Browse through our Interesting Nodes on Religion in Greece 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
Friday, 29 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 #97, 99-08-02

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>


655

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Monday, August 2, 1999

Briefer: James P. Rubin

STATEMENTS
1	Rebel Signature of Congo Peace Agreement
1	Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (DV-2001)

CHINA 1-5 US talks with Beijing / Cross-Strait Dialogue / Seizure of Taiwan Freighter / 7 Long-Range Missile Launch / US Missile Tracking Vessels / Dong Feng 31 / US Arms Sales to Taiwan / Democracy Party Organizers Sentenced

MEPP 5&6 Implementation of Wye River Agreement / Russia's Role in the Middle East Talks

NORTH KOREA 7-9 Four Party Talks / Bilateral Talks in Geneva / US-North Korean Development / Nuclear Capability / US-North Korea Multilateral Agreement 11 Food Supply Situation

SERBIA (KOSOVO) 9&10 Newsweek Report / General Clark

MOZAMBIQUE 10 Opening of Embassy Maputo

DEPARTMENT 10 Official Commemoration Events in Washington, D.C. to honor those who lost their lives in the 1998 bombings in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam.


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #97

MONDAY, AUGUST 2, 1999, 12:30 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. RUBIN: This is a Monday and this is an on-time performance. I hope you all noted that. It might even be worthy of news because that might be all we get out of today.

(Laughter.)

I've looked carefully, and that could be it. We have two statements we're going to be releasing after the briefing. One is on the signature of one of the rebel factions to the Congo peace agreement, and also we have an entire statement and package on the new diversity immigrant visa lottery that will begin at noon on Monday, October 4, 1999, and we have a package on that that we have for you.

With those statements, let me turn to your questions. Mr. Schweid.

QUESTION: New but familiar "we'll-smash-you" rhetoric coming from Beijing to Taiwan. You've just had extensive talks with the Chinese, presumably asking them to lower their rhetoric. Any reflections on the new tough tone?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I don't know how to characterize it. Clearly, China has never ruled out the use of force, and they continue to adopt that view. We continue to believe that this conflict must be resolved peacefully, and we continue to believe that neither side should make statements or take actions that would make the Cross-Strait dialogue more difficult to occur. So we do not support statements that make that dialogue more difficult.

QUESTION: What about the ship -- (inaudible) --

MR. RUBIN: With respect to the ship, we are aware of the reports of the seizure and are waiting for greater clarification.

I would note that the vice chairman of the Taiwan Straits Exchange Foundation indicates that Taiwan does not believe there is a relationship between the controversy over Taiwan's recent statement about state-to-state relations and this particular seizure.

We hope the two sides will resolve this matter in an appropriate fashion, as they have similar incidents involving the seizure of vessels in the past.

QUESTION: Can you give a reaction to China's testing of a ballistic missile today?

MR. RUBIN: With respect to the missile, let me say that this missile involves technology that we're quite familiar with. It's a new missile - but its range is similar to already existing missiles developed by China. We have expected this test for some time. We have no indication that China intends to sell or otherwise transfer technology used in this missile. So it's a test - we expected it's part of their intercontinental ballistic missile program that we're quite familiar with.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up? On the one hand we're trying to prevent the North Koreans from test launching a ballistic missile and we have the Chinese now test launching. Is there no stronger reaction from the US that we feel that this is something that's unhelpful in light of the fact that we want the Chinese to put pressure on the North Koreans?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I think there's nothing new about China having medium and long range missiles; they've had them for a long, long time. What we're trying to do is to stop a situation before the genie gets out of the bottle, or the missile gets out of the program, that would prevent North Korea from becoming a country that could have long range missiles. China already has long range missiles, and therefore the fact that they've tested a new missile is not a dramatic new development that requires massive effort and diplomacy to try to deter.

On the North Korean side, we also are dealing with the regime that has not shown responsibility in a number of cases around the world - a regime that we have major problems with. So that's the difference.

QUESTION: Except the North Koreans have also launched a missile.

