TRANSCRIPT: SECRETARY OF STATE ALBRIGHT PRESS CONFERENCE

[USIA]

USIS Washington File

16 January 1998

TRANSCRIPT: SECRETARY OF STATE ALBRIGHT PRESS CONFERENCE

(U.S., UK, EU emphasize successes of UNSCOM in Iraq) (4830)

Washington -- U.S., British and European Union (EU) officials January
15 denied charges of "timidity" on the part of the United Nations in
dealing with the latest crisis in Iraq.

Secretary of State Albright and United Kingdom Foreign Secretary Robin
Cook emphasized the successes of the United Nations Special Committee
(UNSCOM) on Iraq in stripping Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass
destruction during a press availability on January 15.

Cook, in his capacity as EU President and EU Vice President Leon
Brittan were in Washington to discuss U.S.-EU ties and issues such as
Iraq, Iran, and NATO.

Albright noted that "UNSCOM has been responsible for the destruction
of more weapons of mass destruction than Iraq had than the Gulf War
itself was." UNSCOM, she said, remains "the best vehicle" for this
purpose.

However, for the second time in less than four months, Saddam Hussein
has refused to allow U.N. inspection teams that include American
experts access to suspected weapons sites. Yet the international
community is showing remarkable unity and fortitude in resisting
Iraq's attempts to thwart the inspections demanded by the U.N.
Security Council, according to Albright.

Albright noted that on January 14 the U.N. Security Council
unanimously condemned Iraq's refusal to allow inspection teams freedom
of access. She pointed out that "there have been 39 times that the
international community has made clear the fact that Saddam Hussein
needs to live up to his obligations that the Security Council has
imposed."

Albright did not rule out the use of military force, but said: "We
want to find the most effective means for ... separating Saddam
Hussein from the possibility of having weapons of mass destruction.
And we have believed and continue to believe that the diplomatic route
is a good one and it is, in fact, supported by the threat of the use
of force, and we have not eschewed any option...."

Cook said that Saddam Hussein's attempts to impose conditions on the
U.N. inspection teams "cannot be accepted and will be resisted."

Cook added: "We should not underrate the success of the international
pressure on Saddam Hussein in the past. We have made good progress on
closing down the nuclear weapons program. We have made good progress
in grounding his missile program. We now need to see the same progress
on the biological and chemical (weapons) program. And until that is
achieved, we will resolutely insist that he must comply with the
Security Council resolutions."

UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler is scheduled to visit Baghdad next week
in an effort to convince Iraqi officials to comply with U.N. demands.

On Iran, the United States and EU agree to cautiously examine the
proposal for cultural exchanges and greater dialogue made by Iran's
President Mohammad Khatami during a recent interview on Cable Network
News (CNN).

According to Cook, specific proposals for dialogue would be
"premature." Albright emphasized "the importance of
government-to-government dialogue, in acknowledged and authoritative
channels, dealing with the three issues that we consider of major
concern to us: the support for terrorism, the desire to acquire
weapons of mass destruction, and the undermining of the Middle East
peace process."

Following is the State Department transcript:

(begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman

For Immediate Release
January 15, 1998

REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT, UK FOREIGN
SECRETARY ROBIN COOK, IN HIS EU PRESIDENCY CAPACITY, AND VICE
PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION SIR LEON BRITTAN

Washington, D.C.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good afternoon. I am pleased to welcome British
Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, and the Vice President of the European
Commission, Sir Leon Brittan.

Let me say first that Foreign Secretary Cook and I have spoken
repeatedly in recent days about the need for unity and firmness in
insisting that Iraq comply with all relevant Security Council
resolutions, including full cooperation with UNSCOM inspections. As
the Security Council reiterated yesterday once again, the U.N.
inspectors must have full, immediate and unconditional access to
facilities, people and documents that may be related to Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction programs.

The primary purpose of our meetings today, however, was to discuss the
relationship between the United States and the European Union. Those
ties are a central part of a broader New Atlantic community that
includes NATO, the OSCE and other trans-Atlantic organizations.

As the United Kingdom begins its six-month term as EU President,
Europe and the United States have an opportunity, and a
responsibility, to lead in a range of areas where if we don't show the
way, no one else can or will.

Today we discussed a broad range of those issues -- developing
Turkey's relationship with the EU; sustaining the Middle East peace
process; promoting reconciliation in Bosnia; supporting reform in
Ukraine; and combating climate change. We also discussed Iran. I
reaffirmed that we found President Khatemi's recent statements
intriguing, and we are analyzing them carefully. Our hope is that the
change in words will be complemented by a change in policy with
respect to terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and violent
opposition to the Middle East peace process. These are concerns our EU
partners share.

