U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1999
Briefer: JAMES P. RUBIN
| RUSSIA/CHECHNYA | |
| 8-10,12-13 | Readout of Secretary's meeting with Russian Interior Minister Vladimir Rushaylo/Goals of IM's Visit/US position on Russia's actions in Chechnya |
| 11-12 | Is this counter terrorism or a civil conflict? |
| 13 | Update on situation in Chechnya/Is US considering sanctions against Russia |
| 13-14 | US assessment of conflicts in Chechnya and Kosovo |
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #135
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1999, 12:40 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
....................
QUESTION: The Secretary had a meeting with the Russian interior minister. Did the Chechen episode come up? What did she say, and what reaction did she get?MR. RUBIN: The Secretary met this morning for roughly an hour with the Russian Interior Minister, Vladimir Rushaylo. The subject was nearly exclusively Chechnya and, to some extent, some of the counter-terrorism cooperation that Ambassador Sheehan and FBI officials have been discussing with the minister, as well.
With respect to Chechnya, the Secretary did hear him out, in terms of Russia's explanation for the reasons for their actions and the intention of their actions. But I must say: At the end of that presentation, she was no more convinced than she was before that the endgame has been thought through.
We are deeply troubled by the casualties that have resulted to civilians. We do not understand how the Russians expect to get to a point where a political solution can be achieved through negotiation, based on their current strategy, and we are deeply concerned about the lack of access for international organizations to ensure the freedom of movement for internally displaced persons.
We are deeply concerned about the need for the international humanitarian organizations to be able to provide for the needs of the 200,000 or so people that have been moved out of their homes, or have left their homes as a result of this fighting. So she expressed her profound concerns about those issues.
She heard out the interior minister with respect to their strategy, but she did not come away any more convinced by him than she had been by Foreign Minister Ivanov, that the Russians are going to be in a position to achieve the political solution that we believe is the only solution.
QUESTION: Was that why he was sent here, to be an advocate for the operation?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I think it's more complex than that. I think that ever since the apartment buildings were destroyed and hundreds of people were killed in Moscow, we have tried to encourage greater cooperation of our counter-terrorism experts with Russia, because of our shared concern about the problem, and our view about the cowardly acts that caused those deaths. So that had been in the works.
In addition, I think Foreign Minister Ivanov and other officials had indicated that we weren't getting the whole story from the media reporting and from other reporting, and that it was more complicated than we had been reading about or seeing on our television sets, and wanted Secretary Albright to hear out the Interior Minister, which she did.
All I am saying is that we are no more convinced -- or less convinced -- than we were before, that this strategy doesn't seem to have an exit to a political solution. And that, in the meantime, we have profound concerns about not only the humanitarian effects of the military operation, but also the reports that the Chechens and others from the Caucasus are subject to intimidation or other actions inside Russia.
So those were the issues she expressed her concern about, but the minister has also talked to the FBI officials and Ambassador Sheehan about counter-terrorism issues, not just related to the Chechen operation, but related to our general cooperation.
QUESTION: I'm sorry, maybe I misheard you. Did you say that - I know you said, "no more convinced" and then you said something like "less convinced." Did you mean are you less?
MR. RUBIN: I don't know. I was confused by my own formulation, so I wanted to make sure that I indicated that --
QUESTION: But wait, I just want to get this straight. Are you less convinced now? Did the operation of sending the interior minister here backfire?
MR. RUBIN: No, no. What I'm not convinced of is how many double negatives were in my sentence, that required me to ensure that I protected myself both on the "more" side or the "less" side. That's what I'm not convinced of.
QUESTION: In other words, the Russians aren't deeper in a hole with the US now than they were before; they are in the same hole?
MR. RUBIN: Let me say it in my version of English, and hopefully it will pass muster with you. Secretary Albright was profoundly troubled about the strategy underlying Russia's actions in Chechnya, and the fact that there did not seem to be an exit to a political solution.
She heard out the minister, during a lengthy presentation, about their reasons for their actions and the actions that they are taking. Following that presentation, she remains deeply troubled and concerned by their strategy.
