FAS | Government Secrecy | News ||| Index | Search |

QUESTION: On Pinochet -- do you believe -- I mean, with your strong statements about accountability and justice and all of that - do you believe that if Pinochet went back to Chile that it would be possible and that, in fact, he would be put on trial?

MR. RUBIN: That's a good question for which I am not going to have an answer, because the answer is unknowable at this point. But let me take this opportunity to make a few points that have not gone across as effectively as perhaps they might have.

In particular, we received some letters of concern from relevant groups about the Secretary's position on this. There are two important values at stake here. One value is the value of accountability and justice; another value is the value of promoting and respecting democracies. These are both important values. This is the reason why this is such a complex issue. We have not taken a position in favor of one position or another. We have explained our concern about these values being achieved.

With respect to what will happen in Chile, in a hypothetical case, I can't answer it. What I can point to is the increasing indications that there are those in Chile who would like to see accountability in Chile. That is all we know at this point. There are no guarantees in that regard.

Secondly, with respect to the documents, we have indicated that we will review documents to determine whether they should be released, and we have not said what that review will entail. The details for implementing this are still being worked out. It is a substantial undertaking that will require a comprehensive and thorough review of a large number of documents. We don't know how long this process will take. We will try to complete it as quickly as possible. But what we want to make clear is that this is a review as to whether documents can be released consistent with these stipulations I stated yesterday.

QUESTION: You raise a lot of questions there. So now you're saying that there's no -

MR. RUBIN: No, I'm not saying anything new; I'm just clarifying misunderstandings that may have come across.

QUESTION: So there is no commitment to release documents?

MR. RUBIN: There's a commitment to review relevant documents to see -- which may shed light on abuses. That is a significant undertaking. It is all I said yesterday, and perhaps some misinterpreted it.

QUESTION: Human rights advocates, obviously, are concerned that this will take forever. I understand that you say you'll do it as quickly as possible, but there's no way to put any time frame on that?

MR. RUBIN: No.

QUESTION: Also, some critics are saying that there is a double standard here -- that the United States has one standard for its friends and one standard for its enemies.

MR. RUBIN: That is utter nonsense, and people who say that usually have their own reasons for saying it. We judge each case on the merits. If you look down the list of countries and you look down the list of complicated legal issues, they all have their own exigencies and own complications. In the minds of some, everything is black and white. In the minds of some, foreign policy is a simple matter of plugging in the facts and coming up with a pre-ordained answer. In the minds of this Administration -- and I hope future and past Administrations -- we try to weigh the considerations that are affected by each case, weigh each case on the merits and we don't have a knee-jerk response as some do.

QUESTION: Well, your remarks and the Secretary's remarks on Pinochet are being read by a lot of Chileans as endorsing his return to Chile.

MR. RUBIN: I think in response to your first question, I tried to deal with that. I think people should not read more into our remarks than what we say.

Again, there are two relevant values. One is the important value of accountability and justice in cases like Pinochet, where we have condemned in the strongest possible terms the abuses that have occurred during his reign. On the other hand, there's another value which is also important to the United States -- and one would hope important to all the commentators who have an opinion on this -- and that is the value of a country's transition to democracy. There are many countries that have transitioned to democracy, many of which have had human rights abuses far worse than Chile, and ways have been found to deal with it.

There are many different situations. Each situation is different and all I am trying to communicate is that we are weighing these two values. We don't want to interfere in the legal process that is going on. Others may draw conclusions from that, but they wouldn't be justified in doing so.

QUESTION: When you say you "weigh," you're suggesting that the two are in conflict. And the point is that US policy for the longest time was that the two work together beautifully -- that accountability for human rights violations enhances progress toward democracy. This would be like saying Germany is trying to dig out from World War II so let's not try German war criminals.

MR. RUBIN: I don't think that analogy is even close.

QUESTION: I know (inaudible) but Chile isn't the first country that's tried to turn the corner to democracy.

MR. RUBIN: Right. El Salvador, South Africa, Bosnia -- many different ways have been chosen.

QUESTION: Right. But it is often - and I thought almost uniformly -- the US position that to make human rights violators accountable complements the turn to democracy.

