U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #163, 96-10-10
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 10, l996
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Secretary's Mtgs in Addis Ababa/Travel to Arusha.............. 1
Amb. Ross Statement re: Alternating Venues for Peace Process
Talks/Timing of Meetings/U.S. Representation in Absence of
Amb. Ross................................................... 1,7-8
A/S Kornblum in London for Contact Group Mtg.................. 2
A/S Lord Arrival in Seoul, South Korea........................ 2
Joint Statement: U.S.-Oman Cooperation........................ 2
Statement on Joint State-Justice Effort re: Child Abduction
Across International Borders/ Efforts to Assist Parents Having
Custodial Rights/#s of American Children Abducted/ Incidence of
Non-U.S. Children Coming to U.S............................. 2-7
NORTH KOREA
Swedish Diplomat to Visit Arrested AmCit/Concern for Welfare.. 3-4
CYPRUS
NSC Advisor Lake Comments re: Efforts to Resolve Dispute...... 8-9
TURKEY
Relations with Erbakan Govt/Reduction in U.S. Economic
Assistance/Economic Losses Resulting from Delay in
Implementation of Res. 986/Diplomatic Contacts re: Erbakan
Statements in Libya......................................... 9-13
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
Commitment of Both Delegations Not to Renegotiate Oslo
Accords/U.S. Position on Settlements Near Hebron/Plan for
Muslim Prayer Hall Near Temple Mount....................... 13-17,34
Attendance of Amb. Ross at Negotiations....................... 30
No Plans for Secretary to Travel to Middle East............... 30
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
Amb. Galbraith and Amb. Redman Testimony in Response to
Congressional Inquiry re: Arms Deliveries from Iran to
Bosnia/Dept. Actions to Comply with Congressional Request... 18-20
Reported Comments by Carl Bildt on Continued Presence of
International Forces in Bosnia.............................. 20
Possible Nomination of Richard Holbrooke for Nobel Peace
Prize....................................................... 20
Statement by German Minister on Plan for Resettling Refugees.. 21-22
CHINA
Distinction Between Illegal Transfer of Classified Information
and Discussion on Background with Press Corps............... 23-24
Washington Post Article on Technology Transfer................ 21,24-25
Detention of Liu Xiaobo/Abuse of Due Process.................. 26
Issue of Human Rights Raised at Secretary's UNGA Mtg with
Chinese Vice Premier Qian Qichen............................ 27
Secretary's Trip to China Scheduled for November 21-22........ 28
UNITED NATIONS
Secretary's Discussions in Africa re: Appt of New Sec Gen..... 30-31
COLOMBIA
U.S. Aid to Military/Record on Counter-Narcotics Efforts/
Endorsement of Resumption of Extradition Agreement with U.S. 31-32
BURMA
Possibility of Additional Sanctions/Actions by U.S. Municipal
Governments to Limit Trade Actions of Local Companies....... 32-24
AFGHANISTAN
U.S. Efforts to Discourage Heroin Production.................. 33
EGYPT
Economic Summit Scheduled for November 12, 1996............... 33
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #163
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1996, 1:18 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Welcome to the State Department briefing. Let me just tell you
that the Secretary of State had a very busy day in Addis Ababa today. He
went over to the Organization of African Unity Center. He toured their
crisis center. He met with Salim Salim. They had a very positive meeting.
They talked about the Africa crisis response force.
He met with Prime Minister Meles, which was a good meeting. In the course
of that meeting, he conveyed the concerns of the United States about press
freedoms in Ethiopia. I think all of you know that there was a little bit
of controversy about whether journalists could cover the press conferences
there, and the Secretary had his own press conferences and invited all
journalists to attend. The Secretary also visited an AID project in
conjunction with the organization CARE outside of the city.
Tomorrow, the Secretary will be in Arusha in Tanzania. He'll be meeting
with President Museveni, President Mkapa, President Moi and former
President Nyerere about problems and opportunities and issues concerning
our relations with those East African countries.
