U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #99, 99-08-05
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
733
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Thursday, August 5, 1999
Briefer: James P. Rubin
STATEMENTS
1 Indonesia - Concern About Violence in Aceh
1 Confirmation of Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke
DEPARTMENT
1-5 Holbrooke Nomination Process / UN / Holdup of Ambassadorial
Nominations / US-UN Relations / Foreign Operations Appropriations
Bill
SERBIA (MONTENEGRO)
5&6 US Support / Democracy Building Program / Humanitarian Assistance /
TAIWAN
7 Purchase of Commercial Aircraft - Boeing 777
MIDDLE EAST
7-9 Detained Palestinian/American in Israel / Consular Assistance /
Central Intelligence Agency / Security Requirements of Wye River
Accords / Secretary Albright's Travel
CUBA
9 President Castro's Speech / Cuban Migration to the US
NORTH KOREA
9 Four-Party Talks in Geneva
SERBIA (KOSOVO)
9&10 Peace Accord / US Objectives / Refugees / Repression of Albanian
People / Revenge and Retaliation Against Serbs / NATO / UN /
Protection of People of Kosovo / Ethnic Cleansing.
BALKANS
10 US spending capped by Congress / Foreign Aid Funding
SOUTH KOREA AND JAPAN
11 Search and Rescue Exercise
TURKEY
12 PKK Terrorist Activities / Ocalan / Kurdish Issues
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #99
THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 1999, 12:35 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Welcome to the State Department briefing -- another near on-
time performance for four days in a row. And lest you believe that that is
related to my desire to make life easy for you, let me assure you it is
not. It's simply related to the fact that at this time of year there's very
little going on, so it's much easier to be ready by 12:30 p.m.
We have a statement today indicating that the United States is deeply
concerned over the rising tide of violence which has claimed over a hundred
lives in recent months and dramatically increased tensions in the
Indonesian province of Aceh. A full statement on that will be released
after the briefing.
In addition, Secretary Albright was very pleased to be able to inform Kofi
Annan, during the course of a conversation, that the Senate had confirmed
Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. She's extremely pleased the Senate has acted
on his nomination, and welcomes him as a member of the national security
team. We do need a permanent representative at the UN and the UN remains a
vital forum for the community of nations to discuss various issues of peace,
security, humanitarian release, human rights, democracy. Secretary
Albright feels certain that Ambassador Holbrooke will serve the American
people well at the United Nations.
With those statements let me turn to your questions.
QUESTION: On Holbrooke, she is pleased with the result but how does she
feel about the process?
MR. RUBIN: Please be more specific; I don't --
QUESTION: Sure. Delaying a nomination for over a year; holding a nominee
hostage to action on various unrelated issues --
MR. RUBIN: I think we've made quite clear that the Holbrooke nomination
had nothing to do with the question of an employee who was receiving,
pursuant to fairness, an independent process of consideration of her
situation. This employee, - pursuant to a number of procedures developed
over many years in our government, was receiving fairness through an
independent process. That's why a special counsel rather than the
government itself is dealing with that situation.
Now, unfortunately other ambassadors are being held up in an unrelated and
illogical way to an effort that we're making to try to insure that fairness
is applied through this special counsel process. Secretary Albright is
concerned that other ambassadors are being held up and we certainly hope
that the Senate will confirm these other ambassadors before it recesses.
QUESTION: But presumably it's adequate timing for the special session, et
cetera. Do you know when he'll take up his post?
MR. RUBIN: I spoke to Ambassador Holbrooke this morning. He is expected
to be sworn in after a family wedding. His son is getting married in the
coming days, and after that he'll be taking up his post.
QUESTION: As far as the organizational chart, will his relationship to
the President and to the Secretary of State be the same as Secretary
Albright's was when she was at the UN?
MR. RUBIN: The same as then-Ambassador Richardson and now Secretary
Richardson and same as Secretary Albright and then Ambassador Albright. So
nothing's really changed here; normal procedure holds.
QUESTION: Did the Administration have to make any particular assurances
or agreements with the Senate in order to get this nomination finally
shaken loose?
MR. RUBIN: Well, as far as our standpoint - there is a process going on.
It is a fair process because it is being conducted by an independent
counsel. We don't have the ability to make decisions for that independent
counsel. So we didn't change in any way, shape or form our posture; because
it's a posture that's constrained by the independence of the process.
