June 8, 1998
PRESS BRIEFING BY MIKE MCCURRY AND AMBASSADOR JAMES DOBBINS , SENIOR DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL FOR INTER-AMERICAN AFFAIRS
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(New York, New York)
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 8, 1998
PRESS BRIEFING BY
MIKE MCCURRY
AND AMBASSADOR JAMES DOBBINS ,
SENIOR DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
FOR INTER-AMERICAN AFFAIRS
Waldorf Astoria
New York, New York
6:05 P.M. EDT
MR. MCCURRY: This is your briefing. We are passing out to
you right now a joint communique that the two Presidents authorized be issued
on their behalf, because they continue to meet at this moment. President
Zedillo, President Clinton began their bilateral meeting at about 5:00 p.m.
and concluded the formal part of their dialogue at 5:40 p.m. And then they
both agreed they wanted to spend some time together, and when Ambassador
Dobbins and I left, they were still at it.
They met in the Presidential Suite here at the Waldorf Astoria
for what I would describe as an excellent meeting, the summary of which you're
being given in the joint communique. I think there are a few points in that
that we would like to highlight, and I've asked Ambassador Jim Dobbins, who is
our NSC head for Inter-American Affairs, who participated in the bilateral to
give you a briefing.
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: I think the joint statement covers most
of it. They began with a brief discussion of the U.N. Special Session, noted
with pleasure the number of heads of state that have attended, discussed a bit
about the anticipated results of the session.
There was discussion of U.S.-Mexican narcotics trafficking.
The President congratulated President Zedillo for the recent arrest of two
major kingpins -- the Amezcua brothers. A third one of these brothers had
been arrested several months ago. President Zedillo talked a bit about
several other operations which are underway.
They discussed the Casablanca issue and I think the
terms of that discussion are covered in the statement that you've
got. It was a discussion focused on looking forward, on
improving mechanisms for cooperation, as is indicated there.
President Zedillo made clear that he thought that the focus for
the two Presidents should be in dealing in issues of principle,
looking forward and finding ways of improving cooperation, and
endorsing the efforts of the two Attorneys General to improve
mechanisms and processes for collaboration and communication on
law enforcement operations and other areas of counternarcotics
cooperation.
They also discussed the recent forest fires in
Mexico. Again, this is covered in the communique. The President
noted that these kinds of events -- he had similar discussions
with President Cardoso yesterday evening at Camp David. Brazil,
too, has had a very serious set of forest fires this year, both
linked to climate change, to El Nino, to unanticipated long, dry,
hot spells. This was a natural lead-in to the issue of climate
change.
President Clinton made his usual eloquent case for
cooperation and participation by developing countries in a
process of reducing emissions, his absolute confidence that this
would not inhibit growth, and suggests that the officials on both
sides in whom the President's had confidence should sit down, try
to work together on plans which would allow developing countries,
including, in particular, Mexico, to participate in the process
of reducing emissions and said that he would never propose
something that in his judgment would reduce or inhibit Mexico's
development and growth. And President Zedillo said he was more
than ready to enter into those discussions.
Q This communique reports to continuing all drug
trafficking and conforming to the laws of the land and respect
each other's sovereignty. So the United States won't do it
again?
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: The communique is intended to
be a forward looking document on ways to improve our cooperation.
Q Won't do it again --
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: I wouldn't characterize it
beyond what it says.
Q That's what it says.
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: That's what it says.
Q Did President Zedillo say he was going to seek
extradition of those agents involved in Casablanca?
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: There was no discussion of
extradition or prosecution. President Zedillo did make clear
that under Mexican law, there was a requirement that they inquire
as to whether Mexican law had been violated. He made clear that
they had come to no conclusions in this regard and he also
indicated that he thought that this was not an issue for the two
Presidents to deal with; the two Presidents needed to deal at the
level of principle and means of improving our cooperation in the
future.