QUESTION: I'm totally convinced that you don't approve of their strategy, and you care about the loss of life. What I have no notion of is how the US - well, I have a little notion of - but I would like, please, you to deal with what the Russians are trying to accomplish. They seem to be trying to keep Chechnya in Russia, and they seem to be trying to extinguish militant fundamentalism, which they see as a threat - not only there, but in Dagestan and in other areas of the former Soviet Union, as it's always called.
MR. RUBIN: Well, we don't --
QUESTION: Do you have any position on their goals? You sure don't like the way they're going about it. You think, in fact, it isn't going to work. But what do you think about --
MR. RUBIN: We don't question - let me answer your question.
QUESTION: OK.
MR. RUBIN: We don't question Russia's right to deal with terrorism within its borders; and we do recognize Russia's territorial integrity, including Chechnya inside of that. The difference between their right to act and the wisdom in the way they're acting is the essence of the discussions. And, again, there is often misunderstanding about the whole question of internal conflicts and rights and all of that.
Let me restate very clearly our views: We don't question the fact that there is a terrorist threat in Russia. Apartment buildings were blown up. People died in their beds in their apartments. It was horrible. We don't question the fact that armed attacks against lawful authority in the Caucasus occurred, prior to the Russian military action.
But -- we are profoundly concerned, as a matter of principle, with indiscriminate attacks against civilians. We are profoundly concerned, as a matter of pragmatism, with the lack of a method to get to a political solution. So that is our view, as cleanly as I can state it.
QUESTION: Can you just elaborate a little bit? The Russian view is that the attack in their operation in Chechnya is a counter-terrorist action, partly in response to the assaults on these apartment buildings. Do you accept that explanation?
MR. RUBIN: We accept the sequence of events as follows: that armed attacks by groups, including using acts of terrorism, occurred in the Caucasus against lawful authorities in the Caucasus, especially in Dagestan, prior to the Russian actions in Chechnya and Dagestan. That is an objective fact. We take Russia at its word, that their action is responding to those original attacks against lawful authority.
In the midst of that process, there were apartment buildings destroyed in Moscow where innocent civilians were murdered in their beds. We regard those as horrifying tragedies. We don't have - to my knowledge - confirmed evidence as to who was responsible for them.
But again, what we do recognize is Russia's right to act against terrorists internally. What we also believe as a matter of principle is that there should not be indiscriminate use of force against civilians.
QUESTION: Well, the problem here is that the Russians, in a sense, the government has certainly stirred its public behind its actions in Chechnya, its enormous efforts there, by referring to this terrorist attack against civilians in Moscow, and they are portraying this whole thing as a counter-terrorist action, and; whereas, it may simply be a military operation in a civil conflict. In other words, they are going far beyond - and they've managed, in a sense, to get Russian public opinion rather silent and also Russian media silent.
So if you have the interior minister coming here today and sort of arguing the counter-terrorist thesis for the entire intervention, all you're saying is that that element is not proven. I mean, and that's the major element, though, in their entire presentation.
MR. RUBIN: I think you missed an important point that I did make.
QUESTION: Please.
MR. RUBIN: Which was: We do believe attacks were made in Dagestan against lawful authorities; terrorist actions were taken against lawful authorities by armed groups. OK? That preceded the Moscow bombings. So there is - in our view - justification for dealing with an internal security threat, where armed attacks were taken against lawful authority.
At the same time - and I hope both parts of this sentence are understood and communicated, how and if they are going to be communicated at all - we, as a matter of principle, have opposed the use of indiscriminate violence against civilians, by both the Russian authorities and anyone who may be acting against lawful authority. That precedes the apartment explosions.
I hope that answers your question.
QUESTION: So are you viewing this then as a civil conflict is my question?
MR. RUBIN: You know that my legal skills pale in the face of those kinds of very carefully, artfully constructed questions - and with all their consequences. So let me study up on that, and see whether there is some meaning to the word "civil conflict" in international law that may or may not apply.
QUESTION: Then, secondly, when you say you're against - obviously you're against indiscriminate attacks against civilians, do you regard the assault on the marketplace, for example of a couple of days ago, as one of those indiscriminate attacks against civilians?