QUESTION: Two things. One, do you know how far along that process
is?
MR. RUBIN: That would be up to the special counsel.
QUESTION: You have no idea?
MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't be in a position to comment on their activity and
any timing or announcement.
QUESTION: Okay, and then the second thing is how hopeful is the State
Department that once Holbrooke arrives, the UN will be able to patch up the
ongoing differences between --
MR. RUBIN: Well, the UN and the United States - this is a big building;
the UN is a big building. Probably the easiest thing in the world to do is
to find somebody in this building or somebody in that building who has
something to say about somebody in the other building.
There is no problem between the United States and the UN. We don't agree
with any characterization that there is. In fact, Secretary Albright and
Secretary General Annan were talking today about the many ways in which we
are cooperating.
I think this is a left over from some scratchiness that we talked about
several weeks ago, when some UN officials were concerned that the comments
made by Secretary Cohen and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Shelton. I think
my reaction at the time was that people should worry less about things like
that and worry more about working together on the problem of Kosovo.
So there isn't a problem in US-UN relations that Ambassador Holbrooke has
to fix. There is, however, a problem in us trying to get our money for the
United Nations. It's got nothing to do with the Executive Branch, this
President and the United Nations. It has a lot to do with those members of
Congress who would allow the United States to be a debtor nation in the
United Nations based on their desire to have other issues adjudicated
through the UN process; other issues that are unrelated to the United
Nations and that can easily be resolved through the democratic process,
through voting in the Congress - up or down - on various issues.
So we've worked extremely hard to try to get these bills that would enable
us to pay our money we owe the United Nations through the Congress. The
President has worked very hard on that; Secretary Albright has worked very
hard on that. But unfortunately, some members of Congress have prevented
that. That's what democracy is all about.
To the extent that people in New York who work at the United Nations, who
don't come from democratic countries or who don't understand our democracy,
somehow think that President Clinton can, through working harder, overcome
an issue of principle on a subject like abortion, they don't understand the
way the system works here.
QUESTION: Okay, well, you obviously know which article I'm referring to
when I ask the question.
MR. RUBIN: I certainly do.
QUESTION: But I mean, are you saying categorically that there isn't any -
that you're not aware or the US is not aware of any resentment or any kind
of disappointment within the UN that this post - there hasn't been a
permanent presence for 15 months?
MR. RUBIN: Look, again, the Secretary has an extremely close working
relationship with Secretary General Kofi Annan. She knows him extremely
well; they talk on the phone a lot. They've been talking on the phone a lot
in recent weeks about Kosovo. They've talked on the phone a lot since he
became Secretary General.
He and she do not believe that this premise is correct; and he and she also
know that in big bureaucracies, you can find someone who will say almost
anything. So we don't believe the premise is correct. I indicated that I do
believe that there was a day or two in which there was some scratchiness on
both sides, and we talked about that a couple of weeks ago.
But I think Kofi Annan, the Secretary General, and those UN officials who
understand our democratic system know that the President and the Secretary
have worked very hard to try to get the arrears paid. They know the
President and the Secretary have worked very hard to try to get a UN
ambassador confirmed. So that's what counts; the rest is gossip.
QUESTION: Can I just try one more? Do you think the US interest would
have been better served had Holbrooke been in this post already for 14
months? I realize that's a --
MR. RUBIN: Well, much of that time there was an internal US Executive
Branch process going on. So it wasn't just the Senate; much of that time
was the internal US Government process.
In principle, it is always better to have a permanent representative. But I
think to say that does not mean that Ambassador Peter Burleigh, who's been
up there and I think has received stellar marks from top UN officials from
other governments, hasn't been able to do a good job. He has been able to
do a good job. We clearly have some issues where the UN is going to play an
important role. We have Kosovo, where one of the biggest UN operations ever
on the civilian side is now being stood up. We have Iraq, where the
resolution is being considered to try to re-establish inspection of the
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction sites. We think Ambassador Holbrooke's
presence - as a Cabinet member, as a fine diplomat - will advance American
interests and we're pleased that he will be able to go there.
QUESTION: Jamie, on Iraq, you will acknowledge, though, that there were
big differences between the Administration and Kofi Annan all along on the
issue of inspections. He was rather dubbish as I recall.