MR. RUBIN: Absolutely.

QUESTION: But the way the State Department's been talking about a balancing act, it sounds like, if you come down one side it's going to hurt the other process.

MR. RUBIN: No, that's not what I said.

QUESTION: That's what's troubling.

MR. RUBIN: I've been very clear. We're not saying that these two values are necessarily in conflict. We are saying these are the two values-accountability and justice - that are extremely important to the United States on the one hand; on the other hand, respect for a country that has become a democracy -- extremely important to the United States. That's why for some this is a very simple knee-jerk issue because they choose one or the other. For us, they are both important and in the meantime there is a legal case and a legal process going on that we don't want to interfere with.

But in explaining our views on this case generally, by explaining that we have two important values here, we are not saying they are in conflict and we are not saying we prefer one value over another.

QUESTION: Jamie, who's doing the review?

MR. RUBIN: The inter-agency - there are multiple agencies that will be involved in this.

QUESTION: What do you say to those who say that it's even more than just the United States treating its friends one way and its enemies another, but the fact that the United States is concerned that amongst those unclassified documents are papers which point the finger at not only US complicity, but quite frankly would get former US officials -- not only cause them embarrassment but essentially would implicate them as well?

MR. RUBIN: I think that this Administration, both under Secretary Albright's tenure and the previous tenure, has shown great openness to provide unclassified -- or declassify documents in a variety of cases in an unprecedently open way, and that is one of the factors that we will weigh. Other factors are law enforcement factors and national security factors. People who say that are again jerking their knee before the outcome has been decided.

We have said we will review these documents; and we have said there are a lot of documents. Before someone jumps to a conclusion about documents they could not know about, because they are classified, they should wait and allow the process to unfold.

QUESTION: Was there any conflict within this building, for instance, whether you talk to people who are in human rights or in legal, or is everyone of like mind?

MR. RUBIN: No, but that doesn't mean-it's not breaking down in the lines you would think. It's not a simple question of the regional bureaus being concerned about the relations with the relevant countries and the human rights bureau being concerned about another aspect of things.

Frankly, this issue, given that it is Europe, given that is Latin America, given that its human rights and given that is democracy, has caused a lot of different bureaus across the State Department to weigh in one form or another. The legal adviser's office - I've sat in on some of these discussions and although it might be real simple for some of those on the outside, I've been quite impressed with the complications that this kind of issue causes.

QUESTION: You've made much of the fact that Chile's a democracy, and you think that that needs to be respected. But in fact, Pinochet is granted amnesty in Chile under a law that the military dictatorship that he ran basically forced on its people. So it's not like in South Africa, where the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was the product of a consensus of society. This -

MR. RUBIN: Again, you're trying to take one standard and apply it to every country. There is no one standard. Each country's circumstances are different. One of the standards that we do accept is democracy; that is an elected government. Then the rule of law comes into play; respect for human rights come into play. It's simply a fact that Chile is a democracy, and we believe that respect ought to be given to democratic states as they wrestle with these kinds of problems.

We didn't say that that respect overshadows any other value, but simply pointed out that that ought to be respected, as I think many people understand. Some don't, but some do.

QUESTION: But Italy is a democracy, and why did you sort of very publicly recommend that Italy extradite Ocalan?

MR. RUBIN: Again, you're trying to compare apples and oranges. And I know it's a - how should I say it -- a temptation that seems unavoidable to you and others. But we're in the apples and apples business and the oranges and oranges business. Those are not the same cases. We're talking about an ongoing terrorist operation, where the PKK is a terrorist organization, as defined by our laws, for killing innocent women and children.

In the case of Pinochet, we're talking about things that happened some time ago and how one can have accountability for the actions that took place during his regime. Those are very different exigencies.

QUESTION: Well, Jamie, virtually all of the abuses occurred between 1973 and 1978 in Chile. And some would say it's a leap to suggest that, finally, after 20 years, there would be some accountability. The accountability would have occurred much sooner, it would seem to me, if any were to take place at all. Now, what is your response to skeptics who suggest that nothing is going to happen in Chile?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I mean, we're aware of the history of Chile. As I indicated, we are encouraged by signs of a desire in Chile to have accountability, but we can't know that answer at this time. But the point you made is one we understand quite well.

