U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #158, 96-10-03
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Thursday, October 3, l996
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Welcome to Visitors to the Briefing ......................... 1
A/S Moose To Brief on the Secretary's Trip to Africa ........ 1
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
Prospects for the Secretary to Travel to the Region ......... 1-2
Resumption of Israeli-Palestinian Talks at Erez on Sunday ... 2-3
--Agenda/Structure/Scope/Participants in Talks .............. 3
Status of Final Status Talks/Issues ......................... 3-7,9
Call by Hamas for Full-Scale Demonstrations Against Talks ... 7-9
--Prospects for U.S. Contacts with Hamas .................... 8
IRAN
Reported Iranian Statement re Export Routes for Oil/U.S.
Companies and Possible Sanctions Violations ............... 9-10
IRAQ
U.S. Contacts with Kurdish Factions ......................... 10,11-12
Status of Kurdish Employees from N. Iraq .................... 11
TURKEY
Reported Arrest of American Citizen For Allegedly Assisting
the Kurds ................................................. 10-11
Reported Killing of Teachers by PKK Terrorists .............. 11
JAPAN
U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty/U.S. Commitments re: Treaty/
Diaoyu/Senkaku Island Area ................................. 12-13
HAITI
Status of Security/Stability in Haiti ....................... 13-14
Training/Recruiting for Haitian Police Force ................ 14
AFGHANISTAN
Reported U.S. Meeting with Taliban/Contacts with Taliban .... 15
Arrival of U.S. Diplomat in Kabul ........................... 15
Russian Call for Meeting on Afghanistan ..................... 15-16
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
Slovak Foreign Minister's Meeting with the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary Talbott ................................... 16
--Discussion of Slovakia's Commitment to Democracy .......... 16-18
BURMA
Visa Restrictions on Burma ................................. 18-20
Level of U.S. Drug Enforcement Assistance to Burma .......... 19
NORTH KOREA
Submarine Incident/N. Korea Threats/Provocations ............ 20-21
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #158
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1996, 1:59 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department briefing.
I want to welcome Mr. Ahn Jae-Hwan, the Director of Publicity and Policy at
the Ministry of Information in the Republic of Korea. You're most
welcome.
I also want to welcome ten Arab journalists who are here under the auspices
of the International Center for Journalists. I think we have people here --
and here you're most welcome -- from I believe ten different Arab countries,
including Palestinian journalists from Jerusalem; and you are most welcome
here. Thank you for coming.
My only announcement is that at 3:30 this afternoon Assistant Secretary of
State for African Affairs George Moose is going to hold an ON-THE-RECORD
briefing here in our briefing room to give you a sense of the strategy and
the itinerary and the activities for the Secretary of State's trip to
Africa, which as you know begins on Monday. The Secretary of State is
scheduled to visit Mali, Ethiopia, Tanzania, South Africa, and Angola; and
he is looking forward to that trip. In fact, he's had several discussions
about that trip in the building here this morning. So that's at 3:30 p.m.
That's ON THE RECORD and on camera.
And with that, George, I'll be glad to go to your questions.
QUESTION: The Secretary raised a tantalizing possibility that he might
make a stop in the Middle East before going to Mali. Has his thinking
advanced at all on this?
MR. BURNS: Actually, I'm looking for your colleague, who actually was
responsible for raising that tantalizing possibility, but he's not here.
But his associate is here.
The Secretary did raise it.
Oh, there he is. Yes. I couldn't see you back there, David.
QUESTION: Is that the question?
MR. BURNS: I think the tantalizing possibility was raised by David Ensor,
but in any case you heard what the Secretary said. The Secretary believes
that if he can be helpful in participating in these talks, he will do so,
at any time; and when there's something to announced on that, I'm sure that
we'll announce it, but I'm not announcing anything now and I'm here to
brief you on any other matter. But I really can't say much more on that one,
George.
QUESTION: A very good answer. (Laughter) As good as the Secretary's!
MR. BURNS: The Secretary probably did it better than I did, but I thought
it was okay.
QUESTION: While you're on the Middle East, could I ask a question? On the
talks opening, scheduled to open on Sunday, as I understand what the
announcement was yesterday -- that, basically, it will pick up where it was
-- meaning with Oslo and the various interim accords and their implementations
-- does that mean then it would exclude something like the tunnel?
MR. BURNS: These talks are meant to have the Palestinians and Israelis re-
engage diplomatically.
What makes these talks especially important is that they will be continuous,
meaning that Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat have agreed that
these negotiators will stay in session until all of the issues pertaining
to the implementation of the Oslo Accords are completely agreed upon, and
that is a very important objective of theirs.
