15 June 1998
TRANSCRIPT: ALBRIGHT BRIEFS ON KOSOVO, SOUTH ASIA AFTER G-8
(Says Belgrade has "internationalized" Kosovo conflict) (3740) London -- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright briefed reporters here on the situation in Kosovo and South Asia, following special meetings June 12 of the G-8 and the Contact Group on Bosnia. "We believe that this is ethnic cleansing and it must stop," Albright said of the recent Serb attacks on Kosovar villages. She added, "Belgrade itself has internationalized the conflict by taking it to Kosovo's borders; there are now reports also that they are mining that border. The United States and our allies consider this a serious threat to regional peace and security." Albright said NATO does not believe it needs new authorization by the United Nations in order to take action in the Kosovo crisis. "We believe that there is existing Security Council authorization and that we have inherent authority to do what needs to be done." The G-8 and Contact Group called on "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" President Slobodan Milosevic to stop the violence, permit international monitoring, allow refugees to return to their homes, and re-open a meaningful dialogue with the Kosovo Albanians. "At the same time, we underlined our opposition to the use of violence for political ends by anyone, and we urge the Kosovo Albanian community to exercise restraint," Albright said. As for Pakistan and India, Albright said: Our message to both countries is that we cannot and will not reward you for the mistakes that you've made, but neither do we intend to isolate you or treat you as outcasts.... We have noted statements from both capitals regarding moratoria on future nuclear tests. These are encouraging signs -- not sufficient, but encouraging -- and the international community will lend its full support to dialogue once it begins; but until India and Pakistan do make up their minds to choose negotiation over nuclearization, our nations say with one voice that there will be no drift back to business as usual." Following is the State Department transcript: (Begin transcript) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman (London, United Kingdom) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 12, 1998 PRESS CONFERENCE WITH SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT Lancaster House Foreign & Commonwealth Office London, United Kingdom June 12, 1998 SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good evening. Today we have held very productive discussions among countries concerned both with the dangerous developments in South Asia and the crisis unfolding in Kosovo. In our discussion of South Asia we expressed unanimous support for the goals adopted by the P-5 in Geneva last week and confirmed by the Security Council. We agreed that India and Pakistan's tests diminished their security and damaged their prestige and did not gain for them the status of nuclear weapon states under the NPT. And we decided to work for a postponement of loans to India and Pakistan from the international financial institutions except those which meet basic human needs. The United States has said repeatedly that to send a strong signal, other nations would need to join us in expressing displeasure with the two countries' actions, and today the eight spoke with one voice. We also held a luncheon joined by China, chair of last week's Permanent Five meeting in Geneva, and by representatives of states that have wisely forsworn the nuclear option. Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, and Ukraine could have been nuclear powers themselves; instead, what they chose to be is global leaders for peace and security and against proliferation. The Philippines joined us as the current chair of ASEAN. Our meetings today made clear that this is not a question of the nuclear "haves" lining up against the "have nots," but instead a difference of principle and judgment between the overwhelming majority of nations who want to see fewer nuclear weapons on our planet, and two nations, otherwise respected, who made the mistake of thinking it would be in their interest to move in the other direction. Our message to both countries is that we cannot and will not reward you for the mistakes that you've made, but neither do we intend to isolate you or treat you as outcasts. If you're serious about digging yourselves out of the hole you've created, we will do what we can to help. In that connection, we have noted statements from both capitals regarding moratoria on future nuclear tests. These are encouraging signs -- not sufficient, but encouraging -- and the international community will lend its full support to dialogue once it begins; but until India and Pakistan do make up their minds to choose negotiation over nuclearization, our nations say with one voice that there will be no drift back to business as usual. Today we also met as the Contact Group, joined by Canada and Japan, to discuss the situation in Kosovo. Just after our last meeting in May, President Milosevic and the Kosovo Albanian leadership agreed to begin a direct dialogue. Regrettably, the Serb side has chosen to fight rather than talk seriously. After only two meetings the Kosovo Albanian leadership has been compelled to suspend the talks in the face of a major escalation of violence from Belgrade. Serb security forces have deployed artillery and air support in indiscriminate