QUESTION: Could I try on another matter?

MR. RUBIN: That would give me great pleasure.

(Laughter).

QUESTION: Can you discuss your national security concerns of this case? Is it setting a precedent for extradition requests for American officials? Where are you now?

MR. RUBIN: The national security concerns that I have discussed relate to the declassification of documents, not anything else. To the extent that we will take national security concerns into account with respect to the documents, it will be the traditional concerns about secrecy and peoples' names that are used or whatever particular questions that we normally don't discuss in public. That's the national security concern.

Beyond that, there is new law being made in the world, and we are always very cognizant of that law. When the international criminal court came forward, we had very deep concerns about that. I think we expressed them quite clearly, and those remain a matter of concern. But one doesn't necessarily reflect on the other.

Our basic view is that this is an issue for the Spanish courts and the British legal system. They are dealing with it; they are wrestling with it. We commented because it had become such a matter of international and public interest for obvious reasons. So we explained, very carefully formulated our view of these two values. With respect to the documents, there are other national security concerns that come into play.

QUESTION: Did you, after discussing this issue here yesterday, get some flack from officials here or in other agencies saying, don't be implying that we're going to declassify documents?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I get flack after every one of my briefings. (Laughter). I wouldn't be in a position to describe to you the specific flack I get on any specific issue on any given day, because that would involve internal government deliberations. But let me assure you that nary a day passes where somebody in the government isn't concerned about something I said.

QUESTION: I ask this as an innocent bystander seeking clarification, because there does seem to be a shift in emphasis today away from declassification.

MR. RUBIN: Yes, that's a fair point. I think that is more a reflection of reading the accounts of what I said yesterday than it is flack from other agencies who would be very hard pressed to give me flack, I'm sure.

[...]

QUESTION: I apologize; I'd like to return to Pinochet if possible, and I apologize again if I'm asking you to elaborate on something in which you feel you've already addressed it. But if you could please, Jamie -

MR. RUBIN: Having said that -

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Could you - are you acknowledging the fact that from yesterday until today, you have now shifted emphasis back from what might have been interpreted as giving people hope that documents -- that the release of classified documents might happen sometime soon?

MR. RUBIN: No. What I'm doing is pointing out that yesterday from this podium - I think you were here, if you weren't I'm sure you can check the transcript - I said that we were going to review documents - relevant documents pertaining to -- that may shed light on human rights abuses. Today, I am saying that we are going to review documents - relevant documents - that may pertain to human rights abuses. In the middle, a lot of commentators said a lot of things.

So what I am saying is the same thing -- is that to review them doesn't a priori declare the extent or the nature of any release of documents. All I've said yesterday was we were going to review the documents. Today, I am saying we're going to review the documents. In between, a lot of people said a lot of things, so I felt the need to repeat the word "review" so that people wouldn't misinterpret what decisions have been made.

QUESTION: Okay, and just following up -- the matter of extraditing Pinochet, if I could ask you to please state the US position as to whether or not, he - the US has any feeling as to whether or not he should be extradited out to either Spain or - I guess it would just be Spain?

MR. RUBIN: The question of the extradition of Pinochet is a matter for the courts to rule on in Europe. The Home Secretary is now weighing this question after the law lords made their decisions in Great Britain.

We are not taking a position on what the Home Secretary should decide. We do have a view on the values at stake in this question. We have a very strong support and great respect for the values of accountability and justice in cases like Pinochet, where there have been grave human rights abuses.

We also have a view about the value that should be given respect of a democratic country - in this case, Chile - going through its democratic transition. Those values, we think, are relevant; we think everyone should take them into account. But we have no view as to the merits of the case.

QUESTION: Has the United States ever expressed any kind of regret over supporting Pinochet?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I will have to check the records of the State Department and provide a lot of work for our historian in answering your question, but we will be happy to do so.

QUESTION: Yes, there was one official who expressed regret in the early Carter Administration and was reprimanded.

MR. RUBIN: Well, you've been given a preview of the answer of that, but we will check the record.

QUESTION: Still on Pinochet.

