• 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

INDEX
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1997
Briefer: JAMES P. RUBIN

MR. RUBIN: Greetings. We have no statements, no announcements, no introductions, no Secretaries of State. We just have me here to answer your questions.

Barry Schweid.

QUESTION: Well, I was going to ask you about whether any action is being planned now against Iraq - reports that they're smuggling a lot of oil out, and possibly joint US-British action. Do you have anything on that?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, there are three aspects to this situation -- Iraq, with regard to the no-fly zone; Iraq with regard to the possible smuggling of oil in violation of UN sanctions; and then the question of Iraq's continued failure to meet the requirements of the UN Special Commission. So let's take them one at a time.

On the last (issue) first, there is now a report before the Security Council, which demonstrates for all to see that Iraq continues to thwart the will of the international community, and continues to refuse to allow the UN inspectors to do their job. That means they're blocking the UN inspectors from getting access to the information necessary in the area of biological weapons, in the areas of missiles, in the area of specialized chemical weapon warheads to go on missiles so that the UN can figure out what Iraq had and ensure that all of the weaponry or possible weaponry that they had has been destroyed, and then set up the monitoring system to ensure they can never again build such systems.

That report demonstrates quite clearly that Iraq continues to prevent the UN team from doing its job. We passed a resolution, the Security Council passed a resolution earlier this year - Resolution 1111, which laid out a set of possible actions if Iraq did continue to fail to - can someone get the reporter from AP a pen, please, thank you? Since he did ask the question, I think maybe he should be able to --

QUESTION: -- your answer. Thank you.

MR. RUBIN: I've lost my train of thought. Resolution 1111 laid out a procedure to tighten the pressure on Iraq if they continue to fail to meet their obligations.

So our diplomats in New York are now working with their colleagues on the Security Council to try to make sure that we do keep the pressure on Iraq. Exactly what form that will take is still being discussed, and there will be consultations on that. I don't want to be in a position to discuss all the options, except to say that we of course would want the strongest possible action by the Council to back up the important work of the UN Special Commissioner, Richard Butler, from Australia. I guess we call him Ambassador Richard Butler.

So that is going to be a matter before the Council in the coming days, and we will be working with our colleagues on the Security Council to make sure the strongest possible message is sent to Iraq -- that if they don't comply with these requirements, they are never going to have the sanctions lifted and they will never be able to rejoin the community of nations.

The second piece relates to possible oil smuggling. Let's keep this in perspective. The embargo -- the sanctions on Iraq have been in place for a very long time, since 1990. We believe this the longest lasting, most successful United Nations sanctions regime. A very small leakage has taken place over the years. But one of the ways in which leaks have taken place is when Iraqi vessels traverse through Iranian waters towards the United Arab Emirates. This is a problem that has persisted, and the sanctions committee has taken action in the past to make sure that those countries do all they can do to prevent this kind of illicit trade in Iraqi oil.

It's a very difficult enterprise. We have ships in the region -- the multinational interdiction force -- that operate to prevent this kind of action, and they are doing so and will continue to do so. But that doesn't mean there isn't slippage, and we need to do all we can to prevent it.

Lastly, there is the issue of the no-fly zone. I think Secretary Cohen at the Pentagon made clear that the carrier was sent to the region as a signal to Iraq that we intend to enforce the no-fly zone, and that no-fly zone is there for a very good reason. Our planes are flying to enforce it, and we will enforce the no-fly zone.

QUESTION: When you made reference to Iraq can't expect the world community to get sanctions lifted, did you mean to exclude the possibility of additional sanctions?

MR. RUBIN: No, I didn't. What I meant to say, and I think I did say, was that we will be working in the Council to see what the strongest possible action we can take, in a united way. The Council has always been united in its determination to see Iraq comply with these resolutions, because the whole world knows that an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction is a threat to the whole world. So the world, in the form of the Security Council, is keeping the pressure on.

What exact form that pressure takes is something that would be discussed in diplomatic channels and the margins of the Security Council. When a proposal ripens to the point that it can be discussed publicly, I would be happy to do that with you.

