U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #91, 98-07-27
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
865
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, July 27, 1998
Briefer: James P. Rubin
AFGHANISTAN
1-2 Warring factions receive support from outside groups
GREECE
2-3 FM Pangalos' comments unbecoming for NATO ally
2-3 Amb. Burns has had discussions with the Greek government
INDIA
3-4,5 Some research scientists have had their US-funded research
contracts terminated
CAMBODIA
4-5 Too soon to give judgment on election
BOSNIA
5-6 War criminals indicted by tribunal belong only in The Hague
6 US continues to keep all options open with fugitives
Karadzic and Mladic
KOSOVO
7 US deeply concerned about increased fighting over the
weekend
7 Intense fighting has occurred on Pristina-Pec road
7-8,9-10 Belgrade government today tried to inspect diplomatic cargo
bound for Diplomatic Observer Mission
8 Sec. Albright has had discussions with counterparts on
stemming flow of weapons
CYPRUS
9 S-300 missile deal remains an obstacle to progress to aid
negotiation process
IRAQ
10 Oil-for-food program has worked well; US wants it to
continue
11 US companies should be able to participate in oil-for-food
program
SUDAN
11-12 US funding of famine relief has increased this year through
Operation Lifeline
12 US doing what it can to support peace talks as ultimate
solution to problem
COLOMBIA
12 US would be prepared to be of assistance in peace talks, if
asked
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
12 Talks will be continuing; process is ongoing
12 If peace talks fail, there is a risk of instability by next
May
13 US continues to emphasize need for direct talks
JAPAN
13 Sec. Albright had a good meeting with FM Obuchi in Manila
NORTH KOREA
14 US announced dispatch last week of naval assets to Korean
waters to detect infiltrators
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #91
MONDAY, JULY 27, 1998, 1:00 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. RUBIN: Greetings. Welcome to the State Department briefing. Today is
Monday. We will have a statement on Guinea-Bissau and the cease-fire that
was announced there after the briefing.
With regard to the schedule for the rest of the week, at this point it
looks like we will brief tomorrow; not on Wednesday; brief again on
Thursday; and not on Friday. That can change depending on events, but that
is the plan.
With that schedule, let's go to George Gedda.
QUESTION: There's a report that the Soviets - or Russians are giving lots
of weapons to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. Do you have anything on
that?
MR. RUBIN: We are aware that support is provided to the warring factions
in Afghanistan by outside powers, groups and individuals; and it is our
view that this support perpetuates the conflict -- exacerbating the great
tragedy that has become so apparent in Afghanistan. We are actively engaged
in efforts to convince the warring Afghan factions to end a conflict
that has caused untold human misery and material destruction and poses
a serious threat to regional and international security. We've been working
bilaterally and without side parties to minimize foreign interference and
promote peace.
As you know, Ambassador Richardson visited Afghanistan in April to try to
see if a settlement could be - we could move in that direction. We support
the UN's effort in this regard, and I would point you to the group of eight
countries that includes Afghanistan - I'm sorry, the six neighbors of
Afghanistan - that is Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan
and China, plus the United States and Russia - that is the so-called 6-plus-
2 Group. And the 6-plus-2 Group have agreed that the United Nations
and all member states should look at ways to limit and check the flow
of arms and other supplies to the warring parties. They are also examining
whether a mandatory arms embargo could be implemented in a fair and
verifiable manner.
But let's be clear - the cause of the war there is primarily the refusal of
the factions and groups to put the welfare of the people of Afghanistan
over their own personal power, and not to stop the war that has devastated
this country. It is not the outside arms that we are concerned about that
perpetuates the war; primarily it is the faction leaders themselves.
So we have some concerns about outside powers transferring equipment or
supplies of some kind or another, and we've been working together in the 6-
plus-2 format on the kind of ideas that I've suggested to you.
QUESTION: Could you address the issue raised in the article about Russian
involvement?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say this - this issue is one where we clearly have
concerns, but the concerns about possible transfers from Russia are far
outweighed by concerns from other countries -- in particular, Pakistan and
Iran. So the suggestion that that is the driver is incorrect in our view,
or not supported by the information that we have.
QUESTION: On Friday, the US Government made a statement regarding some
harsh statements by the Greek Foreign Minister, and the White House
spokesman asked Mr. Pangalos to revise his statements regarding the
President of the United States. The Greek Foreign Minister came back with
some new statements in which also implicated the Greek-American community.
