U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 95/09/05 DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

From: [email protected] (Dimitrios Hristu)

U.S. State Department Directory

Subject: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 95/09/05 DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

OFFICE OF THE SPOKESMAN

[...]

FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

Resumption of Airstrikes/Lack of Compliance by Bosnian

  Serbs with U.N./NATO Conditions ......................5-6,8,14-16

Diplomatic Efforts/Mtgs by Asst. Secretary Holbrooke ...6-7,17-18

Foreign Ministers Mtg in Geneva Scheduled for Friday ...7-8,18,22

--Objectives of the Conference/Next Steps ..............7-8,16

--Joint Serb-Bosnian Serb Negotiation Team .............8-9

Division in the Bosnian Serb Leadership ................9-10,16-17

Reported Independent Indonesian Initiative for Mtg

  with the Three Heads of State ........................11

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Greece/Mtg

  of Foreign Ministers in New York .....................6-7,11-13

Fate of French Pilots Shot Down ........................12,18

Reported Russian Criticism of Airstrike Resumption .....13-14

[...]

[...]

MR. BURNS: On Bosnia.

Q In light of the military events, is the Foreign Ministers' session for this week in Geneva still on track?

MR. BURNS: It's very much on track. In fact, Jim, to best answer your question, maybe I should go over our appreciation of the events as we understand them right now, and I will definitely get to the Geneva Conference, because I want to talk about it and tell you a few things about it.

Q First, though, on the resumption of NATO airstrikes this morning. These airstrikes were resumed, as NATO and the U.N. have reported to you, against Bosnian Serb positions, because the Bosnian Serbs failed to implement the conditions set out by the United Nations and NATO by the deadline of last evening.

Those conditions were made very clear this past weekend in a letter from the U.N. Commander, General Janvier, to Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb military leader. They are as follows:

There will be no Bosnian Serb attacks on Sarajevo or other safe areas.

That the Bosnian Serb withdrawal of heavy weapons from the 20- kilometer total exclusion zone around Sarajevo would be effected without delay.

And that there be complete freedom of movement for U.N. forces and personnel and for non-governmental organizations, and unrestricted use of Sarajevo airport.

As you know, the Bosnian Serbs by anybody's account did not comply with the three conditions laid out in the Janvier letter. In fact, General Mladic rejected them last night and repudiated an earlier message offering compliance, which was made by some of the political members of the Bosnian Serb leadership.

More importantly, the Bosnian Serbs made no clear effort on the ground to abide by the conditions by their deeds as well as by what they would say, including, most importantly, the heavy weapons that we believe have been moved -- at least some of them -- within the exclusion zone, but none have yet been seen to move out of the exclusion zone.

As I understand it, there are some routes now open into Sarajevo, fortunately, and up to 70 commercial trucks entered Sarajevo yesterday with provisions needed by the citizens of Sarajevo for the winter. That is positive.

But right now we've got the back of the hand. NATO and the U.N. have seen the back of the hand by the Bosnian Serbs, zero compliance, and that's why the United Nations and NATO acted as they did this morning. I'm approaching your question, but I just wanted to get those sentiments out.

I also wanted to review for you, as we approach the Geneva Conference, the very intensive, very active diplomatic schedule that Assistant Secretary of State Dick Holbrooke led throughout the weekend.

As you know, he and his delegation on Saturday briefed the Contact Group political directors in Bonn on the status of the negotiations in the region and on prospects for the Geneva Conference.

He then traveled to Brussels to participate in a NATO meeting, during which NATO and the U.N.'s ultimatum to the Bosnian Serbs was discussed. On Sunday, he met with the Organization of the Islamic Conference countries in Geneva to discuss the upcoming meetings that we hope will restore some momentum to the peace process. Then he went on Sunday to Belgrade and met with President Milosevic.

Yesterday, on Monday, he began a series of meetings aimed at reducing the prospects for a wider war in the Balkans; and, as you know, he met with Greek Prime Minister Papandreou and Foreign Minister Papoulias in Athens. Then he went to Skopje and met with President Gligorov of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

As we announced yesterday -- as the White House announced and the State Department also announced yesterday -- as a result of Ambassador Holbrooke's meetings with Skopje and Athens, officials from Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will soon meet in New York in a renewed attempt to resolve their dispute -- all this in an attempt by the United Nations and the United States to prevent a widening of the conflict in the Balkans.