He'll also be meeting with Justice Arbour, who is the new head of the War
Crimes Commissions -- in this case the Rwanda War Crimes Commission --
taking over the duties of Justice Goldstone, who's returned to South
Africa.
On the Middle East, I can tell you that we are now just releasing a
statement in Israel by Ambassador Dennis Ross, which notes that the
steering committee of the Israelis and Palestinians met today; that they
have agreed that as of Monday, October 14, they will conduct their meetings
on a rotating basis in Taba and in Eilat, both of those being cities on the
Red Sea; that both have agreed not to reopen or renegotiate the Oslo
accords; that they will discuss the mechanisms and modalities for how best
to implement the Oslo accords.
So the agreement is to move to Eilat and to Taba; have the venue rotate
between the two, which are very close to each other, and then to negotiate
on the basis of not reopening or renegotiating the Oslo accords. That is a
step forward. As Ambassador Ross has been saying, he thinks that both sides
now do have an appreciation for the needs of the other and are negotiating
in good faith.
I can also tell you that Assistant Secretary Kornblum is in London. He's
still in a Contact Group meeting concerning the Bosnia situation, and
specifically the recalcitrance of the Bosnian Serbs, on a variety of
questions. I think there is unity in the Contact Group; that we need to
move forward and implement the Dayton accords.
Assistant Secretary of State Win Lord has arrived in Seoul for a three-day
visit. He is there in order to conduct comprehensive talks with the South
Koreans but also to make very clear to the South Korean public and
government and to the North Koreans that the United States stands firmly
with South Korea amidst this rash of bizarre and unfortunate incidents
provoked by North Korea over the last couple of weeks, including the
submarine incident and including the incarceration of an American citizen
who's being held unjustly.
I also want to just note two public statements that we are posting in the
press room for you. The first is a joint statement on United States
cooperation with Oman. You know that Yusif bin Alawi, the Minister of State
for Foreign Affairs, has been visiting Washington. He met with Strobe
Talbott, our Acting Secretary of State, yesterday, and he's also met with
Peter Tarnoff, our Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
Excellent meetings between the United States and Oman, and I have a press
statement that we're issuing right now that is available for you in the
press room.
Finally, another press statement today about a new initiative by the State
Department and the Justice Department to try to help American citizens who
unfortunately many, many times over the course of a year find themselves
involved in child custody and abducted children cases.
It is an unfortunate fact of modern times that in hundreds of cases per
year, American children are abducted across international borders,
generally by one of their parents. This usually happens when there's an
estranged marriage. It usually happens when there's an international
marriage -- an American citizen and a foreign citizen married.
Under this agreement, the Justice and State Departments will work together
to try to build support for American citizens/parents who find themselves
in a position of having their children abducted, and to work with foreign
governments where these crimes normally take place to make sure that
American parents will have the rights under their laws as well as our laws
in order to get their children back.
This is a major problem that our Consular Officers all over the world have
to deal with. I would encourage you to take a close look at this, because
child custody and abduction cases are part of the work that we do overseas
for the American public and an increasingly important part of the work that
we do.
Barry.
QUESTION: Nick, on the jailed American, any word on the Swede's efforts
to see him?
MR. BURNS: Yes. I understand that the Swedish diplomat, Mr. Lofquist,
will visit our American citizen tomorrow, October 11. He last saw him on
September 17. We're very grateful to the Swedish Government for the
excellent work that they are doing as our protecting power in North
Korea.
At the same time, let me just say we hope and trust that the American
citizen is in good health, is being given the proper care and treatment
that he deserves under international law and regulations, and we hope that
the North Korean Government will elect to release him immediately.
We will await very anxiously Mr. Lofquist's report. I'm not sure we'll have
this by tomorrow, however, because I believe he's got to take a four-hour
train ride from Pyongyang to visit the American; and then, of course,
communications being what they are in North Korea, I'm just not confident
that we'll have a report here 24 hours from now about whether or not his
visit was successful.