We and the EU have our differences over how to achieve the changes we
seek. But we are working actively to achieve convergence in our
approaches to Iran, while faithfully implementing U.S. law.

During today's meeting, we also reviewed the importance of strong
trans-Atlantic leadership on trade and economic affairs for our own
prosperity and that of the world economy. At this moment of global
financial uncertainty, the United States and the European Union must
be a force for open trade, for fair trade, and for growing trade
between our continents and around the world. This means doing more to
reduce red tape, remove obstructions and resolve disputes in our trade
relationship. It means moving ahead toward our goal of creating a new
trans-Atlantic marketplace. And it means working together to help
stabilize financial conditions in East Asia and supporting the reforms
needed to restore confidence in that region's economic future.

The coming year will be a watershed for the European Union, as it
begins the process of admitting the new democracies of Central and
Eastern Europe and takes major steps toward a single currency. The
United States will continue to support European integration, and to
work in Europe to build a continent that is peaceful, prosperous and
free, and with Europe to address challenges around the world.

It is my hope that ever-stronger U.S.-EU cooperation can make this a
good year for all our peoples, and for the interests we share. And now
let me yield the floor to Foreign Secretary Cook, and say what a
pleasure it is to have you here. He has just given a speech about the
decisive partnership. And may I say, Secretary Cook, I believe that we
are good partners in this decisive partnership, as we work through all
these issues together.

FOREIGN SECRETARY COOK: Thank you very much, Madeleine. Can I say that
there's no doubt working with you is in a decisive partnership. And
between us, I think we have shared in common decisions on Bosnia and
Iraq, which have been an interest not just of our countries, but of
establishing a strong international community working for peace and
working for the avoidance of conflict.

This is my first visit as the European Union presidency foreign
minister; and it is fitting it should be to the United States, both
because of the importance to Europe of the relationship with the
United States and the trans-Atlantic agenda, but also because of
Britain's long, strong friendship and close working relationship with
the United States.

The new government of Britain promised that it would transform our
relations with Europe. We have done that. Britain is now taken
seriously in Europe as a partner with whom the other member countries
of Europe can do serious business.

I would stress to our American audience that this does not in any way
mean that we are weakening our ties across the Atlantic with the
United States. On the contrary, I would argue that Britain is now a
more valuable ally of the United States because we do have influence
in Europe and are not isolated in Europe. And as president of the
European Union, Britain can bring to that role the asset of a strong
historic friendship with the United States and its new-found influence
in Brussels.

As the president of the European Union, we will be pursuing an agenda
which reflects the concerns of the peoples of Europe on jobs, on crime
and on the environment. On all of those issues, the trans-Atlantic
dialogue is of great importance. There are two trillion dollars of
business in trade and investment which pass every year between the
United States and the European Union. We want to work to increase that
trade and investment.

On crime, we need to work together against the drug trade and against
organized crime, particularly in the Caribbean where we have joint
interests. And on the environment, we need to work together to
stabilize the global climate, which is why, in the course of our
meeting this afternoon, we both agreed that the United States and
Europe would work jointly to bring the developing countries into the
process that must follow on from Kyoto.

It is also, of course, important that Europe should try to develop a
common, strong voice on those areas of the international relations
which cause trouble to the international community. In the course of
this afternoon's meeting, we touched on three of those issues with
Secretary of State Albright.

First of all, we are resolved that we must take every possible step to
make sure that the equipment, the material and the technology to
develop weapons of mass destruction do not pass into the hands of
Iran; and we have resolved to look at how we can make for a more tough
and even more effective export regime to control such equipment
getting into the hands of Iran.

Secondly, we have both recognized the frustrating stalemate in the
Middle East peace process. I have assured Secretary of State Albright
of the full support of Europe for the talks brokered by the United
States; and we have agreed between us that we must make sure that we
maintain full contact and full cooperation in the peace process.

And finally, I would like to report, as I did in the course of our
meeting, that we have today obtained the agreement of the government
of Algeria for a visit by a troika from the European Union, both to
assess the suffering of the Algerian people and its sources and also
to make sure that we can work out whether and how the European Union
can help end the terrorism. That troika mission will visit Algeria on
Monday and Tuesday of next week, which will be in time to report to
the meeting of the foreign ministers a week on Monday, and I will be
keeping the United States fully informed.