I thought it was especially important that President Clinton said twice
yesterday that Prime Minister Netanyahu had agreed there can be no
renegotiation of the Oslo Accords. Israel is committed to fulfill the Oslo
Accords, as is the Palestinian Authority. That means that the accord must
be fulfilled in all of its respects, and that includes of course the
redeployment from Hebron.
The question is: When will that happen, and how will it happen, and what
are the security arrangements that will be made to allow it to happen? But
there's no question that it will happen, should these negotiations succeed,
and we hope very much that they will succeed.
What is interesting about the way this decision came about is that as this
was discussed over lunch yesterday there was one suggestion that these
talks begin sometime next week. I think it was the wish of both the Prime
Minister and Chairman Arafat that they begin as soon as possible, and
that's why the Sunday date was chosen.
There was also an agreement, and actually a suggestion by the two, that the
United States ought to be present at the negotiating table; and that's why
Ambassador Dennis Ross will of course be in Erez on Sunday afternoon.
He intends to be there for some undetermined length of time -- probably
several days. He may not stay every day for the length of these talks, but
the United States will be represented at the table every day. If Ambassador
Ross is not there, either Ambassador Indyk or our Charge d'Affaires in
Jerusalem, Ed Abington, will be there or others appointed by Ambassador
Ross and the Secretary of State.
QUESTION: Excuse me? That wasn't a question. (Laughter)
The question was --
MR. BURNS: I thought I answered your question, Jim. Try again.
QUESTION: Okay. Would this agenda, would this formula, exclude discussion
of such things as the tunnel?
MR. BURNS: These negotiations are to fulfill the implementation of the
Oslo Accords, and that is their specific task. I don't want to limit the
negotiations for them, however. They're in control and in charge of the
negotiations. And I assume that the Palestinians, for instance, will
continue to raise issues like that that are of concern to them -- whether
it's in the meeting room or on the margins of the meetings.
The United States is not in a position -- we certainly were not in a
position here in Washington during the Summit -- to prevent either the
Palestinians or the Israelis from raising issues of concern to them, and I
assume that that holds true in the future as we participate in these
talks.
QUESTION: Well, I think we should be suggesting, if I understand
correctly, that by stressing implementation the final status issues are not
germane to these talks and the tunnel is a Jerusalem issue and, therefore,
not relevant.
MR. BURNS: Judd, it's not for the United States to be the architect of
the political agenda between the Palestinian Authority and the Israel
Government. It's for the two of them to decide that.
They have a series of talks on implementing the Oslo Accords, which is
quite important. They have the final status talks, which we hope they will
resume at some point, but that's their decision when they do that.
There are other issues in their relationship beyond those two sets of
discussions, and they will raise those issues with each other when they
feel it's appropriate. But it's not for the United States to say there are
some issues that can be raised and some issues that cannot be raised. We
are in the talks as an intermediary to be helpful to them. We certainly
don't intend our presence to be in any way a limiting factor on them, so I
think this is a decision that they're just going to have to make together.
QUESTION: But final status issues could be raised, and subject to these
talks.
MR. BURNS: We're just going to have to see what decision they make,
Judd.
QUESTION: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Dennis Ross said on
television today that he was going to try to help shape the agenda.
MR. BURNS: Carol, I think we've said all along that the United States is
going to -- we are an active intermediary. We were, in Washington this
week. We have been for many, many years. And we'll continue to be an active
intermediary.
That means that when we have something to suggest we do so privately with
the parties. That happened frequently during the 48 hours of the Washington
Summit. President Clinton, Secretary Christopher, and Ambassador Ross all
raised ideas that were American ideas. And I think that's part of the
reason why we are of value to these two -- to the Israelis and the
Palestinians. But they are in charge of the negotiations. It's their
negotiations; they're the ones who have to decide these questions.
So what I'm trying to do here, in response to Jim's question and Judd, is
to make sure that I don't say anything that limits their ability to define
their own agenda.
QUESTION: Another question. I just want to make sure I understand. You
say Ross will be there for an indeterminate time but probably several days
as opposed to several weeks if the talks were to last several weeks. But,
you know, if he leaves or if he isn't there one day, then Indyk or Abington
-- there will always be an American presence. Is that the intention?
MR. BURNS: Yes, that is the intention. I think it's a very strong wish of
both the Israelis and the Palestinians.
As we look at these talks, we hope obviously that they can be successful.
We hope that progress can be made rapidly. And we think that in addition to
the rhetoric that undergirds these talks and the words that undergird them,
we're looking for results.
Results are very important -- results as quickly as they can be obtained --
by both parties. Results are the most important thing here -- not just
words, not just promises, but results.