QUESTION: Do you have the location by any chance, and will there be --
has the American had any legal advice or access to legal advice?
MR. BURNS: During the last meeting, which was September 17, sometime ago,
the American citizen was housed in a hotel. We believe that is still the
case, but we can't be sure that's the case, because we have not had access
to him, the Swedes haven't, since the 17th of September.
Certainly, the Swedish diplomat will ask the variety of questions that you
would expect him to ask. Is he being well treated? Is he being mistreated
at all? Is he aware of the charges filed against him? Does he have an
ability to protect himself, to defend himself against these charges?
Given the state of North Korea's legal system and given the nature of the
government, we're not at all confident that he would receive a fair trial,
should this case be brought to trial; and, since he's innocent of all these
charges -- in fact, they're ludicrous charges -- we believe that he should
be released immediately. We have an obligation to protect American citizens
overseas, and we're doing that in this case, and we're watching North
Korea's treatment of this individual very carefully.
QUESTION: Could I just ask about your announcement on the State
Department/Justice Department -- you know, on abducted children. Could you
be a little more specific? What is it that these two departments are going
to try to do to build support for the parents?
MR. BURNS: Each year, approximately 1,000 American children are abducted
or illegally retained in foreign countries by a parent. But, generally,
when a marriage is estranged or the marriage is broken up, and generally in
cases where the child is living in the United States with one of his
parents, the other parent is living overseas, usually in his or her native
country.
The Hague Convention, which is an international treaty that the United
States ratified in 1988, does address the problem of international
abductions by parents. The treaty provides for the prompt return of
wrongfully removed or retained children to the country of where they are
living. But this only governs -- The Hague treaty -- only applies when the
two countries involved are both adherents to the treaty.
We are going to make a concerted effort to try to convince other countries
to adhere to this treaty and to agree to the provisions of the treaty, so
that in a hypothetical case when a child is abducted to a country far away
in Europe or the Middle East or in Asia, our citizens have a much better
possibility under international law of traveling to that country and
recovering the child.
The steps that Justice and State will take are the following. We're going
to give legal, technical assistance to parents who find themselves in this
situation about what their rights are under The Hague Convention. There
will be a broader liaison between law enforcement agencies and the United
States in international law enforcement agencies and through Interpol to
try to trade information about children when they're missing.
The first problem that some parents have in these cases is that they don't
know where the child is located. They don't know where the child has been
taken. If we can increase the Justice Department's and the State Department's
work with Interpol and other law enforcement agencies to make sure that we
can rely upon their assistance in finding children, we'll be better
off.
In many of these cases where sometimes you have to go through a legal
procedure in the country to which the child has been abducted, there's a
problem of foreign language translation, and the State Department will give
assistance to parents in translating documents and in actually providing
interpretation for conversations.
We're going to use posters in countries where children have been abducted --
posters and radio and the media -- to try to bring to the attention of the
local population the fact that a child has been abducted, much in the way
we use this technology, we use the media, in terrorist cases, where we're
trying to find terrorists who have bombed or murdered American citizens.
Finally, some parents simply don't have the money, the financial resources,
to travel overseas to find their children; and in cases where parents can
demonstrate to us that they are financially disadvantaged, they don't have
the money, we hope there will be a way for the State Department and Justice
Department to help fund the trips overseas.
This is an increasingly serious problem. When I was a Consular Officer in
Egypt ten years ago, there were problems like this -- very, very severe
problems, where children are the victims of estranged marriages and where
in some cases -- I'm not talking about Egypt here -- but in some cases,
other countries don't take this problem seriously. They harbor the people
who have abducted the children. They don't give the parent with whom the
child is living any kind of rights within that country, and it's a matter
of great discrimination. We want to help the American citizens in this case
and limit this scourge of abductions.
QUESTION: Do you happen to know what percentage of the 1,000 last year,
for example, were abducted to countries that are not signatories or are not
following The Hague Convention?