Today, Ambassador Holbrooke met with Turkish President Demirel and with Bosnian President Izetbegovic in Ankara. Dick Holbrooke has just now in the last two hours returned to Belgrade where he is now meeting with President Milosevic. So he has been extremely active on behalf of the efforts of the President and Secretary of State Christopher to try to see if we can give a sense of momentum to the diplomatic opening which we believe is at hand.

Leading us to, Jim, finally your question -- after all that -- which is the Geneva Conference. As we announced on Friday, we expect that on this Friday, September 8, at the United States Mission in Geneva, the Foreign Ministers of Bosnia, of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Serbia-Montenegro will meet under the auspices of the Contact Group.

We expect this to be a one-day meeting. In addition to the United States, the other Contact Group countries and some others -- for instance, some of the U.N. negotiators -- are expected to attend this meeting.

Assistant Secretary of State Dick Holbrooke will represent the United States in this meeting, and I believe he will be chairing the meeting.

As you know, when we have Contact Group meetings -- and this meeting is under the auspices of the Contact Group -- the chair revolves depending on where the meeting is or who is taking the lead on a particular aspect of an issue. Since the United States, through Ambassador Holbrooke, did move the situation to this point, it's certainly appropriate that he would chair.

The purpose is to launch the next stage of the process, to discuss the principles that would be the foundation of a peace conference, and to achieve a framework for future negotiations. As Ambassador Holbrooke said a couple of days ago, it is also to move the momentum of the situation from one of war to one of peace.

We believe that the Holbrooke mission has achieved significant results during the last week, and we certainly want to build on that for this week. So there's been a lot of activity over the weekend.

The Friday meeting in Geneva will be an important meeting to launch a diplomatic process and to see if it's possible to prepare the way for subsequent, comprehensive negotiations on all the issues among the parties.

Q If I could just follow. The Serbs have given no evidence that they're having problems with the meeting in light of the attacks on their Bosnian allies.

MR. BURNS: The Serbs? The Serbs in Belgrade -- of the Serbian Government? No, we've received no indication whatsoever from the Government in Belgrade that it is rethinking at all its participation in the meeting on Friday.

I would just remind you that in the midst of the bombing last week, Dick Holbrooke was received in a very civil, professional way by the Serbian authorities in Belgrade. He was there on Sunday. The bombing was resumed this morning, and Dick Holbrooke has been received again in Belgrade. In fact, he is in a meeting with President Milosevic right now. So I think that answers your question.

We still believe that all three of these Foreign Ministers will be in Geneva on Friday to discuss what we hope will be an opening towards peace.

Q You just spoke of zero compliance, and yet, reasonably enough, you're trying as hard as you can to get negotiations going. What prospect do you have if you get an agreement that it would be fulfilled? How could you depend on a party that you yourself score as zero -- score as giving zero compliance to the U.N., the world community's rules and orders?

MR. BURNS: Barry, given the zero compliance over the weekend it was appropriate and logical and natural, and it fulfills the ultimatum made, that NATO and the U.N. would have resumed the air action this morning.

Last week we said on a number of occasions that there are times when diplomacy, to be successful, must be backed up or buttressed by the use of military force. This is clearly one of those times. It was certainly true last week, and it now is certainly true today that the Bosnian Serbs, for some reason, have failed to convince themselves it should be in their own self-interest now to move the situation from fighting to one of peace talks. That is where the United States is trying to move the situation, and that's why we hold open the prospect of a Geneva meeting.

Also last week, I think it's particularly noteworthy to remember that President Milosevic announced that, in fact, there would be a joint negotiating team of Serbs and Bosnian Serbs; that he would head that team, his representative, the Foreign Minister of his country, will be in Geneva to meet.