MR. RUBIN: What's the question?
QUESTION: Well you just said we don't have a problem with the UN, and I'm
citing a substantive issue in which there were big differences between
them.
MR. RUBIN: No, right, but there's a difference between a substantive
disagreement, which we don't expect to be in perfect agreement on every
subject with the Secretary General or every nation in the United Nations.
The suggestion that there's this massive mood of - that is incorrect.
On the Iraq issue, frankly those who understand the issue well know that
the Secretary General often reflects the differences of the Security
Council. That is what, unfortunately, the job of the Secretary General
tends to be. There are big differences in the Security Council between the
United States and Britain and France and Russia, and there were during that
period. Does it mean we agreed with every decision Kofi Annan made? No.
But to the extent that he was caught in a situation where he was between
permanent members of the United Nations - that's not easy. I think there
are some words that he said he wouldn't have used again. But the problem is
not between the UN Secretariat and the United States as if there is this
big breakdown, but rather there are some issues where we and Russia, for
example, have big differences.
QUESTION: Could I have one more on the UN further?
MR. RUBIN: This reminds me of the old days. This is easy; I don't even
need the book.
QUESTION: Is the language of the amendment in the House version of the
budget bill acceptable to the Administration on population matters?
MR. RUBIN: No. I believe the current version of that amendment and that
bill - and first of all, the overall bill is something we oppose because of
the lacking of the appropriate funds on the anti-abortion language
contained in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill. We strongly oppose
the Mexico City policy amendment and should this language be included in
the final bill presented to the President, he would veto the measure. It's
the same problem. It's something we still hope we can fix, and it's
something that can be fixed if opportunities are given for these processes
to be worked forward. But we don't support this now; on the contrary,
we oppose it.
QUESTION: There are rumblings from what remains of Yugoslavia that
Montenegro may be spinning off.
MR. RUBIN: They're going to love that one in Belgrade, Barry.
QUESTION: Well, you have sort of an ambiguous policy- you're for
territorial integrity but you've been encouraging a little more democratic
government down there to proceed at full speed. So what is the US stance;
what is your understanding; is the US offering support to the democratic
regime in Montenegro as it seeks to get out from under Belgrade?
MR. RUBIN: We have supported and continue to support the regime in
Montenegro that is a democratic regime that has pursued a democratic
course. We do believe that Milosevic's efforts to consolidate power have
led to repeated violations of the Yugoslav federal constitution, in
particular the rights and privileges of Montenegro.
In particular, Belgrade has sought to strip Montenegro's constitutional
rights and powers and has prevented Montenegro from playing its constitutional
role in the federal government. We continue to believe that Montenegro's
leaders have demonstrated a measured and rational approach to political and
economic reform, which we support. We commend their efforts to work within
the FRY for reforms that would bring democracy and a better life to all
Yugoslav citizens.
To achieve that objective, we've been providing them assistance, we've been
exempting them from the effect of certain policies that apply to Belgrade
and the people of Serbia. We worked very, very hard during the war to avoid
any unnecessary damage to facilities or people in Montenegro as a result of
the air war. So we have been showing, I think, great efforts to try to
build up the democratic efforts that President Djukanovic has shown in
Montenegro. We think that they should continue to work within Yugoslavia to
ensure their rights are protected.
The bottom line is, in this whole region, until there's democratization in
Serbia, there will be problems in this region.
QUESTION: What was Ambassador Gelbard up to the day before yesterday in
Montenegro?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have the specific details of his whereabouts. It's
normal practice for Ambassador Gelbard to meet with as many opposition
officials as he can from Serbia. He's been doing that for many weeks;
that's one of his jobs. I suspect he's been doing his job; he's very good
at his job.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - you don't know the --
MR. RUBIN: I don't know where he was. I believe that he's been meeting
with opposition officials and that's precisely what Secretary Albright has
been asking him to do.
QUESTION: Is he dispensing aid or promises of assistance or moral
support?
MR. RUBIN: Well, with respect to Montenegro -- which is what the question
had Montenegro in the question -- our policy stands. With respect to the
opposition, we've spoken to the democracy-building programs that we're
supporting. We've said we support humanitarian assistance. I don't think
his job in these meetings is dispensing aid particularly, but rather try to
assess how we can be helpful in promoting democratization in Serbia, which
has been a long-standing policy of the United States.
