Read the CSCE Helsinki Act (1 August 1975) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923)
HR-Net - Hellenic Resources Network Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Thursday, 28 March 2024
 
News
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  Announcements
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Hosted
  Mirrored
  Interesting Nodes
Documents
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  Constitutions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Other
Services
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts
  Tools
  F.A.Q.
 

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #14, 00-02-23

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

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.)


U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
Back to Top
Copyright © 1995-2023 HR-Net (Hellenic Resources Network). An HRI Project.
All Rights Reserved.

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.01b run on Thursday, 24 February 2000 - 0:00:15 UTC