Both continents share the same revulsion at the appalling character of
the atrocities that have recently been happening in Algeria. And the
international community has a legitimate interest in rooting out
terrorism wherever it exists, because we know from bitter experience
that once terrorism takes a hold in one country, it's all too easily
exported to other countries.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you. And now let me turn to Sir Leon
Brittan, the hardworking and imaginative vice president of the
European Commission.

SIR LEON BRITTAN: Thank you very much, indeed, for those kind words.

I'd like to just add a little about our discussions today. They take
place nowadays in the context of the new trans-Atlantic agenda which
was unveiled just over two years ago. We expressed our determination
to develop that agenda, develop the new trans-Atlantic marketplace
within it, and to give it more visibility. But we also have to try and
solve the problems that exist and are bound to exist in a relationship
as wide-reaching and as comprehensive as that between Europe and the
United States.

With regard to the dispute over the Helms-Burton legislation, we are
both committed to implement the understanding that was reached last
April, which seeks to provide a framework for the resolution of that
dispute. We need agreement in order to avoid having to return to the
WTO. That is what we want; we are working on it very hard.

We discussed Asia and the crisis, the financial crisis in Asia, and
agreed that it's very important that we should cooperate and
coordinate our work in response to it, promoting and supporting the
reforms of the IMF. It's very important that all the countries
concerned -- the consequence of the crisis does not lead simply to
increased exports to Europe and to the United States, causing tensions
as a result of that, but rather is accompanied by effective reform,
preventing subsidies of industries that export only on the back of
those subsidies, introducing a greater degree of transparency in the
financial systems, and dealing with the structural aspects of the
problem and not just pour money into it. I think we're agreed on that.

As far as China is concerned, we also have been cooperating very
closely with the United States on the issue of China's membership in
the World Trade Organization. We have a shared interest to have China
in soon, and on the right terms; and we must work together for it. It
is an interest shared by China, itself. I shall be going to China next
month in order to see if we can take the process further forward.

With regard to trade more generally, as I've already said, there are
bound to be conflicts and there are bound to be problems. But we have
a commitment to resolve those problems. We recognize the importance of
doing so not only to prevent trade being impaired, but also to clear
the decks for cooperation on wider issues.

We seek in every case solutions that are compatible with the rules of
the WTO, and which avoid disruption to trade. It is in that spirit
that we shall continue working.

Q: Madame Secretary, the Secretary in his speech today, and also
briefly here, referred to his concern -- and I know you are, too --
about the transfer of missile technology to Iran. Mr. Wisner has been
there; one of your senior aides spoke on the subject at Heritage
today. It's still not clear to many of us whether Russia, the Russian
Government was aware of this technology going to Iran, and what the
Russians -- because your aide says that Chernomyrdin and Primakov and
others object to it. So what are they going to do about it? But
primarily I'm interested in knowing how this could happen without the
Russian Government knowing it was happening, or did they?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, let me say that we and the
Russians do agree on the security threat posed by Iran's desire to
acquire medium- and long-range missiles. I think that what -- and
whenever I have met with Foreign Minister Primakov or President
Clinton has meet with President Yeltsin or in this Wisner-Koptev
channel or Gore-Chernomyrdin, it is a subject that is raised all the
time.

I do not wish to make excuses or anything for anyone, but I do think
that we are aware of the fact that as the centralized system in the
Soviet Union broke down, that it is possible for companies to, in
effect, be taking action that may not be known to the central
government. But we do believe that it is important that there be means
and mechanisms worked out in order to make sure that there cannot be
the transfer of these kinds of technology. And that is exactly the
kind of work that we are involved in. Ambassador Wisner reported that
there has been progress in that. We will pursue this vigorously,
because, as I said, we agree with the Russians that there is a
security threat.

FOREIGN SECRETARY COOK: Can I just say that Europe fully endorses the
analysis of the United States about the degree of involvement, and
deeply shares that concern.

Every European leader who has met with President Yeltsin recently has
raised this issue, and Tony Blair did so himself in Moscow, towards
the end of last year.

Q: Madame Secretary, I know that the United States and other countries
-- or should I say the U.N. -- is waiting for Mr. Butler to return
from his visit to Iraq this weekend, or rather, Monday, and see what
Saddam Hussein's answer is going to be this time around.