MR. RUBIN: I think we called that a deplorable and ominous development so, obviously, we regarded that as a deeply troubling attack where civilians were killed, yes.
QUESTION: But the words "indiscriminate attacks against civilians" is a term under international law meaning war crime.
MR. RUBIN: Well, you notice that I was avoiding using terms of art that draw conclusions about a case where we don't have all the facts. So it's very important, until you reach a certain threshold of analysis and fact, to avoid drawing legally significant conclusions. That doesn't mean we can't express our general views on the subject without making legal declarations, as you correctly point out.
QUESTION: A final point - please - let me just finish.
QUESTION: Please, would you yield?
QUESTION: Do you mind if I would finish a question, please. That is, did the Secretary, in any way, issue a warning today? The Russian Army seems to be on the verge of entering Groznyy. Is there any kind of a warning or a strong statement of her views and the United States view on the Russians entering Groznyy?
MR. RUBIN: Well, I don't know how you define that. I think in many respects they've entered the region of Groznyy already. As far as the city is concerned, I think she made clear - very clear, crystal clear - that we don't understand, and we are troubled by the direction the operation is taking in Chechnya. I'm not going to be more specific about what happened in a meeting between a foreign official and the Secretary.
QUESTION: Mr. Rubin, did you gather from the conversation with Mr. (Rushaylo) this morning - did you get an idea what was intended by what Mr. Yeltsin said about the "center of international terrorism in Chechnya, that's the goal of the Russians being in there" - did you get an idea? They are only six miles outside of the center of Groznyy now? Is Groznyy their target, do you think?
MR. RUBIN: Again, I think that, certainly, these are all legitimate questions about Russian intent, and I urge you and your colleagues to pose those questions to Russian officials. Those are the kinds of questions that we've posed to Russian officials.
The result of our dialogue with Russian officials has not yielded a judgment, on our part, that the strategy can work: that they can get to a point where they won't face the same issues they faced in 1994, which led to the terrible tragedies in Chechnya, without obtaining opportunity for a political solution. So those are legitimate questions about Russian intent, and I urge you to pose those to Russian officials.
QUESTION: Just one follow-up if I could on this one. The follow-up is: NPR was reporting this morning that the Russians were saying they were going - that they were using their air forces to go after pockets of terrorism from fundamentalist terrorists in Groznyy. Does this tally with anything that we know about what they're doing there? Is there bombing - are there actually concentrations of such terrorists in the city of Groznyy?
MR. RUBIN: I don't have hard information on that kind of thing. Clearly, Russian forces continue air and artillery attacks across Chechnya. The Russian forces appear to have moved closer to Groznyy from the east, the west, and the north. The Russian Defense Minister, however, has told the press publicly that Russian forces do not plan to storm the city of Groznyy. That is what I can say about that.
QUESTION: Under these conditions, is the United States considering taking any action or sanctions against Russia?
MR. RUBIN: We continue to discuss this matter with Russia. We continue to express our views. Other countries in Europe and elsewhere are expressing their views. I have no points to make to you on the question of sanctions.
QUESTION: Do you think that there is any similarity between what Serbs did in Kosovo and what Russians are doing in Chechnya now?
MR. RUBIN: No, we don't think those are analogous situations at all. I'll tell you why. The Serb authorities, as far as we knew, had a plan to expel huge numbers of people, and commit massive war crimes. That was part of the plan, for which its leader has been indicted. And the way and the method they used to achieve their military objectives resulted in the war crimes that we documented. That is a very different situation, from our standpoint - in addition to the fact that the international community was engaged in Kosovo, the Serb authorities had broken a series of agreements that they had made with the international community, and violated those agreements completely.
QUESTION: How do you know the Russians don't have a plan? I mean, they didn't tell you there was but -- (inaudible) - to expel Chechens in large numbers.
MR. RUBIN: Again, there are two points I made: One was about violating agreements with the international community, and the second was what we knew. The fact that we don't know something doesn't mean it is true or it is not true, but the difference is we know it in the case of Serbia. Good try, though.
..........
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded 1:43 P.M.)
[end of document]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