He said that they are thinking to contribute money to the Greek defense
bank budget instead of giving political contributions in the US. Do you
have any new reaction?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, let me say that the United States and Greece have a very
broad and deep relationship, built up over many, many years. There are very
close ties between our peoples and between our countries, between
governments regardless of party or affiliation. They are a NATO ally. It is
our view that the comments of one particular individual - it is because of
the nature and depth of our relationship, it is hard for the comments of
one individual to harm that relationship. But Foreign Minister Pangalos is
certainly giving it a college try.
We believe that such behavior and comments are unbecoming the foreign
minister of a NATO ally with which the United States has had friendly
relations for nearly two centuries. When friends disagree and allies
disagree, they should share their concerns privately, rather than resort to
these kind of insulting and spurious public criticism. We were surprised by
these remarks; they haven't been conveyed in public. We're surprised that
these kind of comments continue to persist.
It is our view that the United States should do all it can do in cooperation
with Greece and other parties to support efforts to resolve problems
between Greece and Turkey and the Cyprus problem. That is what we have been
doing; that is what we will continue to do, regardless of the remarks of
one individual.
QUESTION: Follow-up - earlier today, your ambassador in Athens, Nicholas
Burns, had a special meeting with the Greek minister of - (inaudible) -
during which he complained that "the US Government has a problem with the
Greek Foreign Minister, Theodore Pangalos." May we know the purpose of this
meeting?
MR. RUBIN: Well, Ambassador Burns is a very able ambassador; and like the
Secretary and others, was troubled by what was said by the Greek Foreign
Minister last Friday.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. RUBIN: Can I finish my answer, please? Thank you. And in discussions
with the Greek Government about what is clearly a major problem between the
United States and Greece. That is what he's talking about. But the details
of that conversation, I don't care to get into.
QUESTION: Any response to your protest filed with the Greek Government
against Mr. Pangalos statement? You filed a protest the other day.
MR. RUBIN: I think I've made clear that we believe that the comments have
persisted, of one form or another. With respect to the idea that Greek-
Americans should take their money this way or that way, Americans don't
need any outside advice on how to participate in the workings of our
democracy.
QUESTION: May I follow up to this latest - your remarks? Is that some
kind of interference to the United States domestic affairs, some of the
foreign government officials advised the Greek-Americans, don't want this
one, don't - (inaudible) --
MR. RUBIN: Well, we're not concerned about the impact of these particular
comments. They are so outrageous and so unbecoming of a foreign minister of
a NATO ally that we would be surprised if anyone took them seriously.
QUESTION: Just one more on this - are you protesting to the Greek
Government?
MR. RUBIN: We are certainly in direct discussions with the Greek
Government about these statements that we think are unbecoming the Foreign
Minister of Greece - a NATO ally.
QUESTION: On another subject, the Indian Government is complaining that
some of its nuclear scientists who are working in this country on
scholarships and other things have been, in effect, expelled. Is this now
the policy to expel any Indian or Pakistani scientist involved in nuclear
issues?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say this - it is not our policy to expel Indian
scientists per se. In some cases, however, research funding for scientists
has been terminated, which means that the basis for their immigration
status no longer exists. We have had an extensive and fruitful program of
cooperation with India for decades. Much of this cooperation is continuing.
But following India's decision to test nuclear weapons, we are undertaking
a thorough review of our science and technology relationship in order
to ensure that our cooperation does not in any way go against the
grain of our proliferation concerns.
There will be cases in which we will determine that continuation of our
association with a particular Indian institution engaged in nuclear weapons
or missile research is inappropriate. For example, the National Institute
of Standards and Technology has reported to us that it has terminated the
contracts of seven Indian researchers affiliated with organizations such as
the BABHA Atomic Research Center, the Indian Institute of Technology and
the Indian Institute of Science.
In short, because of the involvement of certain institutions with India's
nuclear weapons or missile programs, we deem it inappropriate for them to
participate in US-funded research, and that has an effect on their
immigration status. It is more the function of the institution that they
are affiliated with in India than the particular program or scientist
involved here.
QUESTION: And does the same review apply to Pakistani scientists studying
in this country?
MR. RUBIN: Certainly the kind of review that we're doing with respect to -
in the follow up to the sanctions affects both of those countries that
conducted nuclear explosions.