MR. RUBIN: Right. Again, if you want to do statistics with me, I'll do it. If you've tested missiles thousands of times and you have hundreds of missiles and you do another test, you haven't dramatically improved the capability of your missile program. If you've only tested a missile once in a particular mode and then you test a missile again in a different mode, you are now developing a missile capability. That is the essence of missile technology.

QUESTION: Can we put it in the context of things we've been talking about? Does the State Department get any impression that nerves are jangled - Japan, et cetera? I mean, this is having an effect, isn't it, on that area?

MR. RUBIN: Which missile?

QUESTION: No, no, not just the North Korean missile; the various things China is doing.

MR. RUBIN: We have no - there haven't been any extraordinary military developments in this area, in our view. We do not think it would be beneficial for either side to take steps to increase tensions, and we've urged dialogue. So we haven't seen any extraordinary military developments in the form of exercises or other preparations that we watch very carefully.

QUESTION: One thing that is unusual is that the Chinese announced this test of this ground-to-ground missile, which is unusual. Is that the sort of thing that you consider to be unhelpful? The announcement itself?

MR. RUBIN: Well, let me say this - the more that China is open about its military programs, the better for the world. This is not a country that's used to providing a lot of information about its own programs. The more they do that, the less unusual it will appear to you or anybody else.

We do not have any basis to conclude that the timing of this launch is linked to the issues with Taiwan. This test firing has been expected for some time, and why they specifically chose today is something for them to explain. But it's not an unexpected development in the course of their modernization program.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the US missile tracking vessels patrolling Northeast Asia, presumably with an eye toward watching what the North Koreans do?

MR. RUBIN: Well, let me say this - it should be no secret that we have trained a number of assets for a long time on the question of trying to detect developments in North Korea in the missile and nuclear area. I wouldn't be in a position to comment on any specific asset, but clearly that's something we watch closely.

QUESTION: The fact that you haven't seen any extraordinary military developments on behalf of China, do you consider that significant?

MR. RUBIN: That's a good question. I'm just trying to process it through my brain. It's certainly significant that they have not taken any significant development, in the sense that we're all watching very closely what's going on in this part of the world and if they did take an extraordinary action, that would be significant and we would obviously have to take that into account in formulating our day-to-day policies.

Whether this means that China will eventually and Taiwan will eventually find a way to resume the dialogue that we have been advocating, or whether this is the beginning of slow steps by China to move away from those dialogue is a question that can only be answered over time. The fact that there have not been extraordinary military developments isn't a definitive indicator that they're going in either direction.

QUESTION: You said it's not a new missile, but do you have any other information about what kind of missile it was; what its range was and whether, in fact, it was only launched on Chinese territory - where it was launched from?

MR. RUBIN: I can tell you that the reported range of the missile is in the 5,000-mile category and it's apparently capable of carrying a 1,500 pound weapon. The Dong Feng 31 is its nomenclature by the Chinese. This was put out by the Chinese news agency. I don't have additional information of our own to offer you.

QUESTION: Have the Chinese reacted angrily to the announcement on Friday that the US is going to sell, or proposed sale of, fighter planes? (Inaudible.)

MR. RUBIN: Well, with respect to this issue, let me say that we should have our guidance better organized. I'll be right with you. Ah-ha, it was well organized; it was the briefer who was badly organized.

We do make available to Taiwan arms of a defensive character to enable Taiwan to make a sufficient self-defense capability. We notified Congress on Friday of our intent to sell E-2T early warning aircraft and aircraft spare parts to Taiwan. The estimated cost for these two sales is approximately $550 million.

We believe these sales are fully consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act and the various communiques. We have supplied aircraft spare parts to Taiwan for 20 years; Taiwan already has E-2T aircraft in it's inventory. So there is nothing of a new character here that's a dramatic new development.

It is common and expected for China to complain about any transfer of parts or aircraft like this. They have done so, and we have responded that it's fully within our policy of providing for Taiwan's self-defense pursuant to the Taiwan Relations Act. We regularly receive their complaints about such sales and transfers and we regularly respond, as I just did.

