sold far too much arms to Taiwan.
MR. RUBIN: I just hope that those who are looking for or who have
suggested that we haven't done enough for Taiwan will take into account
that, on the one hand, the Chinese think we're doing far too much and we
are walking a balance here that has served our national interest extremely
well, providing Taiwan what it needs for its legitimate defense, despite
the fact that China doesn't support that activity and opposes that
activity. And so we've been working very hard to ensure the defense of
Taiwan pursuant to the Taiwan Relations Act and we, therefore, don't
need laws that would complicate that defense and complicate the arrangements
that have served us and the Taiwanese people so well.
QUESTION: Jamie, have you recently - I wasn't here yesterday - said
anything about Ross' travels and where things stand?
MR. RUBIN: Yes. Ambassador Ross is in the region. He has been meeting
with Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Barak. He has been going over a
number of the details of the permanent status issues as well as the
remaining aspects of the Sharm el Sheik agreement and he has been trying to
help build a foundation for a return to the peace table between Israel and
the Palestinians as well as Israel and the Syrians.
QUESTION: Does that mean that - I don't know that it would, necessarily,
but does that mean the United States is beginning to present some ideas of
its own? Because they don't seem to be finding their way to the table by
themselves.
MR. RUBIN: We're a very patient people in the peace business, perhaps
more patient than some in your business. And just because things don't
happen as quickly as we would want in an ideal world, the Israeli Prime
Minister or the Syrians or the Palestinians would want, doesn't mean we
won't keep on working.
I am not suggesting we are offering US proposals.
QUESTION: Jamie, can you say whether Dennis has been in touch with the
Syrians on this track?
MR. RUBIN: We are in touch. Our government is in touch with the Syrians.
I am not aware of any plans for him to go to Damascus.
QUESTION: Has he been talking to them?
MR. RUBIN: I don't intend to start down a road of having to report every
time Dennis has a phone conversation. Okay. Yes.
QUESTION: I think you could deal with it in the same way you dealt with
the Palestinians. Is he working the Syrian track on this trip?
MR. RUBIN: I indicated that that is obviously an issue that is out there.
But I don't intend to - it is one thing for me to report the Secretary's
phone calls. I don't intend to report every contact between our government
and other governments. I have said and will continue to assert that we are
in touch with the Syrian Government about the Israel-Syria peace track.
QUESTION: I don't mean to belabor it. But you've just told us that Ross
is trying to bring Arafat and Barak together, get the talks going again.
And we are simply asking if he is making a similar - he, out there, is
making an effort on the Syrian track or is it something that is being
handled otherwise?
MR. RUBIN: I indicated in response to your first question that the Syria
track was part of his agenda. What I am not prepared to go down the road in
order to protect myself and this department from having to answer a
question every time Dennis gets on the telephone with every one of Dennis
Ross' contacts. Syria is something that is on the agenda as well and this
government is in touch with the Syrian Government and the Israeli
Government on the subject of the Israel-Syria peace talks.
QUESTION: When you speak contacts - you've issued several welcoming
statements about the results in Iran
QUESTION: Can we stick on Israel for a moment?
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: What is the agreement that was signed between the United States
and Israel with Secretary Richardson signing it on nuclear cooperation?
Does that include military cooperation?
MR. RUBIN: I think you're referring to a letter of intent with the
Palestinian Energy Authority. Is that what you're referring to?
QUESTION: No, I'm referring to the State of Israel.
MR. RUBIN: Then I will get you the details. I'm familiar with --
QUESTION: What was the other --
MR. RUBIN: Secretary of Energy Richardson has sent out a letter of intent
with the Palestinian Energy Authority that concerns cooperation. I believe
there was something on this, but I'll get it for you on the Israelis.
QUESTION: Can we try Iran again?
QUESTION: (Inaudible)?
MR. RUBIN: Secretary of Energy Richardson has signed a letter of intent
with the Palestinian Energy Authority that concerns cooperation in the
fields of energy planning and policy analysis, energy regulation and energy
technology. It does not entail any cooperation in the nuclear field or any
other sensitive area. It's part of a larger ongoing US and international
effort to support the development of the West Bank and Gaza and to help the
Palestinians reap the benefits of peace. It is not an international
agreement; it is a letter of intent that expresses the willingness of
the two sides to cooperate at the technical level in the energy field.