QUESTION: I think you said that this is not the reopening of the Oslo --
renegotiating Oslo again. But the presence of Ross and political leaders
from both sides in the negotiations on Sunday suggests that you're not
dealing only with technical issues. The door is opening the whole file of
Hebron; and if you're dealing only with technical issues, why don't you
leave that issue to the commanders on the field -- the Palestinians and the
Israelis -- to carry out the decision to withdraw from Hebron, which was
signed as part of the Oslo agreement?
MR. BURNS: I think you saw last week that with the horrific violence on
the streets of the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem, a lot of these issues
were raised to the highest political levels. Last week, the political
leaders could not manage to get together to discuss them.
One of the values of the summit here in Washington was that they did. They
were able to meet face to face over two days to discuss their problems and
their divisions, and the challenges that remain before them. That was a
concrete achievement.
I think it also is the answer to your question. The peace process is at a
critical stage. It still is, following this summit.
They have been able to agree that they're going to continue to meet, and
they'll meet continuously. They have renounced violence together, and
they've called on the Israeli and Palestinian populations not to take to
the streets and not to heed the voices of extremism. We've heard some more
voices of extremism today from the Middle East. They have pledged that they
will complete the negotiations. But this has to be done now at the highest
political level. Because, obviously, there was a summer of relative
inactivity, diplomatically, on these questions.
Lower-level people were not able to resolve the issues. The two leaders
have pledged that if these discussions at Erez do not proceed in a
satisfactory way, then the two leaders are going to intervene to complete
the negotiations. That's a very important commitment they made to President
Clinton.
QUESTION: Will the Palestinians have any kind of guarantee that any new
agreement, even if it's on technical issues with the Israelis, will be
carried out?
You mentioned final talks -- negotiations. They began initially on May 5;
right? Then they were suspended. Again, what is the role of the United
States here as a mediator? If you're going to leave these two parties alone
and knowing the fact that there is no equilibrium between the two, you
could have a stalemate forever?
MR. BURNS: Let's look at what we've been able to achieve in one week's
time. A week ago today saw the bloodiest violence in the West Bank and Gaza
in 30 years. It took 12 hours to arrange a telephone call between the
leaders. There was no political movement on the negotiations. There was
hostile rhetoric and confrontation on both sides.
A week later, many of the problems that contributed to the violence have
not been resolved -- the issue of redeployment from Hebron; the issue of
the tunnel. But what has been produced is a renewed political will among
the Israeli and Palestinian leadership that they should go back to the
negotiating table and turn away from the street violence and the confrontations
in the streets; that together they would renounce violence; and that they
would see each other as partners.
What also happened last week was the erosion of trust and credibility
between the leaders of the Palestinians and the Israelis. Perhaps at
Washington in their face-to-face meetings they were able to convince each
other that they ought to begin to build that trust back up again. That is a
very important element in any negotiation. There has to be trust and
credibility across the negotiating table.
They have to see themselves as partners. Their fates are inextricably bound
up by one another's. The Israelis and Palestinians will live for a long
time together, sharing the historic land there, and that may have been the
most important thing that was accomplished at this summit.
There's a common self-interest in both leaders working together and in
getting back to the negotiating table. Frankly, I think that some of the
criticism that I've heard just in the initial round of questioning, but
I've certainly read in the European press and the American press, does not
take fully into account the fact that, as the President said yesterday, the
peace process didn't begin yesterday and won't end tomorrow. There's been a
continuum, and there's a great crisis underway in the peace negotiations,
touched off by the violence last week.
Before you can get to the end of the road in the negotiations, you've got
to take some small steps to re-establish trust and confidence, to agree
that you're going to go back to the negotiating table.
I think that's probably the most important thing that happened at
Washington. We take a longer-term perspective of things, because we have a
lot of experience in the Middle East. We're not going to be discouraged by
the fact that they didn't resolve all of their problems.
I mean, to hear some of the protests from some governments and from a lot
of analysts in Europe and North America and the Middle East, you'd have
thought that the peace process had failed yesterday completely; that it was
over; that there were no negotiations, when in fact they agreed to
continue.
We can't allow ourselves to be brought off track by temporary problems.
We've got to stay focused, and that's where Secretary Christopher is as he
looks at these events.
We've been focused now for nearly four years in this Administration. A lot
has been produced, and we're going to continue on that path.
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to the call by Hamas for large-scale
demonstrations on Friday against the results of the summit?
MR. BURNS: I have not seen the full text of the Hamas statement that was
released to the press in the Middle East, but I have seen excerpts from it.
If this is, in fact, a legitimate statement by Hamas -- and it seems to be
because they are claiming credit for it -- this is exactly the wrong advice
for the Palestinian people who live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and who
live in Jerusalem. This is the voice of extremism that will lead the
Palestinian people towards more violence, more destruction, and more
confrontation.