QUESTION: On that same subject, Pakistani military officials said today
that a joint exercise with the United States in the fall called "Inspired
Adventure" is going to be held as planned?
MR. RUBIN: I'm unfamiliar with that particular exercise, and that didn't
come up in my consultations with my colleagues at the Pentagon. But we can
try to get you an answer with regard to it. I'm unfamiliar with the
exercise.
QUESTION: Okay, but I can check, but generally speaking, military
exercises --
MR. RUBIN: Well certainly the sanctions that we imposed included a very
important military component, which was to effect the military-to-military
ties that our two countries had. Whether this exercise is being pursued or
not and the reasons for it, I'll will have to check with you.
QUESTION: Do you have anything new in regards to the pledge of the
American - the US Government to China to stop targeting 13 nuclear missiles
to US cities?
MR. RUBIN: As a matter of practice for the remainder of the week - I hope
you'll understand this - the Secretary is in Manila; has had a meeting with
the Chinese Foreign Minister and directly addressed this issue. The
officials responsible for China are with her and would be better placed to
answer that directly.
QUESTION: Is the Secretary doing Cambodia or are you doing Cambodia?
MR. RUBIN: You can - she hasn't made - that's one where I think I can
give you - have something to say, so pose a question.
QUESTION: Well, apparently the Cambodian officials have stopped the vote
count. Do you --
MR. RUBIN: I did see a wire report to that effect right before coming out
here. Where things stood last I checked in officially is that it's too soon
to reach a judgment on the quality of conduct of the elections. The
international observers were encouraged by the high voter turnout - over 90
percent - and the evident enthusiasm of the Cambodian people for exercising
their democratic rights. The training and competence of polling officials
was widely praised by observers.
It is true that hard-line Khmer Rouge guerrillas reportedly killed seven
civilians and three government soldiers in an election day attack near
Anlong Veng in an isolated region near the Thai border. Otherwise, voting
was peaceful, with no immediate reports of election-related violence. The
major observer groups and the MDI/NRI joint delegations have not issued
statements yet. It is also true that Cambodian human rights observers cited
lack of violence, high voter turnout and solid participation.
There are no results, even preliminary, that are yet available. I'm
familiar with the report that you indicated, that suggests that some were
concerned there was a problem and that's why they've delayed making some
announcements. I am not familiar with the latest information from our
embassy in that regard, and may be able to get you something later.
QUESTION: I have a follow-up on the Indian scientist. Does ban list -
does it only include Indian institutions, or does it include individual
Indian scientists also?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think the answer I gave earlier was that the purpose
of the change in policy is to deal with institutions that are involved with
India's programs of concern to us - nuclear weapons missile programs. Those
institutions that are integrally involved in that process or are significantly
involved in that process, when they're affiliated scientists come to the
United States to pursue research, we have reacted by cutting off certain
of the funding for those projects; and that has affected their ability to
stay in the United States.
I don't think it's fair to say that it is scientist-dependent; it's not
individuals that are being excluded. It is individuals who are here
affiliated with an institution that we believe is helping India to make
some very wrong decisions in the area of nuclear weapons and ballistic
missiles.
QUESTION: So in this stage, can you say anything about any possibility of
them resuming economic aid to Cambodia?
MR. RUBIN: As you probably noted from the very preliminary remarks I gave
to George, these reports are coming in hourly about what's going on there.
I gave you the state of play as of a couple of hours ago, and I was unable
to get a final answer to this question that George got before delaying you
any further.
QUESTION: Over the weekend there was a report that the US is going to
stop the search of and the pursuit to arrest the two Bosnian war criminals -
Mladic and Karadzic. Is this true; has the US stopped the search?
MR. RUBIN: Let me address the question as follows. The United States has
made very clear that the war criminals indicted by the international
tribunal belong in one place and only one place, and that's The Hague, to
face prosecution for the horrendous war crimes and crimes against humanity
and other crimes that they have committed.
We have worked with our allies and others in recent weeks and months to
bring to justice several dozen such war criminals, either by apprehension
or by convincing them to voluntarily
surrender to The Hague. In our view, it is only a matter of time before
Rodovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic have their day at The Hague.