QUESTION: Okay, I'm curious why the Chinese have complained about this -- especially given the current tensions. Why isn't the US, then, taking any kind of a stronger position on this Chinese missile? It would seem to me to somewhat related in the fact that it's taking place in the same environment; and in fact the Chinese themselves - or some analysts in China - have said that the Chinese know or the Chinese were expecting no protests from the US over this missile test simply because of the fact that Washington is so eager to mend its relations with Beijing. Is that at all true?

MR. RUBIN: Well, the previous question you were asking me about sending announced transfers of aircraft and spare parts to Taiwan that irritated China, and now you've asked me why we're being nice to China about the other missile. So obviously we're doing what these analysts are suggesting.

Let me say that analysts have to analyze because otherwise they wouldn't get paid. But what we've tried to do is to pursue the same policy that we have for some time, which is to use available ways and means to encourage dialogue, to continue to provide Taiwan the defense it needs, to judge developments based on the facts and not speculation. As I indicated, we have no reason to believe or no basis to conclude that the long-expected long-range missile test was related and is related to the Taiwan situation. Therefore, we can't make policy or judgments based on speculation the way analysts can.

QUESTION: On one of the talk shows over the weekend it was suggested that the situation with General Clark is --

MR. RUBIN: Let's just make sure that everybody's done with Taiwan. Is everybody done?

QUESTION: This is related to China.

MR. RUBIN: Related to China?

QUESTION: You'll like this one. It was suggested that his being moved out - for lack of a better word - from the position was the head that China was looking to have roll as a result of the bombing of its embassy in Belgrade. Can you comment on that?

MR. RUBIN: I've heard a lot over the last week and in the aftermath of this announcement and that's the first time I've ever heard that from anybody inside or outside of the government.

QUESTION: Israel and the Palestinians --

MR. RUBIN: And are we done with Taiwan and China?

QUESTION: I have a China question. Two more members of the China Democracy Party were apparently just sentenced to long prison terms. I wonder whether you have any comment on that situation.

MR. RUBIN: We do deplore this sentencing of citizens merely for their pursuit of the right of free expression, for exercising their internationally recognized freedoms. We have made our views known for some time when these sentences were first received. We continue to be deeply concerned by the crackdown of organized political dissent in China that is ongoing.

According to available information, in recent weeks there have been five political activists sentenced since May. None of these activists have done anything other than exercise rights protected by international human rights instruments. These new arrests continue the steps that China has already taken - steps that we have identified as steps in the wrong direction.

QUESTION: I'd like to figure out exactly what the Israelis are doing - the new government - on the West Bank - setting a deadline to give up some land but then again asking for a delay of final stages. And the Palestinians are issuing this despairing statements I don't know what the US - maybe you feel half a loaf is better than none -- but do you have any response to all this? How are you calibrating your interaction?

MR. RUBIN: That was really one of those just draw it out there --

QUESTION: I can't figure out what they're doing, frankly.

MR. RUBIN: Right. Let me say this -- even with the best of intentions, it's not surprising that the differences that developed over three years will not be worked out overnight. The Israeli Government has said that it will implement the Wye River Memorandum, and there has been no change in that commitment as far as we know. But even with the best of intentions, it's going to take time to work out these differences. We expect this to be difficult.

What's important now and new now and something we're encouraged by is that there is real contact, effective contact, greater contact and discussions between the two parties themselves without the need for the United States to involve itself in every single way. Whether that will prove to yield progress or not is an open question. But certainly we think that there's a will to deal with each other directly that we encourage and we are supportive of.

Clearly, both sides will need to work together if we're going to determine ways and means to carry out and implement the Wye River agreement. So we're therefore pleased that those discussions are continuing. I think there's often a difference between what's going on behind the scenes and what be said publicly; that would be the first time that you would find that in this part of the world.

QUESTION: I haven't checked in the last five minutes but I thought the lower-level talks - the Palestinians - (inaudible) - canceled or broken down, no?

MR. RUBIN: They had an initial meeting. I don't know where the next set of meetings stand. I'm just telling you that our impression is that the discussions that are going on privately tend to be a little more constructive than the characterizations some might put on them.

QUESTION: Is the US part of those private - no - you're saying no.

MR. RUBIN: There's a direct -- it's direct.