There's nothing new about the United States meeting with opposition figures
from Serbia. The difference now is we don't have an embassy in Belgrade,
where many of these contacts used to take place, as is normal for embassies
in non-democratic countries. So some of these contacts now have to take
place in other ways.
QUESTION: Does he have any special security he takes with him when he
goes into the former Yugoslavia -- Ambassador Gelbard?
MR. RUBIN: I don't know.
Q Jamie, do you have anything to add to the worldwide caution that was
issued this morning? Are there any embassies that have been closed or any
such thing?
MR. RUBIN: No, I don't believe there's any change in our posture in terms
of embassies closed, and I don't have anything to add beyond that.
Q Do you have anything today in Taiwan? The Taiwan airline announced that
they were going to cancel an order for Boeing 777s and were going to buy
Airbus. Since these have been on order since '95, this would seem to have
some sort of link to recent statements about --
MR. RUBIN: We've seen press reports. We can't confirm them; we're looking
into it. We have no reason to believe that any decision like that would be
linked to the suggestions that you made.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - well, we could ask the Pentagon. But it's
essentially a US-supplied defense force.
MR. RUBIN: Boeing 777 is what we're talking about.
QUESTION: Yes, I know.
MR. RUBIN: That's not a military plane; it's a commercial plane. Which
commercial plane will they choose - an Airbus or a Boeing 777? Our
understanding is first of all, we can't confirm anything but we have no
reason to believe - in other words, nobody's suggested to us if you do X,
we won't do Y and they would switch the buy. So we have no reason to
believe - although I know in the overheated environment, there's a tendency
to draw parallels with anything in that part of the world - draw linkages
with anything in that part of the world.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. A Reuters wire yesterday was reporting
that Newsweek had a report out that General Clark had ordered an airborne
assault to take Pristina Airfield just before the Russian troops got there
and that General Jackson - Mike Jackson - said I'm not going to start World
War III for you. Is there any truth in any of this, or what can you say at
all?
MR. RUBIN: You must've missed the exchanges that we had earlier in the
week. Newsweek is a reputable magazine; Reuters is a reputable news service,
but I don't really have anything to add to this. Basically the question's
about history and that is past.
QUESTION: So that was talked about. Then you wouldn't deny that such an
incident could have taken place?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not going to be drawn into a rule out, rule in, confirm or
deny every aspect of this Newsweek story.
QUESTION: Does that leave the door open?
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Does this mean you want to indicate?
QUESTION: An Arab-American gentleman named Beshar John Saidi has accused
the State Department of not doing enough while he was imprisoned in Israel.
I was wondering if you can say one, what the State Department reaction to
that criticism is; and whether there is any effort underway to look into
the matter of review it or do anything?
MR. RUBIN: Fair enough. Generally speaking, an American citizen in a
foreign country is subject to the laws of that country; that is the reality
of the world. Similarly, foreign nationals present in the US are subject to
our jurisdiction. We, in our consular information sheet, call attention to
provisions of Israeli law that enable Palestinian-Americans to be subjected
to treatment that we address also in our human rights report that we have
concerns about. So people know what the risks are.
We have raised, in a number of cases - our consular folks have gone in and
tried to get access to people and try to determine what the situation is. I
didn't know precisely this gentleman's name or his complaint and I'll
certainly take it up and see whether our consular people have any
information about what we did or didn't do. But I know that they work very
hard to try to get access to determine the condition of all American
citizens when they are in detention or under arrest in other countries, and
specifically in Israel. The broader point that is raised is something
that we do address in our human rights report.
QUESTION: I don't know if you'll have anything on this, I just saw it as
we were coming in here. But apparently the Sudanese Government has
announced a 70-day cease-fire in the --
MR. RUBIN: I haven't seen that. Cease-fires are good if that's true.
QUESTION: On the Middle East, too, Prime Minister Barak has talked
publicly about scaling back or maybe eliminating the CIA's role, its use in
the Wye River Accords. Has there been any talks, discussions about
modifying or ending the CIA's role?
MR. RUBIN: Secretary Albright has been in contact with a number of
officials. She spoke to Prime Minister Barak when he was here. She's been
in contact with a number of Israeli officials and Palestinian officials.