With respect to any suggestion that we have changed our policy, let me make
very clear we have not changed our policy. We continue to keep open all
options in dealing with indicted war criminals in Bosnia, including Rodovan
Karadzic; and we continue to pursue and consider our options in this
regard. Any suggestion that we have changed our policy and are no longer
considering options in this regard is incorrect.
QUESTION: Is it true that there is trepidation among some of our allies,
namely the French, that it would basically be a blood bath and that's why
possibly some of the plans might have been stalled a bit?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say this - it is very difficult to talk about the
planning for such an operation. If it were going to happen, it's not
something we would want to talk about; and therefore talking about the
thinking that goes into it is extremely difficult. I can repeat for you
what I said earlier, which is that several dozen war criminals have been
brought to justice. They have been brought to justice both by apprehension
and by voluntarily surrendering. Meanwhile the Bosnian peace effort
continues, and the SFOR forces continue to do their work and Bosnia
continues slowly, slowly to regain the benefits of peace that go with
it.
QUESTION: Maybe you can address - there is a fairly fantastic figure in
that of the cost of this alleged operation --
MR. RUBIN: No, I don't have any information on cost.
QUESTION: $100 million of the American taxpayers' --
MR. RUBIN: I don't have any information on cost. I can say that the
deployment of our forces in Bosnia is not cost-free; it does have
considerable costs associated with it. We believe that making peace in
Bosnia is something that is in the national interest of the United States
and that will cost a lot less for us to try to put peace in place in Bosnia
over the next months than it would be to deal with the tragedy if they fell
back in to war. So peace is the less costly option. And one part of that,
obviously, we've indicated is the more that the war criminals can be
brought to justice, the more sustainable the peace will be.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the fighting in Kosovo? There seems to
be a major battle going on.
MR. RUBIN: We are deeply concerned about the increased fighting that has
taken place in Kosovo over the weekend. We are concerned in particular
about the increased involvement in the fighting by the Serb army. We are
especially concerned about the large number of displaced persons this new
fighting has caused, and that they are currently inaccessible to humanitarian
assistance because of the fighting.
We urge both sides in the strongest possible terms to cease the fighting
and work towards a negotiated settlement. Neither side can afford to think
that the status of Kosovo is something that can be resolved on the
battlefield; it simply cannot. We believe it can only be resolved at the
negotiating table, and that is why Ambassador Hill has been meeting with
officials in Belgrade; he'll be in Pristina today for meetings with the
Kosovar Albanian leaders and Belgrade again tomorrow to meet with US allies
and Serb officials.
Beginning on Saturday, there was a Serb-initiated operation to open
regained control of several major roads. This operation appears to have a
Serb military component to it, and there are reports of villages being
shelled and destroyed. The most intense fighting has occurred on the road
between Pristina and Pec. Fighting also continues around the town of
Orahovac, which is now under Serb control. We surmise that the fighting is
retaliation by the Serbs for recent activities by the Kosovar rebels over
the past week. It is our view that both sides must realize that to continue
the fighting is only going to damage the prospects for the people
there.
With respect to an additional incident, we do understand there was an
incident at the Morina border checkpoint over the weekend in which FRY
security officials - that is, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia security
officials - fired across the border into Albania. At this point, t is
unclear whether Albanian border guards returned fire. We have seen reports
which were yet unable to confirm that the military authorities from Serbia
have apologized to the Albanian Government for the incident. We're
investigating it and will provide more details as they become available.
QUESTION: Can you say whether Hill has made any headway in his efforts to
--
MR. RUBIN: Well, he's working very hard; it's hard to give you a
snapshot. Certainly, one of the examples of the problem we're dealing with
here is that earlier today in contravention of a prior understanding,
Belgrade customs authorities insisted on inspecting a shipment of
diplomatic materials to be used in support of the Kosovo diplomatic
observer mission. Our embassy refused to accept this breach of diplomatic
protocol, and the shipment was returned to Stuttgart.
This, again, is an example of Belgrade's actions at odds with its
commitments. They indicated they would give the international community the
support and access it needed to send observers to the region. The materials
in the shipment returned to Germany are essential for the observer mission
to become fully operational. It is our view that Belgrade's clear intent
here is to restrict the ability of the United States and other members of
the international community to observe developments in Kosovo and collect
real-time information about events on the ground.
This is in violation of both the Contact Group demands and President
Milosevic's personal commitment to Russian President Boris Yeltsin to allow
the international community free and unrestricted access. This is
unacceptable.