It could very well be the case, Barry, that we have peace talks going on in Geneva and we have a continuation of the military action on the ground. Anything that it takes to convince the Bosnian Serbs that it's in their interest to stop the fighting and to start talking about peace. As long as they do not fulfill the conditions laid down by General Janvier, I think they can expect a very vigorous, very consistent response from the West; in this case, from the United Nations and NATO, and that's what they're seeing this morning.

Mark.

Q Nick, what does it say about President Milosevic's influence over the Bosnian Serbs and his ability to negotiate on their behalf if the Bosnian Serbs are totally obstructing the U.N. in refusing to comply with U.N. demands -- and he has not been able to make any headway with them?

MR. BURNS: Mark, welcome back, first. Good to see you. I would just note for the record that we have seen over the last week some rather conciliatory statements from certain members of the Bosnian Serb leadership about the desirability of peace talks, about the inclination of the Bosnian Serb leadership to participate in those talks even if, in some cases, they are represented by Serbs from the Government in Belgrade.

We have also seen, on the other hand, some tendentious statements by members of the military leadership of the Bosnian Serbs. We've certainly seen by deed, over the last four days, a disinclination to meet the ultimatum that was laid down on Saturday afternoon by the United Nations and NATO.

The Bosnian Serbs, by their deeds and by their actions, simply gave the international community no recourse but to return to a course of action that would now try to convince them, by the use of military force, that there is no longer a prospect for them to seek a military solution to the war. That is over. That is finished. It was finished by the action last week by NATO and the U.N. and also by a series of events over the last two months.

The course of war having turned against them, we think they now have to opt for peace talks. We are also offering that this week. The meeting will go ahead in Geneva on Friday, and we expect very much that the Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Serbia- Montenegro will be there.

Q I'm sorry, I just have to repeat Barry's question. What makes you think if Milosevic reaches an agreement with the other parties that he can impose it on the Bosnian Serbs and make it stick?

MR. BURNS: Any agreement worth its salt has to be verifiable. Therefore, you'll know by the actions of the other party whether or not the other party is adhering to any agreements that do result from any diplomatic meetings. That's always the case.

Let me just give you an example of that. Yesterday, we heard some very fine words from Pale about the fact that the Bosnian Serbs were, in fact, going to comply with the ultimatum laid down by General Janvier. We heard the words. We were told on various television networks that, in fact, the conditions were being met and it didn't happen. It didn't happen because we were misled yesterday.

So we're always going to be in a position -- I think in answer both to your question, Mark, and to Barry's -- of having to trust the actions, having to see the actions of the other side and see whether or not the actions are consistent with the words.

Yesterday, the words and the actions were inconsistent. So we're always going to watch very carefully. I think that's the answer to your question.

Q Do you see a split between the political and military leadership in Pale? And what are the implications of that split, if so?

MR. BURNS: I'm not an expert on the Bosnian Serb leadership. We certainly see a division in some of the words coming out of various political and military leaders among the Bosnian Serbs. I'm not quite sure what that means, but we certainly have seen that over the course of the last week.

In the final analysis, David, I think we're going to have to fall back on actions and interpreting people's actions. The actions over the weekend certainly lead us to believe that the Bosnian Serbs are not interested in ending the siege of Sarajevo; not interested in ending the state of war that exists.

We are trying now, through a combination of force and diplomacy, to convince them that they ought to draw that conclusion very quickly.

Q Still on Bosnia?

MR. BURNS: Still on Bosnia. Bill.

Q Still on Bosnia. To follow up on the question on Milosevic and Serbia, it appears that the Bosnian Serbs are diplomatically/ politically isolated -- one. Two, would you agree with this, Nick?

They cannot defend themselves against the NATO air actions, so militarily they are basically indefensible. I would ask, what could their objective be at this point? How could they possibly see a victory or being able to even hold their ground?

MR. BURNS: Bill, let me just say in answer to your question, it is certainly true that the Bosnian Serbs are isolated diplomatically; that they are isolated militarily; that they are not going to win militarily; and that they ought to listen to the lesson of force that is being taught them this morning. That's all true, all true.

