• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

...................

QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit more about how the decision was made to waive the sanctions on India and Pakistan, given the comments that Deputy Secretary Talbott made in his speech on Thursday, I guess it was, when he said specifically that he wasn't sure that you could be successful in actually turning this whole thing around, and the fact that, clearly, they haven't gone as far as you'd like them to go?

MR. RUBIN: Let me first say that I agree with Deputy Secretary Talbott that it is not clear that we are going to be able to get all the way there. The logic, however, is that we wanted to respond positively to positive actions on their part.

In two of the four categories - that is, India and Pakistan declaring a moratorium on further testing and publicly committing to move towards adherence to the CTBT by September 1999 - both have agreed also to expand controls on sensitive materials and technology and strengthen their export control regimes. Those are two of the relevant categories. In addition, they will participate in fissile material cut-off negotiations, and finally, the discussion of Kashmir in the Indo-Pakistani dialogue. Those were several things that we had specified.

There are other things that we've specified where they still fall significantly short of our objectives, including restraints on further development and deployment of nuclear missile systems. That's an example of where we still have a lot of work to do.

But because the areas where I defined progress constitute, in our view, real and substantive progress, and because we want to create the maximum climate possible to create progress in the remaining areas, we decided to limit the extent of the coverage of the sanctions. So there are still sanctions in place - significant sanctions that are in place; but some have been suspended or waived or adjusted. That is, in our view, a very flexible and carefully-crafted approach that's designed to induce and promote additional progress on these extremely important issues on deployment on missiles and nuclear weapons - rather, restraints on the deployment of those weapons.

So the logic here is you want to respond positively to their positive actions, but not clear the slate because there are still significant gaps and significant problems that we want to overcome.

QUESTION: But substantively, there doesn't seem to have been much new since the UN speeches. I mean, the new things, the new factors that I'm aware of are an election here and the impending visit of the Pakistani Prime Minister. So I'm just sort of puzzled as to why you didn't make a decision --

MR. RUBIN: I understand your question; I just wouldn't see the timing the way you do. Government doesn't work as quickly sometimes as you all work and other experts outside can just write their opinion on a piece of paper and then it's done. In their view, it should just happen the next morning. Government, on the other hand, has to weigh all the relevant factors. People sit down and discuss it so we think through all the consequences. In recent weeks, they've been doing that; and the conclusion was that with respect to OPIC and TDA and Ex-Im - that is, the economic relationships - and with respect to the IMET program, the military relationships, that we were better off responding positively and promoting better responses in the future.

But I wouldn't see it as linked to an event in the last two weeks, but rather the logical conclusion. If you recall when this first happened and there were first signals that we were going to get authority from Congress to do such a thing -- that was many, many months ago -- I said from the podium on behalf of the government, that we would respond positively to positive actions on their part.

This action we've now taken is the implementation of that policy formulation from many, many months ago.

QUESTION: You also said that Pakistan had to have an appropriate stabilization agreement with the IMF for the United States to go forward; and that hasn't yet come to closure.

MR. RUBIN: Well, I don't think we've decided anything other than if such an agreement can be agreed on, that we would be supportive of multilateral development banks assisting in that. So we haven't made a judgment on behalf of the IMF.

(The briefing concluded at 1:45 P.M.)

[end of document]