QUESTION: Does the involvement by the Yugoslav army mark a kind of
turning point in this conflict?
MR. RUBIN: I would not regard it as a turning point. Clearly, there have
been Serbian forces that include heavy equipment in the Kosovo region for
some time. They were involved early in the year when we first began to
condemn these activities and develop a sanctions policy with our European
allies to demonstrate our abhorrence of this policy. There continued to
have been the use of heavy equipment by the Serb side. So it is not a
turning point, but it is a major problem.
QUESTION: Has the United States enlisted any of its allies to try to
restrict the flow of arms and money to the KLA? And is there any money
coming from this country that has raised concern?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I will have to look into the specifics of what we
believe is coming from the various countries. I know Secretary Albright has
had discussions with her counterparts about the importance of making sure
that the outside support doesn't outstrip the desire by our countries to
get a peace agreement; and that we should try to discourage the kind of
outside support that will only redound to the disadvantage of the people
there - that is, postpone the day when we can get a peace agreement
and accelerate the fighting. That is something we think is not in the
interest of the Kosovar Albanians. I know she's had discussions with her
counterparts about that; and I'll try to get you some more detail
later.
QUESTION: To follow on that - so if the Swiss are arresting Kosovars
there and freezing bank accounts, is that something the US would approve
of?
MR. RUBIN: Well, we certainly don't want to see funds going to extremist
organizations that are not interested in making peace. That has been our
view for some time.
QUESTION: Jamie, are you surprised by the actions of the customs
officials?
MR. RUBIN: Well, let me say as follows - surprised, I don't know if we
can ever be surprised by the gap between President Milosevic's words and
President Milosevic's actions. But so far, there has been cooperation prior
to this time in the setting up and working of that observer group. So this
certainly put a stop to that cooperation.
QUESTION: Can you say where the inspection took place?
MR. RUBIN: In the Belgrade airport.
QUESTION: On Cyprus, a general question - why your government is talking
about the invasion of Grenada, of Kuwait, even Puerto Rico and not in the
case of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus?
MR. RUBIN: Why did we do what?
QUESTION: Why you are using the word invasion in the case of the invasion
of Grenada, Puerto Rico and Kuwait but not in the case of Cyprus? What is
the difference?
MR. RUBIN: I am not an expert on the Grenada issue, and I'll have to
check that for you.
QUESTION: Please, and also let me know what is the DOS standards for an
invasion and why those standards do not apply in the case of Cyprus.
MR. RUBIN: I think we've made very clear our views on what happened in
1974, and those views have been repeated over and over again. But if you
continue to want to discuss the reasons behind the different use of
particular words, I will try to get the wordsmiths to give you as clear and
explicit and precise an explanation as possible.
QUESTION: And the last one - any comment on Suleyman Demirel's statement
against Cyprus the other day for new tears and pain on the issue of the S-
300 missiles?
MR. RUBIN: Our view on the S-300 missiles is well-known; there is nothing
new in recent statements by Turkish officials.
QUESTION: About his statements as far as for new threats, as far as for
new tears and pain?
MR. RUBIN: We don't question Cyprus' right to make decisions about its
defense needs, but the S-300 deal remains an obstacle to our efforts to
jump-start the negotiating process, and will raise tensions in the
region.
We also oppose any threats to deal with the S-300s by military means. We
continue to urge the Turkish Government to resolve this issue through
diplomatic means.
QUESTION: Can I just go back to the inspection question? Did they give
you a reason why?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have - there is no acceptable reason to try to look
into it. The equipment there involved was communications equipment of spare
parts. It was to have been brought into Serbia under diplomatic pouch.
Officials there had told us there would be no problem in doing so. Yet, at
the airport, there was an attempt to violate the sanctity of the diplomatic
pouch.
QUESTION: They had given you prior approval?
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
QUESTION: Are the observers continuing to go out?
MR. RUBIN: They continue to do their work; but in order for this mission
to be up and fully running, they needed this equipment.
QUESTION: Did you say when that happened?
MR. RUBIN: I believe it was today, earlier today.