QUESTION: When it comes to oil, the unity is mostly with Britain. Does Britain have a special role in trying to plot with the US what to do about this? And you've placed, in the past, travel restrictions on Libyans -- not necessarily observed by your friends in the Arab world - but is that one of the possibilities, of travel restrictions on Iraqi diplomats?

MR. RUBIN: First of all, we have worked closely with our British counterparts in New York since Iraq first invaded Kuwait. We continue to do so; they are one of our closest friends, if not having a special relationship, is the term we use. That applies particularly to the issue of Iraq and the Security Council.

So we and the British work hand in hand because we have a virtually identical view with the British about the danger that Saddam Hussein poses. And as far as the oil is concerned, it is not just the United States and Britain that have abided by the sanctions - the whole world has abided by the sanctions. Iraq has been unable to sell oil, except in these minimal cases where there is some leakage. But I emphasize that they are relatively small - measured in, I believe, the tens of thousands of barrels, as opposed to the millions of barrels that Iraq used to export.

As far as what measures the Security Council might take, Resolution 1111 talked about additional measures. At the time that resolution was being contemplated in New York, there was discussion of the kind of restriction that you described. But whether we would seek that restriction and whether the Council would adopt it is something that we're still discussing.

QUESTION: The dispatch of US warships, or the accelerated dispatch of US warships to the area has not been welcomed exactly by the other major power in the region, Iran. I wonder what you're doing to explain to the Iranians the purposes of US policy and how you're going about that.

MR. RUBIN: Well, we have, through our allies, made clear to the Iranian Government the reason why the no-fly zone is so important and the risks associated with flying in that no-fly zone. And let's remember a no-fly zone is a no-fly zone.

As far as the deployment of the Nimitz, a related issue is that there are some naval exercises the Iranians announced. I have some information for you on that. They conduct exercises on a regular basis each year, called Victory 8. It's the culmination of their annual naval training period. We consider these events routine. We are not expecting a confrontation with Iran, nor are we looking for one. The Nimitz battle group is coming to the Gulf to help enforce the no-fly zone against Iraq, help maintain the maritime part of UN-mandated sanctions against Iraq, and conduct routine training operations.

The Nimitz battle deployment to the Gulf is part of our carrier deployment plan that has been in the works for months. It is not related to the Iranian exercises. I can say that I don't think the Iranian Government has any doubt that the reason we sent these ships there is to enforce the no-fly zone, and to send a signal of our determination to do so. If they want to read it some other way, they are always able to do that; but that's what it's for.

QUESTION: Wire accounts on this suggested that they were - at least they announced these exercises in a response to the deployment of the Nimitz. Maybe this is a routine exercise on their part, but was it already prescheduled, do you know? Are you confident of that?

MR. RUBIN: Our assessment is that these are annual exercises; that this is the normal period for these exercises; that there is no reason to believe that the Iranian naval exercises will affect the manner in which our forces in the region carry out their mission. The Iranians have said that these exercises will be conducted in the Northern Gulf. All I can say is that we have no reason to believe that this was a stepping up of any kind, other than a routine exercise, and that we sent our ships there for the reasons that Secretary Cohen stated.

QUESTION: But you wouldn't, obviously, want to be going on belief on this. You'd, obviously, want to actually confirm with the Iranians that there is no stepping up and that they --

MR. RUBIN: I'm always interested to see the attempts here in the briefing room to determine whether there has been contact between the United States and the Iranian Government. Our position on a dialogue with the Iranian Government is well known. I could repeat it, but I think you know it.

As far as the Iranians knowing what our policy is on the no-fly zone, I did indicate that, through diplomatic channels, our allies have made that clear. So I don't think there's any doubt in their mind of what we have been doing here.

QUESTION: On that point.

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUESTION: Given the egregious behavior of Iraq and the signs of more moderate behavior from Iran, does it occur to this government that the policy of dual containment, which implies a certain parallelism between Iran and Iraq, makes less sense than it did?

MR. RUBIN: No.

QUESTION: I thought I heard the Secretary say, at the Council on Foreign Relations last week, she had seen no change -- change toward moderation -- from the new regime. This is a quick reference, and that's the last she said.