MR. BURNS: I know that of the roughly 1,000 American children abducted
last year -- of the 1,000 cases last year, about 600 of these children were
abducted to 43 countries that currently participate in The Hague Convention.
But that means that 400 were abducted to places where the countries did not
respect The Hague Convention, and our effort will be to work with those
countries where this habitually takes place -- and there are a number of
countries where this habitually takes place -- to convince them that they
ought to sign up to The Hague Convention -- they ought to work for us that
children are not victimized by problems between parents.
QUESTION: Nick --
MR. BURNS: I think Howard had his hand up.
QUESTION: One last follow-up. Do you have any breakdown on how many
countries are signatories to The Hague Convention or otherwise abide by
it?
MR. BURNS: I know at least 43 are, but I'm sure the number is probably
greater than that. I can ask our Consular Affairs people to get that for
you.
QUESTION: What do you consider an abduction? I mean, isn't this -- I mean,
one parent takes -- claims that the children is theirs or they've split up
and they take it to that country, when do you consider that an illegal act
or an abducting act?
MR. BURNS: Of course, it's hard to generalize, because each case is
unique. But in many, many cases and probably the majority of cases, if
there's been a divorce, an American court gives custody to one of the
parents. Generally, we're talking about cases where the child is in the
custody of the parent living in the United States. The other parent, male
or female, comes to the United States for visitation rights, abducts the
child, brings that child back to his or her native country, where the
custodial parent's rights are not respected.
This is a major problem, and we simply want to try to do everything we can
to support American citizens here. The other point I would make about this
is that I think this is another way of illustrating the importance of the
work that our Consulates and Embassies do overseas. We negotiate peace
treaties, and sometimes, as in Bosnia, we stop wars.
But the elementary work of the Foreign Service has always been for 200
years to protect American citizens overseas and to help American citizens
who are in trouble overseas. We give out birth certificates. We visit
Americans in jails and prisons. Americans who are ill overseas, we help.
Americans who die overseas, we become the custodial agent of the corpse. We
help American families in trouble.
In this case, some of the most heart-wrenching episodes that we see
overseas -- all of us who have served overseas -- are when a child is
abducted and held against his or her will, and when an American parent has
very little rights in the country. That's what this initiative tries to get
at and tries to help.
QUESTION: Does the child need to be a U.S. citizen?
MR. BURNS: Yes, we're talking about American children here.
QUESTION: Will you be posting -- besides the posters, will you be posting
a price for finding or locating the missing children like --
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any financial prize, as we do in the case of
terrorism.
QUESTION: No --
MR. BURNS: No, I'm not aware of that.
QUESTION: Are you aware of any reverse cases, and how many numbers might
involve children taken to the United States?
MR. BURNS: I'm sure that there are incidents of that happening every year,
but the United States is a signatory and adherent to The Hague Convention,
and the United States abides by the terms of The Hague Convention. The
terms are quite specific about custodial parent rights and non-custodial
parent rights. If the shoe is on the other foot, the United States
absolutely has an obligation to uphold international law.
This is, in essence, a matter of trying to broaden the application of an
agreed-upon treaty -- The Hague Convention -- to make sure that we are
respecting the Convention but that other countries are respecting it so
that the rights of people all over the world are being respected.
No one can want to see a child victimized by parents who dispute the
custody of that child.
QUESTION: In the matter of the Dennis Ross announcement you did from here,
can you bring us up to date on (a) Dennis' plans? Might he might be coming
home and handing it off anytime soon? (B) Will the talks alternate between
those two sites daily, weekly; and (c) what about any breaks for the
Sabbath or any other reason?
MR. BURNS: I think there are breaks for the Sabbath. I think there are
breaks for both the Muslim holy days and the Jewish holy day.
Second, I don't know if they've decided these are alternate day rotations
or alternate week rotations. That's a good question, and we'll try to get
that information for you after the briefing.