The Palestinian people ought not to heed the advice of those who are
terrorists and who are only interested in polarizing the situation. At a
time like this, people have to keep focused on the long-term benefits of
peace. It's hard to get to peace. It's going to be very hard to complete
these negotiations at Erez. But the benefits of peace are far greater than
the benefits of confrontation in the streets.
Fifty-five Palestinians died last week and 14 Israelis and nearly a
thousand people ended up wounded in the hospital. Is that what Hamas wants?
They want more Palestinian dead? More Israeli dead?
I think that the United States Government certainly rejects the call of
Hamas, this type of extremist call for more violence and confrontation.
The summit that President Clinton just held here and convoked serve to
bring the leadership of the Palestinians and Israelis together and to point
them in a different direction, away from violence and towards peace. So we
reject this call for violence.
QUESTION: Did Mr. Arafat promise to suppress Hamas? Specifically, was he
asked to? Did he make a pledge to suppress this threat?
MR. BURNS: Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu, together, called
on their populations to resist the voices of extremists like Hamas and to
resist the call to take to the streets and to provoke violence. They want
to keep the situation under control so that the peace negotiators have a
chance to produce peace. Peace is not going to be produced in the streets
of Ramallah and Nablus and Gaza and Jerusalem by violence. It's only going
to be produced by cooperation and compromise by Israel along by the
Palestinians -- by both of them.
QUESTION: Nick, other than your statement of rejection, are we doing
anything to be in touch with Hamas in order to try to convince them to play
it down?
MR. BURNS: We don't have a relationship with Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist
group that is responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians. We don't
talk to them.
QUESTION: Would there be some benefit, though, in talking to them now at
a moment when everything is on --
MR. BURNS: We have a close relationship with the legitimate leadership of
the Palestinian people, the Palestinian Authority, Chairman Arafat and his
colleagues.
There's been an election. There was an election in the West Bank and Gaza
Strip. These are legitimate political leaders. That's who we deal
with.
QUESTION: Have we asked Arafat to do everything he can to make sure this
doesn't boil over?
MR. BURNS: Listen, we've asked both leaders. Not just Chairman Arafat but
also Prime Minister Netanyahu, who also has a responsibility, along with
Chairman Arafat, to make sure that the situation remains stable and
peaceful so that the negotiations can proceed and have a chance to be
successful.
QUESTION: Can you address the question -- yesterday, Netanyahu talked
about the structure of the talks; that there would be two sets of talks
running simultaneously. One about Hebron and one about security. Is this
your understanding? And exactly how do you break down the issues?
MR. BURNS: You're talking about the Erez talks --
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: -- that will begin on Sunday? Obviously, we're talking to the
Palestinians and Israelis. We've already begun this, about the agenda and
about the scope of the talks and about where the talks will head and how
they'll proceed. I'm simply not ready to go into all of those details yet
because they have to agree on the full basis upon which they're going to
negotiate.
QUESTION: The thing about security is, is security specifically about
Hebron or is it the broader security question that Netanyahu wants to
discuss?
MR. BURNS: Listen, Roy, I'm the wrong the person to ask. You ought to ask
the Palestinian spokesman and the Israeli Government spokesman about
this.
We're there to play a role, and a very active role. But we're not there to
define the limits for them. They've got to do that for themselves.
QUESTION: Iran?
MR. BURNS: Sure.
QUESTION: An Iranian official, on Monday in New York City, made an
interesting statement, claiming that some U.S. oil companies are getting
ready to take the Azeri oil down to Iran and carry it through the Gulf, to
the West. Isn't this against the sanctions Iran? What is your reading on
this transaction?
MR. BURNS: I'm just not familiar with this impending announcement or this
event. I'm not familiar that it's taken place, but I can look into it for
you.
Our view has been all along that there should be a fair competition to work
with the Azeri Government and the littoral states of the Caspian Sea to
develop the energy resources of that area. They are very rich and they're
very deep. American companies are involved there.
There have been a variety of possible options about export routes. The
United States has not favored those routes that would take the oil and the
gas through Iran. We have favored routes that travel through Turkey and
other countries. We have made that decision for sound geopolitical reasons,
and these decisions were made several years ago and they're well-known to
all the littoral states of the Caspian Sea.
QUESTION: Let me ask another related question. The story appeared in a
daily, and it was claimed that this was a oil-swapping arrangement. And, as
such, it did not violate the Iran-Libya sanctions law. Can you comment on
that such swapping deals do not violate the sanctions on Iran?
MR. BURNS: I don't have any information about the specific event to which
you're referring. I'm going to have maybe get a source from you and look
into it before I can answer a question like that.