QUESTION: As you know, Prime Minister Barak is in Moscow right now. Is there a useful and a helpful role that Russia can play in the Middle East Talks; and if so, what is that role?

MR. RUBIN: Russia is a fellow cosponsor with the United States of this whole process and has been constructive cosponsor of the process for some time. To the extent that Russia can encourage those it has influence on to be as constructive as possible in pursuing ideas that can lead to real solutions to these problems, then I think Russia can be helpful. I think that to the extent that Russia, for example, can encourage Syria to adopt positions that will make it easier to achieve solutions, then they can be a constructive player.

They are constructive in the sense that they, like the United States, are co-hosts and we've always worked very well with them in the various ways we need to do. To the extent they have unique leverage or unique influence in some of these countries in the region, it would be helpful for them to encourage constructive positions. Whether that occurs or not is obviously an open question in the weeks and months ahead.

QUESTION: Back to Asia and North Korea, tomorrow and Wednesday I understand there's going to be bilateral talks in Geneva ahead of the Four Party Talks. What exactly is going to be discussed in particular in the bilat between the US and the North Korean side?

MR. RUBIN: Well, we normally have bilateral discussions with all of the participants in the Four Party Talks, and so clearly, we would be talking about the importance of focusing on the substantive work of tension reduction on the Peninsula. We will be looking for small first steps that could be taken to reduce tensions on the Peninsula. Some of the bilateral discussions will be, obviously, focused on things that we're going to say in the larger group soon thereafter.

In addition, we will take the opportunity to make clear that we have strong concerns about a possible missile launch, and that we have been indicating to the North Koreans for some time. As you know, the Secretary in Singapore also pointed out the possibilities and the opportunities that exist for a more effective and greater relationship with North Korea, if we can work ourselves through these problems.

So I think the message to North Korea in the bilateral meeting will involve this positive potential for the future, as well as making clear our serious concerns about the missile test if it occurs.

QUESTION: Well, hasn't Japan --

MR. RUBIN: Do you want to follow up?

QUESTION: I just want to ask if you know which day that the US-North Korea talks is.

MR. RUBIN: The timing of these talks - the plenary begins on August 5 and will be proceeded by deputy preparatory meetings on the 4th. The bilateral - -

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. RUBIN: Do you have a date on it? I think the 3rd, it looks like that will be on the 3rd; so that's two days.

QUESTION: Bilaterals with each of the --

MR. RUBIN: It's normal, customary to have ways to meet with the other three of the four.

QUESTION: I don't know if the Department has responded because I can't remember -- I've been away, and so have you, I guess - to Japan's threat to perhaps stop the economic assistance promised under the old agreement about North Korea turning off its nuclear program. Has State - (inaudible) - various ways. How do you feel about that way? That's a little bit --

MR. RUBIN: We've taken the view that we think that regardless of what serious consequences there might be for the potential for the US-North Korean development, if the North Koreans test we shouldn't cut off our nose to spite our face. The agreed framework has played a critical role in preventing North Korea from developing nuclear capability in large measure; that it has frozen these particular capabilities at Yongbyon; that, as you know, when we had concerns about another site that developed that enabled us to go an inspect that site and ensure that it won't be used for their nuclear weapons program.

So the agreed framework is a very important instrument that benefits the security of the United States and the countries in the region, and we would intend and want to see that program and agreement continued even if we have problems and serious concerns about the missiles.

QUESTION: So, Jamie, what would the serious consequences be, then?

MR. RUBIN: I think we've been very careful not to spell those out and I don't intend to change that today.

QUESTION: Have you spelled them out to the North Koreans in specificity?

MR. RUBIN: I don't intend to discuss that issue in any greater detail.

QUESTION: Do you have any reason to believe that you'll get any response from the North Koreans to the Perry framework tomorrow?

MR. RUBIN: If they know what's in - if they see what's their own interest, they will see that moving towards a better relationship with the United States based on better practices and better agreements on the missile side and on the nuclear side and on a number of other issues will bring great benefit to the people of North Korea. If their calculus is based on what is good for the people of North Korea, we believe that they will see the benefit of improving relations with us.

QUESTION: Have you got any heads-up that they were prepared to sort of address this issue?