Secretary Bill Richardson has signed an agreement with his Israeli
counterpart concerning energy cooperation. This agreement covers a wide
range of cooperation in non-sensitive areas, including solar energy,
biomass and fossil energy. Separately, Secretary Richardson signed a letter
of intent with the Israeli Atomic Energy [Commission]. Its purpose is to
build on existing programs of civilian technical cooperation. The
Department of Energy and the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission have been
working together in such areas as verification of the Comprehensive Test
Ban, regional seismic transparency, and this letter of intent will expand
our work in this area. This kind of technical civilian cooperation
supports our efforts to combat proliferation and this cooperation does not
involve Israel's military program.
QUESTION: Is the administration doing anything to offer dialogue now in
light of the elections, or does your - I guess two statements - your two
statements welcoming the results stand as a sort of a reminder that the US
is willing to talk to the Iranians?
MR. RUBIN: The election results are not final. It's clear that there has
been an unmistakable demonstration of support for the policies of openness
and engagement. It is our hope that the popular mandate enjoyed by the new
parliament will set Iran on a new course towards a new constructive role in
the region. We continue to believe that direct dialogue between the United
States and Iran is the best way to approach the real policy differences
which have divided us. Iran's elections are a positive development for
Iranian democracy, and we believe for the prospect of better US-Iranian
relations as well.
In the recent months and years, we have taken a number of steps that we
have discussed in this briefing room time and time again; I am not going to
repeat them for you. But we need Iran to demonstrate its willingness to
address our concerns constructively through authorized and acknowledged
dialogue. I have nothing to offer you on what we might - what one might
anticipate in the weeks ahead. That is our position.
QUESTION: This is communication, public statements, right?
QUESTION: About a month or so ago, after great effort, we managed to
extract from this department the statement of opposition to World Bank
loans to Iran. Does the election - could the election have any effect on
this position?
MR. RUBIN: The World Bank itself is, of course, best placed to respond to
questions about the World Bank. Let me just finish. Just hang in there.
Our understanding is that the World Bank has not finalized any proposals
for loans to Iran for Executive Board consideration and there are no such
proposals on the agenda for the World Bank Board at this time.
Congress has directed that the United States oppose multilateral lending to
countries designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of
terrorism. Iran has been so designated. Furthermore, the United States does
not believe that conditions favor restarting World Bank lending to Iran at
this time. Iran has yet to make progress in a number of fronts that should
precede such action, including pursuing meaningful economic reform and
abandoning support for terrorism.
Our position on lending to Iran is well known to the Bank. The United
States opposes World Bank lending to countries we have determined support
international terrorism. We will not, therefore, support any loan to Iran
that comes to the World Bank's Executive Board.
QUESTION: Does that legislation --
MR. RUBIN: I thought that was pretty clear.
QUESTION: That's very clear, yes. But --
MR. RUBIN: What do you mean? I did it right away.
QUESTION: No, it's very good. But does that legislation --
MR. RUBIN: You didn't have to drag it out of me, none of that.
QUESTION: -- contain any kind of national security waiver or national
interest waiver or anything at all? Is it set in stone, when you say
Congress has directed that we oppose --
MR. RUBIN: We don't believe that Congress can, in fact, as a constitutional
matter, direct how we vote, and the Executive Branch considers such
direction from Congress as beyond congressional authority. We've made this
point to Congress; we're going to continue to disagree on that. But we have,
as a matter of practice, followed congressional proscriptions.
Beyond that, I would have to get the text of the law to answer your
question about waivers.
QUESTION: Do you have the right to ignore congressional guidance on this
point?
MR. RUBIN: I think we've made it clear to Congress for some time that we
disagree with their authority to direct our --
QUESTION: Do you think maybe Iran may be a test case for this right --
MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't assume that at all.
QUESTION: If Iran's designated status as a terrorist state is blocking
the United States from supporting loans, what does Iran have to do at this
stage to change its status as a state supporting terrorism?
MR. RUBIN: Well, there have been - if you could get me that stuff from
the legislation from that other country?
There are a number of steps that have been made quite clear, essentially
involving ensuring that the government is not supporting directly and
repeatedly those conducting terrorist acts. We have had dialogues with
other countries. We have engaged in a dialogue with North Korea, for
example, in explaining what steps they need to take. Every country is
different because every country that's on the list is different in the way
in which it supports directly terrorist groups that perform terrorist
acts.
So I can't get too specific with you in the absence of the specific
intelligence information that forms the basis of our conclusions. I can say
that we would be happy to have a dialogue with Iran in which we laid out
specifically what we thought was required for them to remove themselves
from such a list.
QUESTION: Two questions. The Washington Post, in an article today said
that a Boeing 747 full of military hardware arrives in Damascus from Iran
twice a month in support of Hizballah. And I wonder, number one, if you
could confirm that it was cited to US officials and, number two, if you
think that Syria should be preventing such planeloads of weapons from
reaching Hizballah? You've said before that Syria exercises influence but
this is sort of physical and material.