Savas.
QUESTION: Did you schedule Barzani's delegation meeting --
MR. BURNS: I know that Ambassador Pelletreau has a recent phone
conversation with Mr. Barzani and they agreed that a KDP delegation would
visit Washington. I don't know if we've scheduled that specifically. I
thought that visit would take place shortly, however. We can look into it
for you.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) invite Talabani's group also?
MR. BURNS: I know that Ambassador Pelletreau has been in touch with Mr.
Talabani as well. I think we're going to take this one group at a time. We
do intend to have contacts and meetings with the PUK when that's appropriate.
QUESTION: The U.S. is confirming that an American citizen has been
arrested by the Turks for, they say, helping the Kurds. His name is
Christopher -- it's a Polish name. I'm afraid to try to pronounce it --
Mrozowski, or something like that?
MR. BURNS: I'm sorry, I just don't have any information on that, but
we'll look into it for you.
QUESTION: Also on northern Iraq?
MR. BURNS: Also on northern Iraq. Yes.
QUESTION: What's the status of discussions on evacuating the AID
workers?
MR. BURNS: We're still considering the possibility of bringing out more
of the citizens of northern Iraq -- the Kurds, the Assyrians, and other
minority groups. We're working inside the government, looking at the
possibility of talking to the Turkish Government, talking to some European
governments.
As you know, we brought out the people who work directly for the U.S.
Government. They're all on Guam now. There is a possibility that we might
go forward with some plans but no final decisions have been made.
QUESTION: Can you give us any details?
MR. BURNS: We're looking at this in a very serious way, but we've got to
assure ourselves first that there is a need for this type of action; that
there is a wish on the part of the people involved to undertake this. We
haven't come to the end of those discussions.
QUESTION: Change the subject?
MR. BURNS: Still on northern Iraq.
QUESTION: You said the KDP and PUK will visit Washington as separate
delegations?
MR. BURNS: No, I expected the KDP to send a delegation. I expected us to
have contacts with the PUK at some point when that's appropriate.
QUESTION: Does the Administration have similar contacts with other
groups? For example, let's say the Turkomens. Is it conceivable that other
groups might also be invited to Washington at sometime in the future?
MR. BURNS: We do carry on relations with a lot of these groups.
Ambassador Pelletreau met the Turkomen leadership when he was in Ankara a
couple of weeks back. I don't know that all of them will be invited to
Washington, because we're able to carry on a relationship outside of
Washington through our embassies and consulates.
We'll just have to see what makes sense and what transpires, but I'm not
aware of any specific plans along those lines.
QUESTION: Last weekend, the killing of the three teachers in Turkey --
the PKK terrorists?
MR. BURNS: I'm sorry, I'm just not familiar with that specific incident.
If you can give us some more information, perhaps we'll look into it after
the briefing.
QUESTION: Nick, a prominent Japanese newspaper has quoted a recent
Congressional report as saying that the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty
covers the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands area. If military conflict
erupts in that area, the United States would be obligated to assist Japan
in the conflict. Do you have any comment on that?
MR. BURNS: What was the source of that again, did you say?
QUESTION: It's a prominent Japanese newspaper quoting a recent Congressional
report.
MR. BURNS: That would be a hypothetical situation, of course. My policy
is not to comment upon hypothetical situations unless it's in my self-
interest to do so, and it's not at this point.
It's a good policy. It's a very good policy. It's a very sound policy. But
I can tell you -- just to be serious for a moment -- that the United States
has urged all the claimants to these islands to exercise restraint. We are
confident that they can resolve this issue through peaceful means.
As you know, we have a well-known position on this as well which we've
repeated often from this podium and we're also repeated it to the two
governments, among others.
QUESTION: But wouldn't the defense treaty tell precisely how far the
defense perimeter extends around Japan?
MR. BURNS: I don't have the defense treaty in front of me, so I can't
quote.
QUESTION: It's not a hypothetical question.
MR. BURNS: The way it was asked, it actually was a hypothetical question.
I don't have the treaty in front of me, so I can't refer to the articles of
the treaty.
Obviously, the treaty is well known to the Japanese and American Governments.
I don't find any value in me trying to extend any kind of definition to the
treaty to a hypothetical question about what one might do in a very
unlikely scenario.
We're confident that China and Japan and the others involved in this --
Taiwan, of course -- will resolve this in a peaceful manner. All of our
discussion with them would indicate to us that that's their intention.
QUESTION: Does the treaty itself cover the area in dispute?
MR. BURNS: I haven't looked at the treaty recently, so I just can't give
you an answer.