QUESTION: Would you hazard a guess as to the future of the oil-for-food
program? There was a report today that the Iraqi regime seems to have --
MR. RUBIN: Yes, I thought that report accurately summarized the basic
situation, which is that it was the United States and the European
countries and the Security Council that came to the rescue of the people of
Iraq by creating a program that has provided 6 million tons of food to the -
I may have gotten the tons wrong - an incredibly large amount of food to
the people of Iraq - far more than they were getting when their own
government refused to spend their money on food and medicine and supplies.
Iraq has not been at the forefront of countries advocating this oil-for-
food program; they've resisted it all along. We think that the reason
they resist it is because they continue to want to use their people as
pawns in an international game to try to get sanctions lifted.
Let it be clear if it's not clear already - sanctions will not be lifted
unless Saddam Hussein comes clean and allows the inspectors to do their
job. That is the first necessary prerequisite for sanctions to be suspended
or lifted.
The oil-for-food program has worked very well in providing significant
amounts of food and medicine to the people of Iraq. We want it to continue
to work, and we want to work through the Sanctions Committee to make
available the equipment necessary so that oil can be exported so that food
can be provided to the hungry people that need it.
If Iraq were to take a decision that they cared more about using their
people as international pawns than they do about the health and welfare of
hundreds of thousands of innocent children and women and children and poor
people, there is not a lot we can do about that other than to insist on our
desire to have this program succeed, to continue to provide the facility by
which food and medicine goes to the people of Iraq; and that's what
we're going to do.
QUESTION: Jamie, in that connection, there was a little noticed amendment
approved by the Senate about ten or 11 days ago which forbids the sale of --
MR. RUBIN: I hope I noticed it.
QUESTION: Well, some people in this building hadn't noticed it.
MR. RUBIN: Then I probably didn't, which makes me live in trepidation of
this question, but go ahead.
QUESTION: Well, the amendment approved - I believe it was 60 to 37 -
forbids the sale of US food to countries on the terrorism list. And it was
directed mostly at Cuba, but if approved by the Congress, it would forbid
the sale of food to --
MR. RUBIN: I don't know - is it passed by the whole Congress, or by the
Senate?
QUESTION: No, no, no - it was passed by the Senate.
MR. RUBIN: As a matter of principle, we think that the oil-for-food
program should include American companies being able to send food and
medicine. That is my understanding of the way the program works. If
somebody wants to change that, that would be inconsistent with what we're
trying to do. We don't understand why American companies shouldn't be
helping to serve a humanitarian purpose, which is to feed the starving
people that Saddam Hussein refuses to feed.
QUESTION: It was one of those late-night amendments that was approved
without debate --
MR. RUBIN: With debate it will not see the light of day - to continue
your metaphor.
QUESTION: I suppose your confident it also applies both for Sudan, which
is suffering through a much worse situation.
MR. RUBIN: With respect to Sudan, let me say this -- three years of
drought and 15 years of civil war and a government-imposed ban on relief
flights to certain areas in February and March have combined to produce a
serious famine in Sudan. We in the United States have been working very
hard on this; since 1989 we've contributed more than $700 million to relief
in this area. In the current fiscal year we've contributed some $80 million,
and that figure is expected to rise. The money is used for food, transportation
and farm equipment. Most of it has traveled through Operation Lifeline
Sudan - the United Nations' program which serves as an umbrella agency for
numerous NGOs operating in Sudan. Some money is also given directly to non-
governmental organizations, such as Norwegian People's Aid, which operate
independently of Operation Lifeline.
To meet the current crisis, Operation Lifeline has increased it's
operations significantly this year. It has increased its heavy lift air
fleet from two to 11 aircraft; it has also opened three new air bases - two
in Sudan and one in Kenya -- to complement its primary base in Kenya. In
addition to airdrops, the Operation Lifeline delivers food by truck and
barge. The current demand is for some 9,500 tons of food per month; by
August, Operation Lifeline expects to be able to deliver over 10,000 tons.
There are distribution problems that are significant and a genuine
challenge: truck deliveries are impossible at present, due to the
annual heavy rains and the lack of roads in southern Sudan; barges
are also used, but with only limited success. We are now looking closely
at some proposals to increase the use of trucks and barges and the use of a
rail line from Khartoum to the south, but there are numerous problems with
that.
We are doing what we can do in obviously a horrific situation to support
the Sudan peace talks because ultimately, it is only peace that can break
the cycle of famine that has been so prevalent in Sudan, and we have
provided significant financial and diplomatic assistance for the talks,
including sending a delegation to observe them since September 1997. They
are scheduled to reconvene in August and we'd like to see them put on a
fast track.