attacks, killing dozens of people and driving thousands more from their homes. We believe that this is ethnic cleansing and it must stop. Serb actions have transformed the fighting into what is clearly an internal armed conflict, and Belgrade itself has internationalized the conflict by taking it to Kosovo's borders; there are now reports also that they are mining that border. The United States and our allies consider this a serious threat to regional peace and security. We know from experience that our response must be unequivocal and unambiguous if it is to be effective. That is why our nations have called on President Milosevic to take the following steps without delay: -- stop the violence against innocent civilians and see that the forces now terrorizing the population are withdrawn from Kosovo or to cantonments; -- enable an international monitoring arrangement to operate freely in Kosovo; -- facilitate the return of refugees to their homes; and -- open a continuous and meaningful dialogue with the Kosovo Albanians, with international involvement. At the same time, we underlined our opposition to the use of violence for political ends by anyone, and we urge the Kosovo Albanian community to exercise restraint. The time available to President Milosevic to respond is limited. All of us agreed that his meeting next week with President Yeltsin will be an opportunity -- and a test. For this discussion takes place against the backdrop of the strong draft resolution on Kosovo that the United Kingdom has tabled at the United Nations, as well as NATO's decision yesterday to take a series of steps in response to the crisis. They include military exercises in the region now and detailed military planning, and just this week the United States, the European Union, and others have demonstrated our deep opposition to Belgrade's policies of repression and violence by imposing a ban on all new investment in Serbia. Today, we agreed to take steps to ban all Yugoslav air carriers from our nations. It was also made clear in our discussions that if President Milosevic does not implement -- fully -- the action plan, we agreed further consequences will follow. There should be no doubt that the Contact Group, our G-8 partners, and our NATO allies take our planning seriously and that others should do so as well. If and when it becomes necessary to act, we will be ready. Now I'll be happy to take your questions. QUESTION: Madam Secretary, the statement on Kosovo, referring now to those "further consequences," says it may require, there may be UN resolutions. Do you need a UN resolution? Would Russia be aboard the UN resolution authorizing the use of force, and can you validate those mining reports or at this stage are they just reports? ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all let me repeat what Secretary Cohen said yesterday: he made quite clear that a resolution may be desirable but not required. We believe that there is existing Security Council authorization and that we have inherent authority to do what needs to be done. I think that the discussion today showed that the Russians are as concerned about what is going on as we are, and were very forthcoming in terms of the kinds of things that President Yeltsin was going to say to President Milosevic, based on what is in the communique of actions that need to be taken. We are all working together as much as we can on all this, and we'll be watching it very carefully. I think the problem is that there have been previous discussions with President Milosevic and one never -- it's hard to be totally optimistic about those discussions. But what I found as a result of our talks today, is that there is increasing realization that the escalation of violence in Kosovo is real and that it is unacceptable. On the mining things, Barry, I have personally not been able to verify them -- just what I read in the newspapers. Q: Secretary of State, what can be the legal justification for military intervention in a sovereign state which is only acting within its own borders? ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that the first paragraph of the statement today says that the serious deterioration of the situation in Kosovo represents a significant threat to regional security and peace -- and that is normally a justification for the ability of the international community in some form or another to take action. It can be under Article 51 of the UN charter, or other ways that the Security Council may wish to designate, which is why the statement was done the way it was in terms of "may require the Security Council." Q: (inaudible) ALBRIGHT: We believe we do, yes. Q: Madam Secretary, two points. First of all, could you clarify what impact and how soon the ban on the Yugoslav airlines takes effect? Is this immediate? What damage will it do? And secondly, what is your understanding of the offers by both India and Pakistan of talks? Is that posturing or is that an indication that they are serious in opening a dialogue? ALBRIGHT: On the airlines, let me say that we had a discussion; because you are dealing with the EU as well as sovereign nations, obviously these things have to go through processes. We would like to see it happen as soon as possible, but I think that it is very significant that today we were able to add that additional sanction, and one frankly that is not an easy one for some of the countries to add because of transportation