Q Did he express any dismay about --
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: I don't think I want to
characterize it beyond what's in the communique and what I've
said. President Zedillo has spoken on the record on several
occasions; he said nothing new.
Q Well, in principle then, did the U.S. make any
commitment or any guarantee? Can the U.S. government guarantee
that in any further operation of this nature there will be full
communications and notification to the Mexican authorities? Is
there a guarantee that was --
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: I think the joint statement is
pretty clear, that the intention is that the two Attorneys
General should work out processes to improve communication and
collaboration on law enforcement operations in the future. And
that's a work in progress, it's a work just begun.
Q But there was no promise that this --
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: There was no discussion beyond
what's reflected in the joint statement in that regard.
Q Ambassador, who was at the meeting from each
side?
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: Let's see, on the U.S. side it
was the President; the Secretary of State; Secretary of the
Treasury; Barry McCaffrey; Mack McLarty; Bill Richardson; Sandy
Berger; Jeff Davidow, Assistant Secretary for Inter-American
Affairs; Mike and myself.
On the Mexican side, Rosario Green, the Foreign
Minister; Jose Gurria, the Finance Minister; Mr. Madrazo, the
Attorney General; and Juan Rabieato (phonetic) the Deputy Foreign
Minister. I think Mr. Burros (phonetic), who's an advisor to the
President in Los Pinos -- I think that's it.
Q This statement says that they're striving for
improved cooperation and mutual trust with full respect for the
sovereignty of both nations. Does President Clinton think that
the sovereignty of Mexico was respected in Casablanca?
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: The issue wasn't addressed in
those terms.
Q What was the President's reaction overall to
the speech that President Zedillo gave at the U.N.?
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: He congratulated him for -- I
can't remember whether he specified the speech or for the
conference as a whole. He did listen to the speech and he
thought it went well. I don't recall he got into more detail on
the specifics of it. But he clearly was happy with it.
Q Ambassador Dobbins, the Attorney General said
that given the fact that you have to conduct these operations and
protect lives of agents, she acted like there is no guarantee in
the future. And improving communications doesn't mean it won't
happen again, correct?
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: I really don't want to be drawn
in and I'm sure the Attorney General doesn't want to be drawn in
and wasn't drawn beyond what's in the joint statement.
Q She made it pretty clear that weighing agents'
lives versus communication, she was going to err on the side of
agents' lives.
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: I heard exactly what the
Attorney General said, and you're free to quote her, but that's
not what she said.
Q Some of the points that are being discussed in
the conference is spending about a billion dollars a year on
eradication of opium, cocaine, marijuana, et cetera. Did
President Zedillo and President Clinton talk about whether the
United States is going to contribute to these efforts in terms of
financial assistance to eradicate this so-called problem?
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: They didn't discuss
eradication, per se. The United States of, course, is the major
contributor to eradication around the world already. I think
some of the debate is how much of it should be channeled in
addition to what we're already doing through the U.N. My
impression from what Barry McCaffrey said earlier today to
another press briefing was that we haven't made a decision on
that, we haven't yet seen the U.N. numbers, and when we do we'll
make some decision about how much we're going to contribute. But
the United States already is the largest contributor to
eradication.
Q On the forest fires issue, did the President
offer any further assistance? And also, aren't some Mexican
Cabinet officers meeting with U.S. officials this week in
Washington?
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: I'm not sure of the timing. I
know both Bruce Babbitt who -- no, I'm sorry, the Secretary of
Agriculture Glickman and Brian Atwood, the head of AID, have been
meeting with their Mexican counterparts. They went to Mexico,
and I just don't know what their schedule is and whether there's
a
meeting.
Now, there's a meeting of what's called the
Binational Commission on Thursday, which brings together
virtually the entire Mexican and U.S. Cabinets. It's an annual
meeting and I'm sure that those Cabinet participants will
participate, along with the Attorney General, with Barry
McCaffrey, with Madeleine Albright.
Q There was nothing said in this meeting about
further assistance either of personnel or financial --
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: No, nothing specific.