My other question is, do you still call for an acknowledged dialogue with
Iran or is that no longer in the language?
MR. RUBIN: I don't think that basically has changed on the nature of the
dialogue. I think that I am not going to comment on how often planeloads go
from those airports to each other; that's an intelligence matter.
And the third question is, we certainly want Syria to exercise maximum
restraint over Hizballah, especially with regard to their attacks on
Israeli soldiers, yes.
QUESTION: If I could just pick up on that? Does the US have any
information - you don't have to say how regularly - that planeloads of
weapons are being sent from Iran to support Hizballah?
MR. RUBIN: We have substantial information to justify our placing Iran on
the terrorist list.
QUESTION: Another question. I assume that the United States does have
contact, one way or another, with Hizballah. And in those contacts, what
have you learned about Hizballah's ultimate stated intentions? This is
becoming significant, of course, as the Israelis talk about withdrawing
from Lebanon.
Did you have any reason to believe that Hizballah would be satisfied with
merely an Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon, as they say so often?
MR. RUBIN: Let me just say I intend to survive the last few months of my
term as Spokesman of the United States of America without becoming the
spokesman for Hizballah.
QUESTION: I would like you to add to Barry's list of US seeming US
efforts at seeming peace processes that are apparently faltering. We'll go
to the Horn of Africa, where Tony Lake --
MR. RUBIN: Don't say it with such relish.
QUESTION: Tony Lake is there right now trying to continue efforts to
mediate the Ethiopian-Eritrean dispute, and I noticed that he was supposed
to be in an Asmara meeting with the Eritrean President this morning and
that just today on the day that that was supposed to happen, the Ethiopians
have launched a huge offensive involving several thousand troops at
Eritrean --
MR. RUBIN: Is there anything you want to add to the question?
QUESTION: I just want to know what you think about that and what Lake is -
what is Tony Lake doing?
MR. RUBIN: Come on, add a few more points to make it easier to answer.
We have no information at this time indicating that an attack by Ethiopia
has taken place at the Burie front as reported by the press, citing
Eritrean sources. We are in contact with our missions in Asmara and Addis
Ababa to assess this report. Tony Lake and an interagency team did travel
to Asmara earlier this week and arrived in Addis Ababa today.
Mr. Lake and his team will continue to work with the Organization for
African Unity to support the OAU's efforts to bring about the resolution of
the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict. But, like many other conflicts, these
conflicts don't lend themselves to instant, 60-second solutions. They
require persistence and patience and the kind of hard work that hundreds of
people in this building do every day that I think should be respected
rather than regarded as constant failures.
QUESTION: Jamie, now can I --
MR. RUBIN: Yes. He hasn't asked a question.
QUESTION: This report that was unveiled this morning by Human Rights
Watch titled Colombia, Military and Paramilitary Links, attached to a
letter to Secretary Albright on these alleged links with paramilitary
forces of Colombia and Human Rights Watch is requesting and urging the US
Administration to condition US aid to Colombia as far as human rights go
beyond the Leahy Amendment. And I quote from this letter: "All US security
assistance should be conditioned on explicit actions by the Colombian
Government to severe links at all levels between the Colombian military
and paramilitary groups."
Do you have any response on this?
MR. RUBIN: We will be studying that report at some point. We'll provide a
response.
QUESTION: A couple of hours ago when the briefing began, I don't recall
if you said whether the Secretary will see the Russian Foreign Minister in
Lisbon.
MR. RUBIN: I do expect her to see the Russian Foreign Minister in
Lisbon.
QUESTION: Have you heard since Moscow three weeks ago - you remember the
Acting President promised to take on - I think the expression was - a
couple of American suggestions about Chechnya? And he was charging Ivanov
with getting back to her, at least on the Human Rights Commission.
MR. RUBIN: Right. I will check. On the human rights, they have appointed
somebody and they have indicated there was an initial UN group that went in
there as an assessment team. So there are a number of additional steps that
we want to see happen. Certainly on the journalist accreditation there has
been no substantial movement to my knowledge, but on the assessment teams
there has been some discussion and some movement. And I'll try to get
back to you.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the King of Spain who is having lunch
with Secretary Albright at the moment?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, the King of Spain and Secretary Albright are - she's
hosting a lunch for him right now. She is very pleased to be able to do
that. She participated in the President's bilateral with the King earlier
today, and I will try to get you a readout from the day's events later.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- have any separate kind of working meeting with
the King at all, does he?