of refugees and people that they want repatriated back to the country. So, I can't say how long these various mechanisms will take, but, I think, we were very heartened by the fact that we were able to put additional sanctions on at this meeting, which is really a recognition of the fact of the escalating violence and our sense that we cannot repeat 1990 and 1991. On the talks, I think we have a little bit of an emotional roller-coaster on this today because as the reports came in that there had been an offer to talk, and then the thought that the Indians had proposed a date, and that date didn't work. I think we have to see. We clearly -- everyone, in all these various groupings that I have now attended, believes that we have to deal with the root causes of this problem and the lack of communication between India and Pakistan over their various issues of disagreement; and Kashmir specifically is something that is recognized that has to be dealt with bilaterally by those two countries, and so we'll have to see. I think that we certainly did some emotional riding up and down on this today. Q: Two questions: One. Many senior U.S. politicians have been advising India to take into account the threat posed by China. In fact, they have been blaming India for its lack of preparation where China is concerned; what is your view of this? And secondly, one nuclear bomb is bad enough, so do you intend to scrap the whole lot? ALBRIGHT: Let me say that I think that we do not believe that India's security is improved by its detonation, and whatever problems it might have with China are best dealt with through diplomacy and dialogue. Saying there is a threat which required them to acquire nuclear weapons, we believe is counterproductive and that, in fact, the Indian people are less safe and less respected today than they were two weeks ago when this happened. I think that they have taken a step backwards in terms of their security. As Americans, one of the aspects of what we have all been talking about here as well as in other meetings is support for the non-proliferation regimes in the world, the NPT and CTBT. We believe that that is the best method for the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons, and that the United States is very much engaged in arms control negotiations with Russia in order to consistently lower the number of weapons. I think that the best approach, and what is really essential here, is to continue to give support to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the CTBT. They are really the regimes that have worked the best in terms of lowering the nuclear threat. Q: Your statement includes some verbal condemnation of Albanian extremists, but it does not cater for stopping, actually stopping, Kosovo Liberation Army activity in the area. So what guarantees are you offering? Will you offer the Serbian government that once they have followed your advice, your demands, and withdrawn their troops, Albanian extremist activity will cease? Have you consulted neighboring countries or have you secured agreement from neighboring countries for logistical support -- particularly Greece, the only NATO member country in the area? ALBRIGHT: Let me say that I think we need to remember how this conflict began. For many years now, the people of Kosovo have been trying in a peaceful way to have recognition of a different status, one that recognizes their rights and their desire for the ability to learn and teach in their own language, and some kind of enhanced autonomy. I believe it was the fact that there was no recognition of that need that exacerbated the situation. I also think that the activities of the Yugoslav army and the special forces have in fact created -- they are really the secret chairman of the recruiting group for the extremists in the Kosovo group because they have not dealt with the moderates such as Dr. Rugova and his associates and are allowing, they are provoking, I think, extremist measures. What we need to do is to get back to a possibility of these talks to go forward so that there can be a legitimate diplomatic resolution of some of these problems. We have all called for an enhanced autonomy status for Kosovo, and that's what these talks are designed to do. I would leave it up to NATO as to what countries they have consulted with. I think that Secretary General Solana yesterday went through all the various aspects of how NATO planning was going on, and I would presume that they are looking in to all of those problems. Q: Dr. Rugova was here today. Did you see him Madam Secretary, and if so, did he give you any kind of commitment to resume the talks if the attacks cease? ALBRIGHT: I did not see him today. I just arrived in time for these meetings. I saw him last week -- I'm sorry I kind of lose track of continents and time -- in Washington, along with members of his delegation. President Clinton also saw him, other members of the Administration, and we have urged him and supported him in his desire to have talks. Frankly, what we were working on was to make sure that these talks that had just began would actually take place on a continuous basis. When I spoke to him that was what we were pushing for, not just the way they had begun with interruptions. He had agreed when the violence in the area escalated to such a point that the talks were suspended. We think that he didn't have any choice but to suspend them, given the level of violence and the