Q I wonder if the President of Mexico or
President Clinton mentioned anything about the possibility to
persecute American agents that were involved in Casablanca, the
covert operation.
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: As I said, President Zedillo
made clear that his Attorney General had an obligation to
determine whether there had been any violations of Mexican law.
That process wasn't completed. They weren't presuming that --
they had come to no conclusion. There was no discussion of what
would happen thereafter. President Zedillo made clear that
wasn't an issue for the two Presidents to discuss. The two
Presidents should discuss the principles of their cooperation and
encourage their Attorneys General and other officials to improve
processes for coordination and collaboration and communication.
Q Did President Zedillo ask for any further
information on this Casablanca to be able to determine whether
any laws were violated?
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: No, but I don't know that he
needed to. Our officials were down in Mexico City late last week
for the first exchange, where we provided information on the
case, and we agreed that we would continue to meet with the
Mexicans. So I assume he didn't ask because he felt that they
were getting full information from us.
Q If it's a question of Mexico's sovereignty
being violated, why is there any question of U.S. agents being
extradited as individuals instead of --
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: I don't know that there is a
question of U.S. agents being extradited.
Q Well, there clearly in -- political circles.
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: I mean, I can't speak for the
Mexican President.
Q The Foreign Minister -- extradition publicly.
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: It didn't come up in the
meeting. I mean, what the issue was -- there's no point in my
repeating it. He said they needed to review whether there had
been a violation of Mexican law. They haven't come to any
conclusions, and there was no discussion beyond that.
Q As a generic matter then can you rule out
extraditing U.S. citizens or law enforcement --
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: That's a hypothetical question,
which is well in advance of where we are at the moment.
Q Was Casablanca the main -- would you say that
the Casablanca operation was the major subject discussed by the
President?
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: I would think they spent as
much time on climate change as Casablanca. They probably --
those two occupied the biggest chunks of what was about a
40-minute meeting. But there were several other things and then
they've gone on to talk privately for 25 minutes and I don't know
what was in the 25 minutes.
Q Can you characterize the tone of Zedillo's
comments on the Casablanca issue?
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: The meeting was a very positive
meeting. These are good friends, they know each other well.
There was no negative tone in the meeting. The issue is clearly
one that is a serious one for the Mexicans, but there was nothing
in the tone of the meeting which suggested anything other than
that the United States and Mexico were going to continue to move
forward in intensifying an already uniquely collaborative
relationship.
Q Would you try to dispel the impression that
Mexico was really very angry at the U.S. over this episode?
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: I'm trying to characterize a
meeting between the two Presidents. I'm not trying to
characterize a relationship between two countries. And when you
talk about Mexico, are you talking about the press, are you
talking about the Cabinet, are you talking about the Congress,
Mexican Congress?
Q -- had an adverse effect on U.S.-Mexican
relations.
AMBASSADOR DOBBINS: All I can tell you is that this
was a positive, forward-looking meeting, the results of which are
in the joint statement.
MR. MCCURRY: Any last thing for Jim? Other
subjects?
Q Ms. Reno said today that by way of saying that
Mexican officials weren't the only ones -- saying there are
officials in this country left out as well. Can you say who
didn't know?
MR. MCCURRY: Other Cabinet officials have addressed
that, including the Secretary of State. But the point the
Attorney General made today is that in sensitive law enforcement
operations that involve undercover work, for the protection of
courageous and heroic law enforcement officials, information is
very closely held. And she made the point of saying it's very
closely held within our government. There were a number of
senior ranking officials, and I can't quantify it precisely, but
many high ranking officials in the U.S. government who are
unaware of Operation Casablanca until it is formally announced by
our government.
Thank you. Other subjects at all?
Q Abacha's death?
MR. MCCURRY: Have we put out any formal statement?