MR. RUBIN: The lunch.
QUESTION: Other than the lunch?
MR. RUBIN: That's my understanding, yes.
QUESTION: I put this to the Department this morning and haven't had any
reply. It may be you have one. Mozambique. President Chissano has appealed
for urgent international aid to help more than 800,000 people, victims of
floods and cyclones and other disasters. Is the AID planning anything?
MR. RUBIN: We have provided already $25,000 in initial disaster
assistance and are deploying a two-person assessment team to Maputo to
evaluate additional needs. On February 10th, the government there appealed
to donors for assistance totaling 7.7 million, of which 2.7 million for
immediate requirements. World Food Program donor coordination meeting
should provide more information. We have just received a list of immediate
needs as articulated by the government there. Once these needs have
been reviewed, the US Government may provide additional support to
address critical needs.
QUESTION: That 25,000, that's the ambassador's discretionary fund?
MR. RUBIN: The ambassador's fund, yes.
QUESTION: Have you seen the announcement by President Mugabe of Zimbabwe
that he is willing to withdraw his 11,00 troops from the Congo, where they
have been a major element of the war?
MR. RUBIN: I haven't seen that announcement, no. I'll look for it, but I
haven't seen it.
QUESTION: Is there any movement on the Cuban diplomat who may or may not
go by Saturday?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we think that Cuba would be well advised to follow the
Vienna Convention. It would be unprecedented for Cuba to not ensure that
the diplomat does withdraw following his being declared persona non grata.
We have made very clear that we intend to exercise our rights under the
Vienna Convention if the diplomat is not removed by next Saturday. We still
can not find a precedent for failure to remove a diplomat once declared
persona non grata.
QUESTION: Jamie, there is a controversy in Miami - not surprising - over
the presence of this particular Cuban diplomat the day that the grandmothers
went down to see the boy and were unsuccessful. There are reports that he
arrived at the airport separately from the grandmothers, attempted to
intervene, and then came home with them.
Do you know if he was down there?
MR. RUBIN: I think there is a tendency for a certain degree of tunnel
vision on the part of some. There was a case - the FBI made very clear
about an American immigration official who has been charged with espionage.
And in that brief, they made very clear that that official was in touch
with members of the Cuban interest section. You can safely assume that our
declaring persona non grata this diplomat is related to that case. That is
the best answer I can offer you.
QUESTION: Anything on Kosovo and specifically Milosevic's role -
MR. RUBIN: He wants to follow that up. I don't know where you can follow
it, but let's try.
QUESTION: Well, I basically wanted to ask you if, as you indicated
yesterday and which you just hinted at before, whether the Cuban diplomat,
should he remain past, I believe it was 1:30 on Saturday, could be subject
to arrest?
MR. RUBIN: Absolutely. He would be subject to the laws of the United
States. The FBI has made clear and provided evidence that was the basis for
our decision to declare him persona non grata for engaging in activities
incompatible with his diplomatic status, and he would be subject to the
laws of the United States if he doesn't leave with his privileges and
immunities intact by Saturday.
QUESTION: And would he automatically be breaking the laws of the United
States if he stays beyond that day?
MR. RUBIN: I don't speak to that matter. The issue I am describing to you
is his privileges and immunities. So that - I am trying to help you and
you've got to let me help you, okay? I can't speak for the FBI or the
Justice Department; I can speak for the State Department. And for the State
Department, we would no longer be guaranteeing his immunity and his
privileges from prosecution.
If you are asking, would he be prosecuted, you're asking the wrong
department.
QUESTION: Diplomats who are accredited to the United States presumably
receive visas which are valid only so long as they remain accredited; would
that be correct?
MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't assume that a visa complication necessarily kicks
in one minute after 1:30 p.m., but I will check that. The issue is a law
enforcement issue, not a visa issue.
QUESTION: Milosevic in his role in the disturbances in Kosovo, do you
have much evidence? There was a piece in the paper this morning.
MR. RUBIN: We are certainly familiar with Milosevic's intent to stir up
trouble in Kosovo and clearly he has links to those who are the extremists
in Mitrovica who are trying to pursue the same kind of ethnic intolerance
that Milosevic has made famous in the Balkans. We certainly are concerned
about that. We think it would be a grave mistake for Serbian forces to pose
any threat to KFOR and we will watch the situation very, very closely.
We will also have been working with our NATO allies to ensure the
recent ongoing KFOR effort to strengthen security in Mitrovica, including
all measures necessary to put an end to violent incidents succeeds.