Q Nick, there's also been an invitation extended by the Foreign Minister of Indonesia to the three Balkan heads of state -- invitations, I believe, which have been accepted -- to come to Indonesia under the auspices of the non-aligned group. Is that being coordinated with the U.S. or is it in tandem with U.S. strategy? Or is this an independent initiative which is being taken?

MR. BURNS: As I said, Ambassador Holbrooke did have a meeting in Geneva over the weekend with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, so we are in very close touch with the Indonesians and the Malaysians and others in that organization. I'm not aware that there is such a meeting that is planned that has the promised participation of the three Foreign Ministers, so I don't have, really, a comment on it at this point.

Q Nick, the Foreign Ministers -- it was actually Tudjman, Milosevic --

MR. BURNS: The heads of state? I'm sorry. I'm not aware that there was a commitment to do that.

Q In your preliminary statement, which covered a lot of ground, you made reference to Greece --

MR. BURNS: Yes. Let's go into that a little bit.

Q -- and (inaudible) Macedonia. Do you mean their own disagreement, or do you mean their individual approaches to the Balkans? Because the Greeks have played a kind of major role in helping Serbia, for instance. But, go ahead.

MR. BURNS: No. I'm talking about the long-standing disagreement between Athens and Skopje, about the state of their relations and about the status of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the world community. So let me just give you what I have on that, Barry.

We believe that there was a significant step taken towards peace and stability in the Balkans over the weekend. Yesterday, Prime Minister Papandreou of Greece and President Gligorov of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia agreed to send their Foreign Ministers to New York next week to conclude an agreement, which takes the first important steps towards establishing friendly, stable relations between those two countries.

We would like to applaud the leadership and dedication of Prime Minister Papandreou and President Gligorov. It has taken great courage and dedication on the part of these two leaders to begin to bridge the differences between them. This development is the culmination of months of extraordinary effort by the U.N. negotiator, former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, and by the U.N. Presidential Envoy, Matthew Nimitz.

The effort was brought together over the weekend by Assistant Secretary of State Holbrooke, who visited both capitals, Athens and Skopje, as part of his mission to seek a stable peace in the Balkans.

As I said, there is a meeting scheduled in New York for next week. I don't believe that we have settled on a specific date, but the representatives of the United States at that meeting, when it is scheduled, will be the Presidential Envoy, Mr. Nimitz.

Q Do you have any word on the fate of the two French pilots who were downed?

MR. BURNS: I do not have any independent word, Jim, on the fate of the pilots; no. I'd have to refer you to the French Government on that particular question.

Yes, David.

Q Can I just ask whether there's a name for this entity yet, as part of the agreement that is out to be signed next week?

MR. BURNS: You're referring now to the agreement announced in Athens and Skopje?

Q Yes. What's the country going to be called?

MR. BURNS: I think I'd be getting way ahead of them if I uttered any kind of thought about what the answer to that question should be. That, in fact, is one of the core issues, and that is the issue that will be addressed by both sides when they do get together, and we hope successfully. We hope they will work this out.

Q But you used the cumbersome appellation advisedly?

MR. BURNS: Yes, I did, very advisedly.

Q So as far as the State Department is concerned, there is no -- it's the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia -- F-R- capital -- right?

MR. BURNS: As far as the U.S. Government and the State Department are concerned, we think there's been a step forward. We think there's some reason to hope that the answer to your question and David's question is near at hand. We trust that can be completed in New York.

Q The Greeks have just said that they're going to keep the embargo in place while these talks are going on. Does the United States consider that embargo to be illegal?

MR. BURNS: Since we've just had a good step forward by both parties over the weekend, I don't want to pick a fight with any of the parties. I think we're just going to let the two go to New York. We'll be there with the two and others, and we'll work very hard towards a culmination of this process.

Q Nick, the Russian Foreign Ministry has put out another statement this morning criticizing the resumption of NATO airstrikes. Is this just a domestic consumption in Russia, or are you concerned that there could be a genuine split in the Contact Group if the bombing continues over time?

MR. BURNS: I don't think there will be a split in the Contact Group. The Contact Group has held together very well on strategy over the last year and a half. There have been quite often some tactical differences among the members. We're certainly seeing that due to the statement made from Moscow this morning.