But how long is the international community, in your opinion, going to
wait and continue this timid approach in Saddam's game of cat and
mouse. When do you think that we're going to hit the wall here?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, I think that we should make
very clear how important it is for the international community to have
shown the unity that it did again yesterday in the presidential
statement at the United Nations, which praised the kind of things that
Ambassador Butler was doing; again talked about the importance of
unfettered and unconditional access to the sites. There have been 39
times that the international community has made clear the fact that
Saddam Hussein needs to live up to his obligations that the Security
Council has imposed, in terms of these resolutions.

We believe we have said all along that UNSCOM is the best vehicle for
making sure that Saddam Hussein gets rid of his weapons of mass
destruction. And I think it should be noted that UNSCOM has been
responsible for the destruction of more weapons of mass destruction
that Iraq had than the Gulf War itself was. So I think what the point
here is, that we want to find the most effective means for separating
Saddam Hussein from the possibility of having weapons of mass
destruction.

We have believed, and continue to believe that the diplomatic route is
a good one, and it is in fact supported by the threat of the use of
force. And we have not eschewed any option; we have not left anything
out, and we are not at this stage. But we are -- the international
community gave good support to Ambassador Butler, and we will be
awaiting his return.

FOREIGN SECRETARY COOK: Can I just back up the Secretary's statement
on that point? First of all, I would wholly acquit the international
community, and particularly the Security Council, of a timid response
to Saddam Hussein.

I was with Madeleine Albright on that night in Geneva when the
permanent five members met to discuss the resolution of the last
crisis phase. Madeleine Albright and I were successful in making sure
that that text was a tough text which quite clearly stated that Saddam
Hussein must accept the return of the UNSCOM inspectors without
conditions. He is now attempting to impose conditions. That cannot be
accepted and will be resisted.

We should not underrate the success of the international pressure on
Saddam Hussein in the past. We have made good progress in closing down
the nuclear weapons program. We have made good progress in grounding
his missile program. We now need to see the same progress on the
biological and chemical program. And until that is achieved, we will
resolutely insist that he must comply with the Security Council
resolutions.

MR. RUBIN: We can take three more questions -- BBC, CNN and UPI.

Q: Richard Lister, BBC. Can we ask both the Secretary of State and the
Foreign Secretary whether either of you see any grounds now for
greater flexibility in dealing with Iran in the light of President
Khatemi's recent remarks; and whether there was any discussion between
you on ways to engage in Iran in dialogue, either between the two
governments, between either of your governments and Iran, or between
the people of your countries?

FOREIGN SECRETARY COOK: It would be premature at the present stage to
propose any specific proposals for dialogue. And I also did very
firmly set out this morning that Britain does of course have a
particular issue which prevents us from having normal relations with
Iran - - because of the outstanding fatwa against Salman Rushdie.
Until that death threat to a British citizen is removed, we cannot
have normal relations with Iran.

I would not accept the way in which you went into the question on
flexibility. I think that there must be no room for flexibility in our
resolve to halting Iran getting weapons of mass destruction, or
preventing Iran from acquiring a missile capacity, or in stopping Iran
from sponsoring state terrorism. On all these fronts, we must be quite
clear that these are unacceptable dangers based on unacceptable
behavior by elements within the government of Iran.

I think that Britain, the European Union, and the United States need
to come to a common position on how they handle the wider question of
economic trade with Iran; because so long as we do not speak from the
same strategy, the danger is that we do not put as effective pressure
on Iran as we might. The only gainer from our failure to achieve a
common position is Iran. The greatest beneficiary of achieving a
common position would be bringing a greater sense of peace and
security to the Middle East, if we can achieve that more effective,
tougher regime against the weapons of mass destruction.

I, this afternoon, presented Secretary of State Albright with an aide
memoire covering all the things that the European countries are at
present doing to halt equipment and materiel for weapons of mass
destruction getting into the hands of Iran. I would now want to work
with the American Administration in seeing how we can improve even on
our very strong performance at present.

SIR LEON BRITTAN: Could I just add to that, that that aide memoire was
a joint aide memoire of the commission and the presidency. It
supplements an aide memoire which we presented together with the Dutch
presidency last year, and it shows the continued resolution and
determination of the European Union as a whole to take vigorous action
in cooperation with our American friends against both the development
of weapons of mass destruction and the use of Iran as a terrorist
base, with active participation by the Iranian Government. That is
completely unacceptable, and we are working very closely on a
continuing basis, seeking continually new avenues to combat that.