MR. RUBIN: Right. That's why I said no.

QUESTION: So you don't buy the supposition Iran is --

MR. RUBIN: No, that's why I answered the question no. I mean, we can have a discussion about Iranian behavior and Iraqi behavior. I'd be happy to do that. But if the question is, have we changed our policy in terms of containing Iraq and containing Iran, the answer is no.

QUESTION: But Jamie, it doesn't really make so much common sense that if you have a common security purpose with Iran in containing Iraq, and now you have the US fleet and the Iranian fleet exercising at the same time, that you wouldn't want, for security reasons alone, to be in some kind of more direct link with them. Leaving aside all the other purposes of US policy --

MR. RUBIN: We do have means to communicate with Iran diplomatically if there is a requirement to do so; that is no secret. But we do not believe that these routine exercises and the deployment of our Nimitz battle group is one of those circumstances, other than to say that the Iranians should have no doubt of what our ships are doing. And we intend, as you know from the Secretary's comments about Total, to continue to do all we can to convince the rest of the world that Iran's policies on weapons of mass destruction, on support of terrorism, and on opposition to the Middle East peace process are a danger and ought to be confronted through the kind of measures the United States has taken, in that money and assistance and trade and normal relationships don't send the proper message to Iran that their behavior needs to change.

Now, some of our allies agree with much of that but not all of that. That's a dialogue that we will continue to have with our allies. But that's the United States' position.

As far as Iraq is concerned, the United States' position is equally clear. So we continue to contain Iraq and we continue to contain Iran because it's in our national security interest to do so.

QUESTION: On the same subject, please.

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

QUESTION: There is still persisting news about President Clinton still considering the idea of waiving sanctions against European companies. And I would like to know if you have any comment on that.

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I do have a comment. No decision has been made on the Total case. We are in an investigatory phase. This is a complicated law, and the Europeans and other countries have promised to court challenge if sanctions are imposed.

It is therefore appropriate for us to do the necessary investigative work. We are working to develop missions and trips and investigative material in the three countries. Experts will be sent in different fora to try to examine the specific contract. As you know, we weren't sent a copy of the contract. There have been press reports about it. We need to get the full detail and then, after that investigatory phase, we will make a decision as to whether the law applies and what options the Secretary has under the law and make a decision. But there has been no decision and the reports of a decision not to impose sanctions are incorrect.

QUESTION: But it's being considered - that's what I said in my question - that the waiver is being considered.

MR. RUBIN: No, what's being considered is the investigation of this regime. I have stated from here, and will state again, that there are options under this law. I've described those options, and I can describe those options for you again. Those are options the law provides.

The phase the Administration is in is the investigatory phase.

QUESTION: Can we just pick up again?

MR. RUBIN: On the same subject?

QUESTION: Different subject.

QUESTION: Same subject.

MR. RUBIN: On Total?

QUESTION: No, Iraq. Since Turkey is the only --

MR. RUBIN: I'm stunned.

QUESTION: Why? I'm not. Since Turkey is the only NATO country --

MR. RUBIN: Ah, there's the subject.

QUESTION: -- which has a border with Iraq, you talked about all these infractions - violations, smuggling, et cetera. Has any consultation taken place between Washington and Ankara? And what was Turkey's response?

MR. RUBIN: The United States has been in close contact with Turkey throughout recent days and weeks, and we will continue to do so. But we don't normally provide details on the positions of other governments, and I welcome your inquiries to them. But we are working with the Turkish Government in our effort to ensure that Iraq continues to be contained, pursuant to our policies.

QUESTION: Are you saying that Turkey is the --

MR. RUBIN: Same subject?

QUESTION: No, new subject.

QUESTION: Sorry. Are you saying that Turkey is the receiving side of the oil being --

MR. RUBIN: I didn't say that. I mean, there are issues there, but I didn't say that.

QUESTION: Can we go to the Congo?

QUESTION: Who is the receiving side, then?

MR. RUBIN: What I said was that oil has been leaking out through waters in the Gulf. That's what I'm talking about. Turkey is not situated in the Gulf.

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

[end of document]