MR. RUBIN: Which issue?

QUESTION: The issue of the presentation that Dr. Perry made.

MR. RUBIN: You're asking - please reformulate the question; I don't understand it.

QUESTION: Have you gotten any indication that when this bilateral meeting takes place on the 3rd that you will get any formal reply from the North Koreans to - (inaudible) --

MR. RUBIN: The first - I see -- I don't believe we see this as a dramatic meeting; but you never know.

QUESTION: I mean, do you think that the agreed framework, which is a multilateral agreement and also depends on the US and on Congress' funding certain aspects of it - do you think it would survive a second North Korean missile test?

MR. RUBIN: Well, we think that if the United States and the other countries do what's in the United States' and the other countries' interest, rather than, as I said, cutting off our nose to spite our face, they would see that the agreed framework serves America's interest and the world's interest by preventing North Korea from becoming a dangerous nuclear weapons state.

The fact that they may increase their missile capability doesn't change the fact that we wouldn't want them to become a nuclear weapons state. Arguably, it makes it even more important. So if the members of Congress and the other people involved make a calculation based on what's in the national security interest of our country, they would not want to throw the baby out with the bath water and lose the benefits that this agreed framework provides to us.

QUESTION: Jamie, could you comment on a Newsweek report that said that General Clark and Mike Jackson were clashing because -- during the time the Russians took over the Pristina airport. It also says that Clark was ready to do a full airborne assault on the airport and occupy the airport but the Brits wouldn't pay attention and wouldn't listen to him. Could you comment on that and --

MR. RUBIN: It was interesting reading, and I think it's really up to historians to talk about what did or didn't happen during that period.

QUESTION: So you're saying the report is false or that this didn't happen?

MR. RUBIN: I think it's up to historians to write and talk about what transpired during that period. It's just not relevant anymore.

QUESTION: The Secretary was face-to-face with Jackson at that point --

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

QUESTION: Did she offer him any advice on anything remotely like that?

MR. RUBIN: It was an interesting meeting.

QUESTION: It was a long meeting; it was much longer than anybody --

MR. RUBIN: Some of us had to wait and some of us got to listen.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, she must have had some things to say.

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Did she get a straighter answer than she got from the Russian Foreign Minister that day?

MR. RUBIN: We got straight and effective and good answers from General Jackson, yes.

QUESTION: At the time of that meeting, you didn't have any idea that the Russians were getting ready to - at least you told us that there was no hint of that at the time of the meeting.

MR. RUBIN: No, I didn't say that; I remember that day very well. That was the meeting in which General Jackson informed the Secretary of State that the Russians were moving towards Kosovo and had left their locations in Bosnia, hadn't yet crossed the border into Serbia. That was precisely the meeting in which that information was provided to the Secretary.

QUESTION: That was the same - it was in minutes or maybe hours when she also heard from Ivanov that the Russians were not going to do this; correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's also true. You guys have great memories. You should probably provide some information to those historians who are going to be working on this subject.

QUESTION: It was a big day.

QUESTION: Is the embassy - I understand the embassy in Mozambique has reopened; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes; it reopened on Friday, actually.

QUESTION: You want to mark any anniversary while you're at it?

MR. RUBIN: No, Wednesday we're going to brief on the -- August 7 - there will be briefing here.

QUESTION: Can you also say something about the - not today - whatever - about the - that little display that's downstairs now with all that?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, Wednesday will be a full briefing on all those issues in lieu of the daily briefing.

QUESTION: Are events planned on August 7?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, there are events planned on the 7th of August; I can give you more detail after the briefing. But we will have a full-fledged briefing here on Wednesday, leading up to the August 7 anniversary.

QUESTION: Is there a real crisis, as was described this morning, in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations?

MR. RUBIN: I think I responded to that.

QUESTION: Sorry.

QUESTION: Another - back to North Korea - are there any updates on the food supply situation in the North? I understand they've had a drought and now a flood. What's their outlook for this year's --

MR. RUBIN: Let me get you some information.

QUESTION: You've got some? Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:00 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 Tuesday, 3 August 1999 - 1:04:55 UTC