QUESTION: One more follow-up, if I may. Since the death of the Hong Kong
protester in the area, what has the U.S. done to try to have the situation
in control?
MR. BURNS: As you know, the United States is not directly involved in
this dispute, but we are, of course, an ally of Japan. When Minister Ikeda
was here, there was a conversation about this that he had with Secretary
Christopher, and the U.S. position was communicated to him.
When we have talks with the Chinese, we communicate our position to the
Chinese Government, and we'll continue to do that. We are very hopeful, and
indeed confident, that the parties will resolve this problem on their own
peacefully without resort to the threat of force or the use of force.
Yes, Judd.
QUESTION: Haiti?
MR. BURNS: Sure.
QUESTION: Is there growing concern about what appears to be a deteriorating
security situation in Haiti?
MR. BURNS: We've been concerned about a lot of aspects of the Haitian
situation for quite a long time. That's why Tony Lake and Strobe Talbott
made the trip that they made to Port-au-Prince. That's why we took the
action that we did a couple of weeks back in trying to maintain security
and stability around the presidency in Port-au-Prince.
We are very actively involved. We have a very active Ambassador --
Ambassador Swing. There are some ongoing concerns, but Haiti has also come
a long way through its electoral process, through its new government;
certainly come a long, long way from two years ago when it was run by
autocrats.
So while there are continued problems in Haiti, we remain hopeful that the
trends in Haiti will, in general over the long term, be positive, in terms
of political stability which will hopefully provide the opportunity for
economic growth and for economic stability.
The Haitian Government is a legitimate, democratic government. We feel,
looking back on our own involvement in Haiti over the last two years, it
was a very good decision, indeed, that the United States did what it had to
do in September 1994 to help the Haitian people restore democratic rule and
stability.
QUESTION: There's no need or feeling to send more security forces?
MR. BURNS: You mean troops?
QUESTION: The current situation is stable enough as it is?
MR. BURNS: We are currently recruiting a small group of police officers,
American police officers -- I believe 25 police officers -- to participate
in the United Nations civilian police component of the UN Mission in Haiti.
They will join approximately 300 other police officers from around the
world in the training and advising of the Haitian national police
officers.
We've been concerned, of course, about a variety of security incidents
there, and one of the answers here is to provide the Haitian police force
with sufficient training in order to become a competent and stable force
itself.
As you know, there's been incidents of police killings since early this
year, and we want to insure that the Haitian national police is able to
deal with the recent increase in killings. So we are taking that step. But
these are not soldiers. These are American policemen who are going to be
volunteers, and they would serve under this UN force.
Carol.
QUESTION: What can you tell us about a meeting yesterday between your
diplomats and the Taliban in Islamabad?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware that there was a meeting between United States
diplomats and the representatives of the Taliban yesterday. I'm just not
aware of one. I do know that we have not yet sent the American diplomat
into Kabul to make contact with the Taliban. I'm just not aware that any
meeting took place.
QUESTION: What can you tell us about your contacts with the Taliban?
MR. BURNS: I can tell you that we've met regularly with the Taliban over
the past two years. We've also met with other Afghan groups, and we'll
continue our contacts with a variety of the Afghan groups, including the
Taliban, at some point in the future, so that we can best express to them
our own views on the situation in Afghanistan and maintain contact with
people who have influence in Afghanistan.
QUESTION: This is the last question. Russia and the Central Asian
republics have called a meeting, I think on Friday, in Almaty to discuss
the situation in Afghanistan. They view it very differently, I think, from
the United States. Do you have any comment on their concerns?
MR. BURNS: I'm aware that the Russians and some of the other countries of
the Commonwealth of Independent States are going to have meeting. As you
know, the Tajiks, of course, Kazaks, the Kirgiz, the Russians, they all
have interests there -- the Turkomens.
We are urging, ourselves, the various Afghan groups to stop fighting and to
work for national reconciliation. As I said the other day, we'll continue
to press for basic human rights, for the rule of law, for women's rights.
The United States has a long-standing interest in seeing peace restored to
Afghanistan through a government that reflects the wishes and respects the
basic human rights of all the people of Afghanistan. It's also important to
us that Afghanistan not be a threat to its neighbors.
So these messages have been communicated to all the various groups,
including the Taliban, on those occasions when we've had contact with them.
As I said the other day, our Assistant Secretary of State, Robin Raphel,
has had contact in the past, but I just don't have anything more specific
to say in response to your two questions on that, Carol.
QUESTION: Do you think the Taliban is a threat to its neighbors? Do you
have reason to think that?
MR. BURNS: I think the situation in Afghanistan remains very fluid, and
it remains to be seen exactly what's going to happen throughout the country,
and we'll just have to judge the various groups, including the Taliban, by
their actions.