QUESTION: Can you comment something in regards with the peace talks in
Colombia by the new government and the possibility that Yasser Arafat play
an important role?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have anything new on that. We obviously want to be of
assistance to the government of Colombia as it formulates its program to
work on this problem. We've made clear we would be prepared to be of
assistance, but it's up to the government there to take the lead. We will
respond and consider any request they make of us.
QUESTION: What about the possibility that Yasser Arafat play a role in
the peace process?
MR. RUBIN: I think Chairman Arafat is pretty busy right now.
QUESTION: Are they talking?
MR. RUBIN: It is my understanding that the meetings between the
Palestinians and the Israelis, including one this weekend between Abu Mazen
and Defense Minister Mordachai will be continuing during the course of the
week.
We have been closely involved with both sides in trying to give them our
advice and ideas as to how to close the gaps. It is too soon, however, to
be able to answer the question of whether we can. It is ongoing.
QUESTION: Do you think that a resolution of this current negotiation has
to come before the Knesset goes out in the next week or so?
MR. RUBIN: Whatever target date there is in the coming weeks or months,
we want to do it now. There's no greater urgency this week because of what
may be happening next week. We've had the same urgency in the recent weeks
as we have had all spring and summer. The urgency is tied to the situation
on the ground in which there is great danger that if we don't get the
peace process back on track by next May and have a genuine negotiation
about final status issues and put the interim issues, including the further
redeployment, in train, that we face a grave risk of instability come next
May.
So we've had the pedal to the metal for some weeks now. We've uncovered
every rock that we can think of to try to find creative solutions. We've
worked the phones day and night; we're going to continue to do that. That
is based on our concern about the process and the situation on the ground,
and it is not increased by any other political factors.
QUESTION: Do you think - do you still favor the direct talks without
sending Ambassador Ross?
MR. RUBIN: Correct. We still think that now is the right time for the two
sides to engage with each other. They've had a series of meetings; we
believe there will be continued meetings. We believe that is the way we can
help break the logjam. That doesn't mean we're not going to be in touch
with them; we are in touch with them. We're in close contact with the
sides. But it's hard to characterize the state of play at 1:40 p.m. on
this particular day, other than to say that now is the time for the
Palestinians and the Israelis to work together to overcome the impasse.
QUESTION: So there's no immediate plan to send Indyk or Ross to
them?
MR. RUBIN: I'm not aware of any immediate plan for Secretary Albright or
Ambassador Ross to meet with them?
QUESTION: Or Secretary Indyk?
MR. RUBIN: No.
QUESTION: Jamie, in Nicaragua, the former Sandanista president, Daniel
Ortega, has expressed possibility of leading another revolution against the
current government. Is there any concern from the US about this possibility?
MR. RUBIN: Let me check - I haven't seen that statement. We'll try to get
you something after the briefing.
QUESTION: What's the US reaction to the likely prospect of Mr. Obuchi
being the Prime Minister of Japan?
MR. RUBIN: Secretary Albright had a very good meeting with Foreign
Minister Obuchi in Manila. I think they talked, at the time, about their
relationship and the work they've done together; and I think I'll leave it
to her to characterize that kind of a question.
Last one --
QUESTION: Can you - well, second to the last one, I hope - can you
comment on her enjoyment of cold pizza?
MR. RUBIN: I heard a little bit about that, but I think the party has
been addressing that and I don't really want to mix my metaphors unnecessarily.
QUESTION: Also, the Central Korean news agency in North Korea - they had
issued some particularly harsh words with regards to the United States
deploying Navy ships off the South Korean coast, equaling it to a
declaration of war and other harsh expressions. Can you comment on
that?
MR. RUBIN: Yes -- I've seen some reports to that effect. Because of
concern about recent North Korean infiltrations and the difficulty of
detection, and in response to a request from the Republic of Korea, the
United States announced last week that we would dispatch naval assets to
waters off the Korean Coast to support ongoing South Korean efforts to
detect infiltrators. We have raised these incidents through the Military
Armistice Commission, and we urge the DPRK to refrain from actions
that violate the armistice. We wouldn't be in this situation if they
hadn't taken actions that did violate the armistice.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:45 P.M.)
|
