NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.
| The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001. Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date. This site is not updated so external links may no longer function. Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein. |
Question: Is the administration doing anything to offer dialogue now in light of the elections, or does your--I guess two statements--your two statements welcoming the results stand as a sort of a reminder that the US is willing to talk to the Iranians? Mr. Rubin: The election results are not final. It's clear that there has been an unmistakable demonstration of support for the policies of openness and engagement. It is our hope that the popular mandate enjoyed by the new parliament will set Iran on a new course towards a new constructive role in the region. We continue to believe that direct dialogue between the United States and Iran is the best way to approach the real policy differences which have divided us. Iran's elections are a positive development for Iranian democracy, and we believe for the prospect of better U.S.-Iranian relations as well. In the recent months and years, we have taken a number of steps that we have discussed in this briefing room time and time again; I am not going to repeat them for you. But we need Iran to demonstrate its willingness to address our concerns constructively through authorized and acknowledged dialogue. I have nothing to offer you on what we might--what one might anticipate in the weeks ahead. That is our position. Question: This is communication, public statements, right? Question: About a month or so ago, after great effort, we managed to extract from this department the statement of opposition to World Bank loans to Iran. Does the election--could the election have any effect on this position? Mr. Rubin: The World Bank itself is, of course, best placed to respond to questions about the World Bank. Let me just finish. Just hang in there. Our understanding is that the World Bank has not finalized any proposals for loans to Iran for Executive Board consideration and there are no such proposals on the agenda for the World Bank Board at this time. Congress has directed that the United States oppose multilateral lending to countries designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of terrorism. Iran has been so designated. Furthermore, the United States does not believe that conditions favor restarting World Bank lending to Iran at this time. Iran has yet to make progress in a number of fronts that should precede such action, including pursuing meaningful economic reform and abandoning support for terrorism. Our position on lending to Iran is well known to the Bank. The United States opposes World Bank lending to countries we have determined support international terrorism. We will not, therefore, support any loan to Iran that comes to the World Bank's Executive Board. Question: Does that legislation-- Mr. Rubin: I thought that was pretty clear. Question: That's very clear, yes. But-- Mr. Rubin: What do you mean? I did it right away. Question: No, it's very good. But does that legislation-- Mr. Rubin: You didn't have to drag it out of me, none of that. Question: --contain any kind of national security waiver or national interest waiver or anything at all? Is it set in stone, when you say Congress has directed that we oppose-- Mr. Rubin: We don't believe that Congress can, in fact, as a constitutional matter, direct how we vote, and the Executive Branch considers such direction from Congress as beyond congressional authority. We've made this point to Congress; we're going to continue to disagree on that. But we have, as a matter of practice, followed congressional proscriptions. Beyond that, I would have to get the text of the law to answer your question about waivers. Question: Do you have the right to ignore congressional guidance on this point? Mr. Rubin: I think we've made it clear to Congress for some time that we disagree with their authority to direct our-- Question: Do you think maybe Iran may be a test case for this right-- Mr. Rubin: I wouldn't assume that at all. Question: If Iran's designated status as a terrorist state is blocking the United States from supporting loans, what does Iran have to do at this stage to change its status as a state supporting terrorism? Mr. Rubin: Well, there have been--if you could get me that stuff from the legislation from that other country? There are a number of steps that have been made quite clear, essentially involving ensuring that the government is not supporting directly and repeatedly those conducting terrorist acts. We have had dialogues with other countries. We have engaged in a dialogue with North Korea, for example, in explaining what steps they need to take. Every country is different because every country that's on the list is different in the way in which it supports directly terrorist groups that perform terrorist acts. So I can't get too specific with you in the absence of the specific intelligence information that forms the basis of our conclusions. I can say that we would be happy to have a dialogue with Iran in which we laid out specifically what we thought was required for them to remove themselves from such a list. Question: Two questions. The Washington Post, in an article today said that a Boeing 747 full of military hardware arrives in Damascus from Iran twice a month in support of Hizballah. And I wonder, number one, if you could confirm that it was cited to U.S. officials and, number two, if you think that Syria should be preventing such planeloads of weapons from reaching Hizballah? You've said before that Syria exercises influence but this is sort of physical and material. My other question is, do you still call for an acknowledged dialogue with Iran or is that no longer in the language? Mr. Rubin: I don't think that basically has changed on the nature of the dialogue. I think that I am not going to comment on how often planeloads go from those airports to each other; that's an intelligence matter. And the third question is, we certainly want Syria to exercise maximum restraint over Hizballah, especially with regard to their attacks on Israeli soldiers, yes. Question: If I could just pick up on that? Does the US have any information--you don't have to say how regularly--that planeloads of weapons are being sent from Iran to support Hizballah? Mr. Rubin: We have substantial information to justify our placing Iran on the terrorist list. Question: Another question. I assume that the United States does have contact, one way or another, with Hizballah. And in those contacts, what have you learned about Hizballah's ultimate stated intentions? This is becoming significant, of course, as the Israelis talk about withdrawing from Lebanon. Did you have any reason to believe that Hizballah would be satisfied with merely an Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon, as they say so often? Mr. Rubin: Let me just say I intend to survive the last few months of my term as Spokesman of the United States of America without becoming the spokesman for Hizballah. [end of excerpt] Full transcript of Daily Press Briefing on 2/23/00
Iran Remarks | Near Eastern Affairs | Department of State | Secretary of State |