QUESTION: Secretary Christopher and Deputy Secretary Talbott met new
Slovak Prime Minister today and the day before yesterday. Have you
something on that? What they were talking about and about extent of United
States and Slovakia with respect to NATO?
MR. BURNS: I can tell you that both Secretary Christopher and Deputy
Secretary Strobe Talbott met with Foreign Minister Hamzik. I think he also
met with Secretary of Defense Perry and I know he met with John Kornblum.
The discussion centered around his new priorities as Foreign Minister of
the Slovak Republic; about, of course, the question of the Partnership for
Peace, and I think the Slovaks raised their interest in possible potential
NATO membership.
In general, we believe that Slovakia has made substantial progress during
the last three years towards entering the Western political and security
and economic systems. We recognize that Slovakia has had to deal with major
challenges to a new state, overcoming its communist past, dealing with
severe economic problems, and we applaud many of the positive steps that
have been taken. We certainly would like to see Slovakia qualify for early
entrance into the various Western institutions.
As for NATO, as you know, we've not made any decisions. NATO has not made
any decisions about which countries will be admitted on an early basis, and
so no promises were given.
I should also say, having cited some positive aspects of our relationship
with Slovakia, that the United States has been concerned during the summer
months about indications that the Government of Slovakia's commitment to
democracy has been weakening. The United States has made its concerns known
directly to the Government of Slovakia in this visit this week and also in
visits by Madeleine Albright, our UN Ambassador.
The Government of Slovakia continues to assure us that it's committed to
strengthening democracy. We'd like to see that translated into solid action
on the ground.
QUESTION: What are these concerns?
MR. BURNS: The concerns have to do with the treatment of several groups
in Slovakian society by the Slovak Government.
QUESTION: Hungarians, among others?
MR. BURNS: There are a variety of concerns, and we've expressed those to
the Slovak Government, and they know our concerns.
QUESTION: Is there some reason you don't want to tell us?
MR. BURNS: In this case, I think you can read -- if you'd like to refer
to our human rights report on Slovakia, you can read chapter and verse on
our views on a variety of human rights issues.
We've just had a visit by the Foreign Minister. It's been a good visit, and
we did have private conversation about what's going right in the relationship,
about some of our concerns. I'd rather just keep it -- limit it to what
I've said today.
QUESTION: Speaking of human rights, would you deal with Burma here, or is
that for the White House?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Do you have anything on Burma?
MR. BURNS: There was a White House announcement. Do you want to go on to
Burma?
QUESTION: Didn't yesterday's statement about the meeting praise the
Slovaks for all of the good things that they've done vis-a-vis democracy?
MR. BURNS: I noted some of the good things that have happened, but we do
have continuing concerns, especially about Slovak actions just in recent
months, and those concerns will continue.
QUESTION: But it's curious that you've mentioned them today, but they
were not mentioned in yesterday's statement.
MR. BURNS: I didn't brief yesterday, so I'm just giving you some
information to that.
QUESTION: There's a written statement in your name, I believe.
MR. BURNS: I know that. I'm very familiar with it, and I just thought I'd
give you some further information, further insights into the meeting that
we had this past week. I always try to be helpful. Give you more information
sometimes than maybe even you want to have. (Laughter) Sometimes less;
sometimes more.
QUESTION: It's a pretty unusual step to take to exclude the leadership of
a country even if there are human rights suppressions there, and I'm just
wondering is there a specific legal basis for this? Is this required under
some act of Congress or law or some other provision?
MR. BURNS: First of all, I think the rationale is quite clear. There was
a White House statement on this, and you know the President and Mike
McCurry have spoken about this. The fact is that the SLORC has consistently
and fundamentally undermined the democratic political opposition in Burma,
especially the National League of Democracy, and done it in a brazen,
transparent way. That is quite unusual in Asia or any place else in the
world.
We have very deep concerns about the direction of the Burmese Government
and the policies that it's following towards its own people, including
towards a Nobel laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi. So we've taken this rather
extraordinary step in order to express our very deep unhappiness with the
policies of the Burmese Government.
The United States does not require any prior legislative or judicial
authority to do this. This is a decision that the President of the United
States can make under the Constitution, using his executive powers. But it
is consistent with the recent legislation on Burma passed by the United
States Congress on a bipartisan basis, which gave the Administration the
leeway to take this kind of action -- sanctions, if you will -- should that
be necessary.
I think given the fact that several hundred democracy activists, including
many democratically elected legislators, were arrested and detained last
week just for the sole purpose because they wanted to convene to have a
meeting, that was in essence the last straw.