But I would just remind you, Chris, that the Russians have talked repeatedly about the importance of negotiations. That is, in fact, what the United States has been able now to bring about -- the prospect of negotiations on Friday in Geneva and the hope that there may be subsequent negotiations; and so we're sure we'll have the Russian Government in that action.

But as for military action, as you know, President Clinton reiterated again this morning that he strongly supports the action by the United Nations and NATO. That is because we believe that the conditions that have been laid down by General Janvier should be taken very seriously. They are the conditions that must be met before the situation can return to normal and before the West will give up its commitment to make sure that the citizens of Sarajevo are safe. That is the commitment that we undertook in July at the London Conference.

We have taken that commitment very seriously, and we've exercised it very seriously over the last week. The Bosnian Serbs must understand that.

Q Were the Russians informed that the bombing was going to resume?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me?

Q Were the Russians informed that the bombing was going to resume?

MR. BURNS: I assume that the Russians were by the relevant military authorities on the ground -- that is to say, the United Nations and by NATO. They are the channel for that kind of communication, and I'm quite sure that that did take place.

Q Whatever effect this bombing might have on facilitating negotiations, that is the reason for the bombing -- the violations of Sarajevo?

MR. BURNS: The reason for the bombing is the fact that the Bosnian Serbs were given yet another ultimatum on Saturday. It was very clear to the Bosnian Serb military and political leadership what had to take place for the bombing not to occur. We had zero compliance, Barry, over the weekend and therefore there was no question as to what decision had to be taken.

It is entirely appropriate for the international community to take this action to defend the citizens of Sarajevo.

Sid, welcome back.

Q (Inaudible) bombing and the peace talks to go on at the same time?

MR. BURNS: Quite possible. Because it is sometimes necessary to use different levers to achieve political objectives.

In this case, given the abject violation of the U.N. conditions by the Bosnian Serbs -- I think we've already established this afternoon there was no alternative available to the West.

On the other hand, we don't believe that military action alone by itself can bring this situation from a state of war to a state of peace which is where everybody in the world wants it to be. Therefore, the United States undertook several weeks ago a diplomatic mission -- the President called for this -- whereby the United States would lead efforts to try to get people together to talk, and we have been successful in doing that.

We've made some good first steps. We need to build on that progress. So it is absolutely possible for diplomacy and military action to co-exist, and, in this case I think, co-exist quite effectively.

Q But if somebody is being bombed, they clearly don't want to talk about peace. So I don't see how the two can -- I understand force with diplomacy. But if the Bosnian Serbs don't want to talk peace and you keep bombing, then what's the point?

MR. BURNS: The resumption of military action was brought about because of the failure of the Bosnian Serbs -- the onus must be put squarely on them -- to fulfill the clearly held wishes of the international community as expressed by the United Nations and NATO. There was every reason to undertake that.

But as I've just said, we don't believe there is a long-term solution available simply through airstrikes. Airstrikes must be supported by -- and airstrikes must also support -- diplomatic action. That is why the President and Secretary of State sent Ambassador Holbrooke, and originally Bob Frasure and Joe Kruzel and Nelson Drew, on a diplomatic mission. That mission was interrupted tragically, but it has been resumed and resumed quite successfully and with a lot of determination by both the United Nations and the international community.

The Bosnian Serbs have to understand that the international community is going to meet its obligations to the people of Sarajevo and the other safe areas. There is no way around that. They've got to conclude it's in their interest now to turn towards peace and turn away from war.

Mark, and then to you, Steve.

Q You spoke that one purpose of the Geneva meeting is to launch the next stage of the process. Can you describe what that will be?

MR. BURNS: Mark, that would be getting a little bit ahead of the process. But, in general, our strategic objective is for a genuine peace process to be launched where there would be comprehensive negotiations aimed at a political settlement. That is the only way that we see that this tragic war will be brought to an end.