bloody business that is taking place around him in Kosovo. Q: The P-5 met last week in Geneva and today you emphasized having met with a number of non-nuclear weapon states, two of which I think, South Africa and Brazil, were part of this new agenda group that launched this week a call for the complete elimination of all nuclear weapons. Now, in view of the India-Pakistan nuclear crisis and the necessity of reinforcing the message that I think you have put out that nuclear weapons are not necessary for security, can we expect further steps, particularly by the P-5, in relation to their own de-weaponizing, perhaps starting with taking more nuclear forces off alert? Can we expect talks involving all five nuclear weapons states to start in the near future in trying to marginalize and de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons by means of de-weaponizing, as you are calling for India and Pakistan to take their weapons off alert -- I'm sorry, not to weaponize and not to deploy their weapons? ALBRIGHT: I think the points you raised are all very important ones and clearly part of the whole non-proliferation debate. But I think that we need to keep our eye on the ball, or on the current problem. The current problem is that two countries that thought that they were improving their security detonated nuclear weapons that have decreased their security and increased the chance of chaos. It is what the either the P-5 or the G-8, and let me just add -- let me just make the following large parenthesis here: the P-5, NATO, the NATO-Russian PJC, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, the OAS, the General Assembly, and some individual countries -- that is as I count, over 80 countries -- now have in fact very specifically condemned what India and Pakistan have done. Our major goal at this point is to make very clear that they are not nuclear weapon states, that they have made a tragic error, and that they need to take a series of steps in order to be a part of the international community of the number of countries that have signed the NPT and the CTBT. That is what we are focusing on. Now obviously, we have ongoing discussions and talks in terms of how to lower the nuclear threat, and we have done so. I think that 80 percent of our nuclear warheads have been dismantled, and we will continue to do so in conjunction with the Russians. The Russians are waiting to ratify their START II treaty, and we will continue to work to lessen the threat of nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of getting rid of them. That is our long term goal, but we have to focus now on the problem of India and Pakistan. Q: Madam Secretary, you have told Mr. Milosevic that he has to have a cease-fire immediately and without delay, but does that translate into "next Tuesday," when he sees Mr. Yeltsin, or is that "tonight?" ALBRIGHT: Well, I had said that he needs to do this without delay; I continue to say that. Yesterday I said, "Now." Clearly, his meeting with President Yeltsin is one that both of those gentleman consider is very important. The group assembled today, the G-8, incorporated or welcomed, if you look at the communique, the meeting that the two Presidents are having. We want to see what the results of those are. I think the sooner the better, because the slaughter is going on. While I have said that everybody hopes very much that the Yeltsin-Milosevic talks will bring something, I can't say that President Milosevic has perfect pitch in terms of what he hears, and so I hope very much that he will understand and get the message from President Yeltsin, who is someone who understands the difficulties being created in the Balkans by this behavior. Let me just go back to the question that you asked. I think we are slicing missiles and bombers apart and we are dismantling warheads. Since 1988, almost 60 percent of the warheads stockpile has been eliminated, including 90 per cent of our non-strategic stockpile. The United States alone has eliminated more than 10,000 warheads. Thank you all very much. Q: (Inaudible) ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that we are all going to continue to talk to each other as we do practically every hour. I think we need now to make sure that a lot of these actions are followed out, a lot of things will be going on bilaterally. We did not plan a follow-up meeting this time, there is going to be -- I think Secretary Cook described this -- some task forces that are going to be looking at some of the technical aspects. I must say the meeting at lunch was particularly interesting because listening to how Argentina and Brazil had dealt with their neighbors -- obviously, they were not at the level in terms of their nuclear programs as India and Pakistan, but they have managed to work out a whole series of confidence-building measures. When I met with them both in Caracas last week, I was so fascinated by all the steps that they had taken that I suggested to [U.K.] Foreign Secretary Cook that it would be very interesting to hear in more detail how they had carried things out. That kind of expertise, along with the kinds of things that South Africa has done, or the horrible experience of Ukraine at Chernobyl, are the kinds of issues that are going to be followed up at various levels. I am sure that we will meet again, but we did not set a specific date. Thank you. (End transcript)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