I'm asking you. (Laughter.) I haven't had a chance to -- let me
say the United States government acknowledges the death of
General Sani Abacha. The United States government is interested
in what type of opportunities exist for transition to civilian
rule in Nigeria. A long-sought goal of U.S. policy has been to
restore to the people of Nigeria a freely-elected democratic
government that is consistent with the great aspirations of the
Nigerian people and reflective of the great potential Nigeria has
in the world community.
Our hope, among others, would be at this moment of
transition that an accountable civilian government that is able
to lead the Nigerian people will emerge from what has been a very
horrific episode in which basic fundamental rights have been
suspended, in which rule of law has not applied, in which the
results of elections have been set aside in the name of
authoritarianism..
Q Is the United States still open to the idea of
any military ruler seeking election as a civilian?
MR. MCCURRY: The United States government is
interested in seeing a freely and democratically elected civilian
government that can help make the orderly transition away from
authoritarianism and back to democracy that the people of Nigeria
deserve. I'm not going to speculate on who that might involve,
and I don't think anyone is in a position to speculate at this
point.
Q Regardless of whether or not that candidate is
out of the Nigerian military?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, there have been freely and
democratically elected figures throughout Africa that formerly
were involved in the military. I'm not going to speculate about
what might emerge at this moment in the history of Nigeria. Our
interest is in a government that will reflect what we believe is
the desire and will of the people of Nigeria to see themselves
freely governed by a democratically elected president who wants
to restore prosperity and opportunity for the people of Nigeria
-- opportunity and prosperity that they once enjoyed.
Q Did the President talk to the Secretary of
State today about Kosovo and what's the message that we're going
to have on Friday?
MR. MCCURRY: The President did receive a briefing
today from his National Security Advisor, since they happened to
be here, and both Mr. Berger and Secretary Albright participated
from here in New York in a meeting of the President's advisors
today.
I think when you recall when the Contact Group met
in early May, we agreed to impose an assets freeze and investment
ban unless President Milosevic agreed to talks and to take other
measures to avoid violence in Kosovo, directed to the Kosovo
Albanians. President Milosevic did agree to those talks, but in
the last two weeks we have seen instances of indiscriminate
violence that has undermined the basic value and premise of the
talks that President Milosevic engaged in with the leadership
with the ethnic Kosovo Albanians.
Therefore, the United States is going to move
forward to implement the assets ban and the investment ban that
we suggested that we would pursue. We expect the Former Republic
of Yugoslavia to live up to its pledge this past weekend to allow
access by international observers and humanitarian organizations
in Kosovo. We call on both sides to resume their dialogue, to
urge all parties to avoid actions that would undermine peaceful
negotiations.
We're also concerned about the refugee flows that
have occurred as a result of this violence. There are a
substantial number of Kosovo Albanians that have fled their homes
a result of these attacks, and we and others in the international
community are now mobilizing resources that will deal with what
is clearly a very pressing need for the people who are now in
refugee status.
We're also simultaneously working with our allies,
working closely with our allies, other partners in the
international community as well -- both through NATO, through the
United Nations, and through the Contact Group that has been
established to work together on problems in the Balkans. We're
looking for measures that will help end the violence and promote
a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the Kosovo
Albanians and the Serbian populations in Kosovo. We're
conducting accelerated contingency planning at NATO, and there
have been a variety of steps there authorized, as some of you may
know, as a result of the recent meeting at the ministerial level
of the North Atlantic Council. The Pentagon and others have
briefed on some of the things that are underway in the region and
in and around Kosovo that involved deployment of NATO resources.
I'll spare you some of that. I will say that we and
our partners have a variety of options available to us, and no
decisions have been made on that score, but again, nothing should
be ruled out either.
Q Are you going to be backing a U.N. resolution
that will allow for the use of force?
MR. MCCURRY: We are going to be in very close
contact with our allies, particularly with those that we have
cooperated with closely on in matters related to the Balkans.
And I expect that as this week unfolds there will be further
discussions underway about how best to press the arguments that
we want to make. I would hesitate to say at this point that we
concluded that a single resolution or a single course of action
suggests itself, but we are consulting with other governments
even as we speak.