Before we get to that type of comprehensive peace process, there has to be some agreement among the major parties to the conflict on what the first order of principles are that would be the foundation for such a conference. There has to be some agreement on what the parameters of such a conference would be. So that is the reason for the meeting on Friday -- to have those first order principles be discussed and, hopefully, to achieve some agreement about next steps in the diplomatic process.

The first order of principles, of course, are what we have said all along: that the territorial integrity of Bosnia must be preserved; that there should be a breakdown in the territorial division of Bosnia. We hope that we will start with a 51/49 breakdown, consistent with the Contact Group Map and Plan. That, in fact, is what the Serbian leadership and also Mr. Karadzic has said will be the basis of their participation in these talks. That is very good news, indeed.

Steve.

Q You've ruled out all of the characters but Mladic as someone on board. Is it correct to assume that the United States Government feels he is the party blocking further progress at this point?

MR. BURNS: I don't simply want to isolate him. It's very clear by the actions of the Bosnian Serb military leadership that the military leadership has not grasped exactly what happened last week and what's going to happen for the rest of this week should they not comply with the U.N.-NATO conditions.

We have seen some very nice words, Steve, from the political leadership in Pale but one must assume, of course, that they bear some degree of responsibility for the actions of the military as well. So I don't mean to single out a sole individual. But there are clearly some divisions in the Bosnian Serb leadership -- clearly, some divisions.

Q Is there any way for a Geneva agreement to work without the consent of the military leadership in Pale?

MR. BURNS: Ultimately, for peace negotiations to succeed, the fighting has to stop. The guns have to fall silent. That is what we're trying to do right now. We're trying to impress upon the military people, who control the Bosnian Serb military, that their dream of a Greater Serbia is over.

They once had an open field, as recently as a couple of months ago in Srebrenica and Zepa. They had a relatively unfettered path. They clearly don't now. The tables have been turned through the Croatian offensive, through the renewed Western will, from the London conference led by the United States, and now the expression of that will last week and again today by NATO and the United Nations.

The message ought to be loud and clear to the Bosnian Serbs: The military solution is past. You've only got a political solution.

Q Was this discussed with President Demirel and President Izetbegovic in Ankara? What was the outcome of this meeting?

And, secondly, there was a wire report concerning eight Turkish jets that were on their way to Ghedi air base in Italy. Greece did not give permission for the jets to fly through its air space although they were participating in a NATO operation. Would you have any comments on that?

MR. BURNS: On the second question, I don't have a comment. I think that NATO military authorities would be the people best placed to answer that type of question. I simply can't from my own perspective.

On the first question, as you know, Turkey is a very important ally of the United States; very important country in the Balkan conflict. Assistant Secretary Holbrooke felt it was prudent and wise to stop and to both brief President Demirel but also to hear from him about Turkey's thoughts on the Balkan conflict. He took advantage of that stop to see President Izetbegovic who was in Ankara at the time.

I don't have a detailed briefing on the meeting. When Dick ended his meetings, he went to the airport and flew to Belgrade and that's where he is now.

Q New subject?

MR. BURNS: New subject?

Q One more on Bosnia. Is there any indication yet whether any Bosnian Serbs will come to Geneva, or will it just be the Belgrade Serbians?

MR. BURNS: Right now, Patrick, there's no indication that I have that they will be in Geneva. I would just refer you to the statement made by President Milosevic, that there's a joint negotiating team. In many cases, the Government in Belgrade will speak for the Bosnian Serbs.

If a Bosnian Serb turns up in Geneva, he or she will not be turned away. He or she would be, of course, welcome to participate in the discussions. But if the Serbian Foreign Minister says that he's going to speak for the Bosnian Serbs at the Geneva meeting, we also have no objection to that.

Judd.

Q But the Bosnian Serbs will be part of the Yugoslav delegation; is that correct?

MR. BURNS: If the Bosnian Serb turned up, we assume he or she will be part of the Serb delegation -- the joint Serb delegation that was announced last week in Belgrade.

Q Do you have anything new, Nick, on the two French airmen who were shot down?

MR. BURNS: I do not. I'd have to refer you to the Government of France on that.

[..]

(The briefing concluded at 2:17 p.m.)

END