I think our view on this is quite simple. The reason why the Central
Intelligence Agency and many people in this building and other folks around
our government got involved very heavily in the details of peace in the
Middle East was because the two sides were unable to accomplish those
details themselves through direct action. It wasn't a role we sought; it
was a role that we pursued reluctantly, but under the prodding of both
sides.
To the extent that we can play less of a role on the details of implementation
and more of a role on conceptualizing the path forward for peace, we would
prefer that. But we'll have to see what the direct contact that has now
been occurring so regularly between the Israelis and the Palestinians
yields, and make our decisions about our involvement and the Secretary's
travel as well based on these discussions.
QUESTION: You'll make your decisions on the Secretary's travel based on
those discussions?
MR. RUBIN: Right, that's always been the premise - that we want to go
when we can be helpful. We have indicated that after Barak's trip here that
we intended to travel in August, and that has not changed.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the bilateral talks with North Korea in
Geneva?
MR. RUBIN: They met again yesterday. They're now engaged in the Four
Party Talks. It's a bilateral discussion. We've basically made the point on
a number of issues that there are two paths forward: one path that can
yield an improved relationship and benefit to the people of North Korea;
and another path that, as we've said before, would cause serious concern on
our part.
So that is, in general, what was discussed on the bilateral side. I
wouldn't want to get more specific so that diplomats can have diplomatic
and private discussions. That is what's necessary if one's going to move
forward.
QUESTION: I don't have the text of the Wye agreement with me, but the CIA
arrangement, that's not just a bilateral US-Israel arrangement; that
involves the Palestinians as well, doesn't it?
MR. RUBIN: There are experts in the security area that, pursuant to the
Wye agreement, play a role in helping to ensure that the security
requirements of Wye have been carried out, working with both parties.
QUESTION: Jamie, President Castro has promised to be unrelenting with
respect to people who attempt to leave Cuba without authorization. Do you
have any response to that?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, we are familiar with a speech that Castro delivered
Tuesday. We haven't seen the entire text and, therefore, can't make a
general reaction to it. But with respect to migration, we, for our part,
are thoroughly committed to promoting safe, legal and orderly migration.
Our policy is working. We have consistently reiterated our commitment to
implement those accords. And in the past four years, we have surpassed the
20,000 allotment in each of those years.
QUESTION: There are more reports of more Serbs leaving Kosovo. Is there
more discussion about what NATO and US troops could and should be doing to
perhaps reverse this?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we have to put this in perspective. I know that each new
day's events is what the news business covers, but that isn't the way the
policy is designed.
In our view, Kosovo became a national interest that required the use of
force as a result of the fact that President Milosevic was systematically
cracking down and denying the freedom, the liberty and the human rights of
the people of Kosovo; and in many cases, his forces were responsible for
massive killings in a systematic, policy way. We responded by proposing a
peace accord that would bring justice, peace and minority rights to the
people of Kosovo.
Kosovo is not Bosnian; 90-plus percent of the people there are Kosovar
Albanian - probably upwards of 95 percent now. After these hundreds of
thousands - and almost a million - people were driven from their homes, we
made clear our objective was to bring them home. We wanted to bring them
home in a situation where the Kosovo that they were returning to protected
the rights of all, including the rights of minorities.
However, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone after ten long years of
repression and crackdown and attacks on the rights of the Albanian people
of Kosovo that when the Albanians were freed from these shackles that there
would be the potential for revenge and retaliation against Serbs. It is
simply not possible for NATO to be in a position to ensure that all the
Serbs stay, or that every Serb is free from violence.
Albanians still are being killed in Kosovo and Serbs are being killed. It
is not a climate yet that involves freedom from crime and murder. But I
think it's very important for people to understand that NATO never could,
nor can the UN, guarantee that people stay in Kosovo. We want to do our
best, and we worked with NATO -- and Secretary Albright has talked to
Secretary General Kofi Annan today -- to do everything we can reasonably do
to protect the people of Kosovo through these tens of thousands of forces
there.
But to judge the future of Kosovo by the fact that in the aftermath of the
ethnic cleansing that occurred against the Albanians, and they returned,
that there was revenge against Serbs shouldn't be a surprise. It's
something we're trying to prevent. We want Kosovo to have minority rights
for Serbs; we're going to work very hard to achieve that, but I don't think
people should have exaggerated expectations of what the result of ten years
of conflict and repression by Milosevic against the Kosovar Albanians
will be.