Q Is there any concern -- did the President hear
about the reports that the U.S. used seran gas in Laos against
American --
MR. MCCURRY: He did hear about those reports. The
President expressed interest in them, although they clearly
involve allegations about behavior for administrations that are
long gone. The President's understanding is that the Pentagon is
reviewing the historical record, and my understanding is that the
Pentagon was briefed extensively on that today. Other than to
say the President was interested in and aware of the reports and
assured that other parts of our government were looking into it.
We're not in a position to take further action on it here today.
Q On Korea -- what are you planning to highlight
tomorrow? Will the President -- has there been any consideration
of the South Korean request that the U.S. consider lifting
sanctions?
MR. MCCURRY: Well, there has not been a request by
the Republic of Korea to lift sanctions on North Korea. There
have been some suggestions that President Kim Dae Jung has an
interest in raising that issue and exploring it with President
Clinton during their state visit tomorrow. We look forward to
that opportunity because the future of the Korean Peninsula is of
keen interest to the people of the United States of America, in
having fought for peace there and having followed very closely
the efforts to bring about reconciliation between North and
South.
We have other interests that we certainly will be
exploring with the Republic of Korea as well -- our work together
to contain the nuclear program of the North, the DPRK; our common
efforts with respect to economic issues; what we do together on a
range of regional security issues. There's an extensive
bilateral agenda that we'll explore as well. But clearly,
because we cooperate so closely with our close friend and ally,
the Republic of Korea, we will be very interested in what this ne
government and this new President suggest with respect to the
future of diplomatic efforts to bring about reconciliation on the
Korean Peninsula.
Q Mike, on that point, in the view of the U.S.
government, has North Korea's conduct been such that it would
warrant the lifting of sanctions at this time?
MR. MCCURRY: North Korea's conduct has been
consistent with the October 1994 agreed framework, which is right
now the most important document with respect to the containment
of a program that once posed such great danger to the peoples on
both sides the divide.
At the same time, we still consider this a regime
that has not fully committed itself to a peaceful resolution of
the disagreements that exist on the Korean Peninsula. That is
why we have encouraged the government in the North to pursue in
the four-party talks framework a discussion of the issues that we
hope could bring about exactly that kind of peaceful
reconciliation. We need to see a lot more before we think of
setting aside those implements and tools available to help bring
about the type of peaceful reconciliation we seek, but clearly
among those at those point, dialogue is chief and foremost.
Q Sorry to be thick about this, but I don't see
the statement, the joint communique really speaking for itself.
I just would like to ask, if you had the same situation, weighing
the risks that you had this time for the agents involved, in the
future, with this improved communications, would you communicate
the information about this raid -- the exact same situation?
MR. MCCURRY: I think that that discussion of a
hypothetical was not the way the two Presidents spent their
energies in their discussion today. They reviewed how they're
going to go about creating a dialogue, starting with the work
their two chief law enforcement officers, their Attorneys General
do together to devise a procedure that will allow the mutual
interests that both countries have in avoided undesirable effects
to take place -- exactly as the communique suggests.
There's no way to predict the future and neither is
there any particular reason to dwell unnecessarily on the past.
I think the tone and content of this meeting was one that
suggested the two Presidents would best spend their time
reviewing the principles that ought to underpin the close
cooperation Mexico and the United States have when it comes to
fighting drugs. And that's -- reaffirmation of those important
principles is what the two Presidents concentrated their time on.
That's a wrap for today. There's nothing more, I
think, on the evening event tonight. I don't anticipate any
particular fireworks and we're out of here at 8:30 p.m.
Q Got any guidance on whether there's any line
item veto in store on --
MR. MCCURRY: I do not, Mark. I haven't heard any
discussion of that. Barry, anything? Okay.
That's it. I didn't even have anything here you
didn't ask about -- on the foreign policy side.
END 6:32 P.M. EDT