I think you also may have seen some of the ludicrous and outrageous charges
made by the Burmese Government about the activities of the American Charge
d'Affaires in Rangoon. These charges are fundamentally untrue. They're
false, and they're a fabrication by the Burmese Government, and frankly it
is just extraordinary to see the Burmese Government launch an attack
against an American diplomat of the type that was launched against our
diplomat this week.
So for all these reasons, I think the United States has just decided that
if we can't have a civil discourse with the Burmese Government, we can
certainly keep their officials out of our country; deny them the pleasure
of visiting our cities. If they want to come on official visits to the
United Nations, we'll judge that on a case-by-case basis. But they're not
welcome here in the United States.
QUESTION: Nick, what is the level of drug enforcement assistance to Burma
from the United States, and is there any consideration being given to
cutting it?
MR. BURNS: I will have to check on the level, David. I remember several
months ago we had those figures, and we actually gave them to you, and I'm
sure we can give them to you by the end of the day.
QUESTION: Is there any further consideration being given to cutting it?
There have also been reports that the money is not going for the purpose
that it was supposed to be sent for.
MR. BURNS: I think it's certainly the will of the U.S. Congress. We've
worked very closely and well with the Congress on the question of Burma
that the United States should retain the option to consider other actions,
should that be necessary, in order to put forward a policy towards Burma
that reflects our own beliefs and our own self-interest, and that would be
one of the questions that one would have to ask. But I'm not aware that any
decision has been made about that.
QUESTION: Are there members of the families of the Burmese leadership who
are in the United States now or who are being educated here who will have
the immediate result of being expelled?
MR. BURNS: The visa proclamation that was issued this morning by the
White House does not apply to diplomatic personnel of the Burmese missions
in Washington and New York, and there will be occasions where the United
States has an international obligation that would require the issuance of a
visa, fundamentally for Burmese diplomats attending United Nations events
in New York.
But it does suspend the entry into the United States of persons who are
judged to be formulating or implementing policies that are impeding the
transition to democracy in Burma, or people who benefit from such policies
and their immediate families.
So the Department of State will be implementing this Presidential decision
and order, and we will be drawing up specific guidelines. But I think we
know where the lines of separation are here, and I think we'll be very
careful in implementing this.
QUESTION: But my question is, are there students -- let's say Burmese
students from the children of the executive branch there or the SLORC who
are in this country who will now be expelled as a result of this order?
MR. BURNS: We'll just have to try to, I think, survey who the likely
people are in the United States presently who might fall under the purview
of this decision. Immediate family means immediate family, and our Bureau
of East Asian and Pacific Affairs will be directly responsible for dealing
with this question. I can't answer the question at the present time, but
I'm sure we can get you an answer as we go down the road implementing
this.
QUESTION: On Korea.
MR. BURNS: One more.
QUESTION: On Korea. One more time. As you know, North Korea said
yesterday to retaliate on South Korea unless South Korea returned the North
Korean submarine and the bodies of commanders. And North Korea ordered the
United States to step aside of the incident and its future retaliation upon
South Korea at the (inaudible) meeting. What is your updated assessment on
North Korean threats or words, and what is your counter-measures to the
threat?
MR. BURNS: North Korea is the guilty party in the submarine incident.
North Korea violated the UN Armistice Commission regulation. It failed to
heed a protest by the United Nations Armistice Commission on this incident.
It clearly was in violation of the sovereign rights of the Republic of
Korea -- South Korea. The United States stands behind South Korea
foursquare, and the North Koreans know that.
While we might see some intemperate threats from time to time from
Pyongyang, frankly I think the North Koreans understand that the United
States has a defense commitment to South Korea which we will take very
seriously.
We don't expect there to be any wider conflict. We expect the North Koreans
have learned a lesson here. They understand they made a very, very grievous
mistake, and we hope that we can get back to talking about our hope for a
peace treaty on the peninsula. The Republic of Korea and the United States
stand behind the offer to negotiate a full peace arrangement with the North
Koreans.
We also, of course, are paying great heed to KEDO and to the effort to
continue the freeze of North Korea's nuclear program, and it does continue
to be frozen. I think the positions of the United States have been quite
clear here, and the Republic of Korea has a good friend in the United
States.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) proceeded to level out the watchcon on Korea, and
military buildup to prevent the added provocation from North Korea.
MR. BURNS: There are American troops in the Republic of Korea, there to
defend American interests in the Republic of Korea. I think the presence of
those troops says enough about our commitment to the Republic of Korea.
QUESTION: What is the reaction to the new warning by the South Korean
Government that a war is very possible with North Korea?
MR. BURNS: We don't believe war is likely. We think that in fact we ought
to all work for peace in the Korean peninsula.
(The briefing concluded at 2:43 p.m.)
(###)
|