The economic issue is a completely different one, and I very much
agree with what the Foreign Secretary has said. It would be totally
counterproductive for disputes between Europe and the United States to
weaken the impact of our common commitment against Iranian terrorism
and development of weapons of mass destruction.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Let me say that, obviously, the subject of
President Khatemi's speech is one that we discussed in our meeting,
and it's obviously one, also, as you know, is being discussed among
all of us. Because, as the president has said, it has been intriguing,
it is interesting and we found some encouraging aspects of it, to do
with their statement of regret for the hostage-taking, some
condemnation of terrorism and the respect for the basic values and
principles of American history and culture.

There were certain aspects of the speech which we thought were highly
objectionable, in terms of their characterization of Israel and use of
racism. And we have, in fact, spoken about the importance of
government-to-government dialogue, acknowledged in authoritative
channels, dealing with the three issues that we consider of major
concern to us -- the support for terrorism, the desire to acquire
weapons of mass destruction and the undermining of the Middle East
peace process. But I think it is fair to say that all of us are
looking very carefully at the speech by President Khatemi.

We are, in fact, agreed with the EU in terms of the problems of trying
to control weapons of mass destruction going to Iran, and doing what
we can to influence Iran to stop trying to acquire those weapons.

I think, on the economic side, I have to make very clear that there is
a law -- an American law -- which we are going to implement; and that
is the responsibility that we have and the determined -- we are
looking now, in terms of whether there is sanctionable activity, and
sanctions remain a very real option.

At the same time, I think I am very heartened by the conversations
that we had today, and the aide memoire that was transmitted to us in
terms of the possibility of increasingly close cooperation of trying
to deal with the problems of the acquisition of weapons of mass
destruction.

Q: Secretary Albright and Foreign Secretary Cook, at that very crucial
meeting in Geneva, overnight and at the end of November, Foreign
Minister Primakov was the man who had worked as an intermediary,
certainly, and in bringing back the message that the Iraqis were ready
now to resume compliance. It didn't hold together very long. I'm
wondering what avenue the Security Council is proceeding with now. Are
the Russians working again on this issue? Have you had the kind of
contact with the Russians, because of their special relationship with
Iraq, that you would like to have? Is there anything you can report on
that front?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, let me say on my own behalf, that clearly we
use the channels that are useful and effective. I think both Secretary
Cook and I would agree that Foreign Minister Primakov played a useful
role.

I, myself, have had a conversation with Primakov, and talked to him
about the issue this time, and sought Russian support for the Security
Council presidential statement, which we got. So what I find very
important is that as we talk -- I also talked to Foreign Minister
Vedrine, and France has the presidency of the security council. What
you see, yet again, is the unity of the security council in stating
loud and clear that Saddam Hussein has to comply with -- has to allow
unfettered, unconditional access to various sites, and support for
Chairman Butler.

So I think that we each have our own ways of getting the message
across, and I presume that the Russians are doing what they can
because they did, in fact, show support for yesterday's presidential
statement.

FOREIGN SECRETARY COOK: I would start by saying that the Geneva
agreement was successful in getting the return of the UNSCOM
inspectors without Iraq exercising the veto it was seeking on who
those inspectors should be.

Now, the latest attempt to claim that one team is biased and cannot go
about its work is a breach of that Geneva agreement, which made it
plain it was not subject to conditions. I would take the opportunity
of wholly rejecting the claim that that team is biased. There are 44
members of that team, and they come from 19 different U.N. countries.
There is no valid basis for the criticism. It is only the latest in a
long history of the Iraqi Government of attempting to obstruct and
delay the work of UNSCOM.

I think that it is very important that all five permanent members of
the Security Council show unity in facing down this latest attempt to
obstruct our work, and I would expect that unity.

Q: Madame Secretary, Foreign Secretary, with the human rights meeting
in Geneva just about six to eight weeks off, has the United States and
the EC agreed to co-sponsor a resolution critical of China's record?
Or have you decided that there's been enough improvement in the last
few months to drop the matter altogether?

FOREIGN SECRETARY COOK: Well, there's been no decision. Certainly you
can answer your last part and say that such improvement as there's
been over the last year, it's most certainly not sufficient to take
away concern over human rights.

As last year, we will maintain close contact; and as March gets
nearer, we will seek to achieve first a common position within the
European Union and secondly, a joint shared strategy with the United
States.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I would agree with that assessment of it. We will
obviously stay in very close consultation on that and everything else.
As Secretary Cook and I are on the phone a great deal and work
together very closely on a whole host of issues, this is but one of
them.

FOREIGN SECRETARY COOK: Thank you.

(end transcript)