QUESTION: Did it come up in discussions with the Secretary General?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Congressman Gilman, I think, has just introduced legislation
that would cap US spending in the Balkans. I'm not quite sure of all the
details. Are you familiar with the bill?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not familiar with the bill and they seem to have a bill a
day, so I try not to be put in a position to respond to every one.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the cuts that --
MR. RUBIN: Very few of which become law, I might add.
QUESTION: There were meat ax cuts in the Administration's proposal for
foreign aid funding -
MR. RUBIN: Yes, we've said that the current appropriations bill as it
stands is something that we cannot support because of the inadequate
funding levels that are provided. It's some $2 billion below the President's
request - some 14 percent - and we would oppose the bill if it became put
before the President because it simply doesn't fund foreign policy. It's
ironic that members of Congress - Congressman Gilman or any others - are
constantly proposing new ideas and new proposals for how the United
States should do more and more overseas to accomplish more and more
problems, solve more and more issues and ensure greater democracy and
greater stability in every part of the world. But when the time comes
to fund the activities that are needed to achieve even a tenth of the
objectives set out by members of Congress, they're not prepared to fund
these efforts.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the reports that Japan and South Korea
are doing joint military exercises sort of in defense? They feel that the
North Koreans are going to launch another missile or test another
missile.
MR. RUBIN: We understand there is a search and rescue exercise ongoing
and we do not believe that such exercises raise tensions in the region. We
regard them are routine training that will enhance the stability of the
region.
QUESTION: Yesterday Assistant Secretary Roth made the remarks in the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee --
MR. RUBIN: I agree with him. Please continue.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Yesterday Assistant Secretary Roth made the remarks in the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the US had contacts to Beijing,
Taipei six times on Tuesday and Wednesday regarding the increase in sorties
on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. Can you update us on this issue for
the past 24 hours?
MR. RUBIN: Can I update? I don't know of any additional contact in the
last 24 hours. I believe that Assistant Secretary Roth and others met with
the Chinese officials here and representatives in an unofficial way from
Taiwan here; that in Taipei and Beijing there were meetings held; that
there were probably some discussions through military channels. That's what
those six contacts were. But I'm not aware that there has been additional
contact in the last 24 hours. But I think it's probably by now become a
subject of regular discussion so that we promote the minimization of
tensions and increase the chances of dialogue.
QUESTION: Another on the same - I think the same hearing yesterday in
Jesse Helms' committee - James Woolsey made a remark on the Administration's
China policy which goes like this - and I'd like your reaction to that --
"The Administration is appeasing the PRC. This is encouraging the policies
of hard-line factions in the PRC". How would you react to that?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I know James Woolsey. James Woolsey is a friend of mine.
James Woolsey is no China expert.
QUESTION: That was interesting. On North - I'm just wondering if there's
anything new on the North Korean possible missile launch and has the US
kind of honed its - honed what it's punishment would be for North Korea -
(inaudible) - of these severe consequences?
MR. RUBIN: I really don't have anything to add to spell out. As one of
your colleagues indicated, we are continuing to talk with them bilaterally;
we're having good discussions with them. We think those discussions are
constructive in laying out what the possibilities are and we'll work
through private diplomatic channels rather than through public diplomacy at
this stage.
QUESTION: Can you say - have they been told what the consequences will
specifically be?
MR. RUBIN: I don't intend to specify what happens in private discussions.
QUESTION: The terrorist organization PKK declared to lay down the arms
and withdraw from Turkey. Do you have anything on that?
MR. RUBIN: I am aware there have been a number of statements by Mr.
Ocalan after he was arrested. Our view on the situation for the end of arms
struggle is we would welcome an end to the PKK's terrorist activities.
Unfortunately for the people of Turkey, Ocalan and the PKK have repudiated
terrorism in the past, including most recently in early June; yet PKK
elements have continued to carry out terrorist activities. So we're looking
for actions here, not words. As we have said for many years, we do not
believe there is a purely military solution to Kurdish issues in Turkey.
The vast majority of Kurds in Turkey do not support the use of violence.
Any enduring solution lies in the expansion of democracy including full
democratic political participation by all of Turkey's citizens and
protection of their human rights.
End
|