MR. RUBIN: This is called Torture the Spokesman Day.

QUESTION: I hate to nit-pick, Jamie, but perhaps -

MR. RUBIN: No you don't.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Perhaps what you're characterizing as a misinterpretation - and I just looked back at your words here - you said, we will declassify and make public as much information as possible. We asked you, why? And you said the reason and motivations is because of public interest in this case. Wouldn't you agree that gives maybe a wrong impression but the distinct impression that -

MR. RUBIN: Yes, but being the good reporter that you are Mr. Balman from United Press International, I think you understand the importance of context. When you review your notes, you will see that the lead-off to this whole discussion was a statement by the spokesman, read on behalf of the government, talking about a review - a review of these documents. That is what we are doing, reviewing it.

In the course of responding to a whole series of inquiries that you had, for which I had little answers, you and all of your colleagues asked a number of questions about that, and I was explaining hypothetically what the reasons would be if they were to be released. I was not saying that documents would be released, and I would urge you to take a look at what the lead-in to the whole exchange was, which is the United States will review these documents. That's what I was talking about. Then you asked me: How will you decide whether which will be released, how quickly will it be, how will you make the decisions, who will do the reviews? I was speculating with you about a review, not an a priori decision to release them.

That may happen, but we need to be very clear about what we are committing ourselves to do because we fully expect you all to question us repeatedly over the coming weeks and months about the status of this review. If you go into it assuming that 10,000 documents are going to be released, as some have already speculated, that would be incorrect.

QUESTION: What does "make public" mean?

MR. RUBIN: Declassify.

QUESTION: Well, you could declassify it and not make it public.

MR. RUBIN: Well, I'm not sure - well, with respect to your question, declassify means -- we've done document releases before. There are those who might have interest in it, and we've released them. I mean, you've received declassified -

QUESTION: Then make public means release.

MR. RUBIN: Right, if that happens. It's a review to see whether, consistent with national security and law enforcement requirements, which is what I said yesterday, that relevant documents pertaining to human rights abuses would be released. That is what we're doing -- reviewing as to whether documents can be released. We're not reviewing in advance, telling you that all of these documents are going to be released because that would be impossible. What we've committed to do is to spend an enormous amount of government time and effort to review these documents with a decision as to how each document will be decided to become during the review.

QUESTION: But it's a security issue -

MR. RUBIN: Law enforcement and national security.

QUESTION: And it's not whether the Administration - excuse me - whether previous Administrations pursued wrong-headed policies that would help determine whether the public gets to know what the US position on Pinochet has been.

MR. RUBIN: Look -

QUESTION: No, I'd like you to say it as a statement. Is the only criteria -

MR. RUBIN: The criteria is national security and law enforcement, the same criteria I spelled out yesterday.

QUESTION: Is there a possibility, at the end of all of this, nothing will be released -- none of these documents will be released?

MR. RUBIN: You always ask me hypothetical questions about what can happen in the future. I don't know the answer to that question. The review was just decided upon yesterday. I communicated that to you, and I hope that you understand that we haven't made decisions on each of the documents because it's going to be a lengthy enterprise. It will require significant work, significant resources of the US Government. It needs to be done carefully, and it's being done in the interests of public interest of this case. But no a priori decision was made. I said we would review it yesterday. I'm saying we'll review it today.

QUESTION: But it's entirely possible that after the review nothing would be released?

MR. RUBIN: You can draw your own conclusions as to what a review will entail about documents that have not even been assembled yet. All I can tell you is that we're going to review it; that we made a decision - an affirmative decision - to spend government time, government effort, the work of important figures in the Administration, lawyers, et cetera, to review the documents. And consistent with law enforcement and national security, our goal is to be able to assist the public interest in this case.

QUESTION: So, it's not possible that nothing would be released?

MR. RUBIN: I mean, you can continue to quibble with me, but you're not going to get anywhere. There's no more room for discussion of this. I mean, I'm happy to entertain the questions, but I will just repeat myself. I think we've spent 45 minutes on this subject, and it's not merited by the other people in the room who have other questions, and let's turn to them.

[...]

FAS | Government Secrecy | News ||| Index | Search |