Increases in KFOR troop strength in Mitrovica, doubling the number of
international police assigned there and a dawn-to-dusk curfew are also part
of this effort. The recent raids that have been effective in locating
weapons and removing them from circulation.
We know that Belgrade has every interest in keeping things tense in Kosovo.
We will monitor those efforts very, very carefully and all I can say beyond
that is we are closely monitoring movements of Yugoslav forces in the
Kosovo border region. Should it become clear that FRY is interfering with
KFOR activities, KFOR will respond as appropriate.
QUESTION: This would suggest a plan to interfere directly?
MR. RUBIN: I think I've stated as much indications as I can.
QUESTION: What Milosevic may or may not be doing in Bosnia? Is there any
sign that he's --
MR. RUBIN: We continue to believe that this man's influence in the region
is pernicious and anti- -- and against the interests of the people of the
region by promoting dissension, promoting ethnic intolerance, and we have
every indication that that is still his modus operandi. I don't have any
information on specific activities with respect to Bosnia at this
time.
QUESTION: Does the US want to issue any kind of a threat to Milosevic
that, if he doesn't back off, he has to be concerned with more than what's
just happening within Mitrovica?
MR. RUBIN: I think this is an indicted war criminal who knows that his
indictment has not changed. I think our view of what would happen if
Serbian security forces interfered with KFOR activities - all I can say is
it would be a grave, grave mistake.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about this hoo-haw that has erupted
in Europe over - especially in France about the Echelon program?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, I do have something I would like to say about that, to
the surprise of some of you.
Although we never comment on actual or alleged - hold on - on actual or
alleged intelligence activities, we have taken note that the European Union
is looking at a report which deals with this topic. Although we cannot
comment on the substance of the report, I can say that the National
Security Agency is not authorized to provide intelligence information to
private firms. That agency acts in strict accordance with American
law.
As the Aspin/Brown Commission Report of 1996 explains, US intelligence
agencies are not tasked to engage in industrial espionage or obtain trade
secrets for the benefit of any US company or companies.
QUESTION: And I take it that no matter what I ask after that, there isn't
going to be anything else?
MR. RUBIN: Not much.
QUESTION: Well, does - then I'll ask it anyway. Does the NSA do
industrial espionage for the government sources?
MR. RUBIN: The NSA is not authorized to provide intelligence information
to private firms. The Aspin/Brown Commission Report of 1996 explains that
US intelligence agencies are not tasked to engage in industrial espionage,
or obtain trade secrets for the benefit of any US company or companies.
QUESTION: You leave out the government, though.
MR. RUBIN: Government? I just said, "US intelligence agencies are not
tasked to engage in industrial espionage."
QUESTION: For?
MR. RUBIN: Comma, "or obtain trade secrets for the benefit of any US
company or companies."
QUESTION: Right. But it's not - okay.
MR. RUBIN: That's a comma.
QUESTION: I know. But it leaves out --
MR. RUBIN: A comma before "or" does not equal "for."
QUESTION: I know. But that still leaves the possibility that there is
such spying going on and the government is using it itself somehow because
we're talking about --
MR. RUBIN: "US intelligence agencies are not tasked to engage in
industrial espionage, or obtain trade secrets for the benefit of any US
company or companies." That's what I've been provided.
QUESTION: Qualified by the --
MR. RUBIN: There's a comma there. I hope it's in the right place.
QUESTION: Do you acknowledge that the Echelon program exists?
MR. RUBIN: I think I've said about as much as I can say on this
issue.
QUESTION: Have arrangements been set for a US-North Korea meeting by the
end of this month yet?
MR. RUBIN: I have nothing new on that.
QUESTION: Anything on the Hawaii meetings?
MR. RUBIN: No.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on Secretary General Kofi Annan's call
for a "global new deal" which he spoke about at the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development?
MR. RUBIN: I will have to check to see whether we made an official
reaction on that.
QUESTION: One last thing, and I don't expect you to really have an answer
to this. I noticed that Beth Jones - the White House named Elizabeth Jones
as the new ambassador to Germany yesterday and the Germans are very excited
about having this fine diplomat be the new US ambassador there.
MR. RUBIN: All I can say --
QUESTION: Wait, wait, wait. That's not my question.
MR. RUBIN: Oh. It's just the preamble.
QUESTION: Exactly. Has the dispute over the setback on the Embassy there
been resolved and, if not, can you give us an update about where it
stands?
MR. RUBIN: I will get you an update on where that issue stands. But let
me just say for the record that Beth Jones is one of our finest Foreign
Service officers.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:20 P.M.)
|