Third, Dennis is participating in meetings today. He attended a Steering
Group meeting. He's also been consulting with the Israeli delegation and
the Palestinian separately. He hasn't made any specific plans about when
he's going to come back. I don't think he will stay out everyday for the
duration of the talks. He'll come back here at some point to report to the
Secretary.
When he is away from the talks at Taba and Eilat, we'll be represented by
our Consul General in Jerusalem, Ed Abington, and Ambassador in Israel,
Martin Indyk, and other American officials.
Savas has a question.
QUESTION: National Security Advisor Anthony Lake is at Georgetown
University. He described the Cyprus problem as one of the worse, most ten
outrageous problems in the world. Do you agree with him?
Also, he admitted the Clinton Administration in the last four years -- they
couldn't help to solve the problem. Can you comment on that?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me -- that the Clinton Administration couldn't --
QUESTION: Couldn't help to solve the problem?
MR. BURNS: I did read Mr. Lake's speech, which is a very fine speech, and
I commended to you -- the speech made at Georgetown two days ago. That
speech centered on the problems in Northern Ireland but did talk about
other problems around the world. I absolutely agree -- and those of us at
the State Department agree -- with everything he said in that speech.
The fact is that the United States would like to be helpful in resolving
the Cyprus dispute but their primary responsibility rests with the
communities on Cyprus, the Cypriot Government, Greece and Turkey.
As you know, Mr. Beattie, the President's Special Emissary, has been quite
active. Ambassador Madeleine Albright has been very, very active and took a
trip there to try to stimulate some progress. The Secretary and the
President have both been involved, when necessary, on this problem.
The fact is that over 20 years, it's been 20 years -- more than 20 years --
where international efforts have not been successful, but we have to keep
trying. We will keep trying. This is a priority for us.
I think you'll see that we'll maintain very active involvement in
this.
Ugur had a question and then we've got Judd.
QUESTION: Can we stay on Turkey? Today, Jim Hoagland in the _Washington
Post_ had an assertion that Washington did not want any stability in Turkey
and actually is waiting for the Erbakan government to self-destruct through
a looming economic crisis.
I guess it's ridiculous to ask whether you agree or not. What I want to ask
--
MR. BURNS: We don't.
QUESTION: Why do you think he's wrong? Probably, you'll say you don't
disagree.
MR. BURNS: First, we've had a very consistent policy -- "we," the United
States. I worked directly on Turkish affairs during the Bush Administration,
from the White House. Our policy then was remarkably similar to the policy
undertaken by this Administration.
If anything, the Clinton Administration has tried to deepen the role of the
United States in linking Turkey with the West. The United States was a
major supporter of Turkey's in trying to affect the Customs Union agreement
with the European Union. We believe that Turkey should be associated with
the European Union.
We believe that Turkey is a secular democracy. It has a place in the West,
not only by virtue of Turkey's participation in NATO but, hopefully in the
future, by Turkey's participation in the economic institutions of
Europe.
There's a lot that can be said about the column because there are a lot of
different points made in the column. I can tell you that our Administration
remains dedicated to having the closest possible alliance relationship with
Turkey.
The Turkish people had an election, and the result of that election was the
appointment of Mr. Erbakan as Prime Minister. He's in power, and we will
deal with him. We will work with him, and we'll work with Mrs. Ciller and
we'll work with President Demirel and other Turkish leaders because the
relationship is too important to allow anything else to get in the way of
it.
The other day I was asked, what kind of high-level contacts have we had
with Prime Minister Erbakan? I was very slow-witted that day and couldn't
quite recall in the recess of my mind that Under Secretary of State Peter
Tarnoff met with Prime Minister Erbakan the week he took office; and
Ambassador Madeleine Albright, shortly thereafter, on a trip to Turkey met
with Prime Minister Erbakan.
We will continue to have contacts with Prime Minister Erbakan. We work very
closely with Mrs. Ciller, as you would expect; she's the Turkish Foreign
Minister. We work closely with the Turkish Foreign Ministry; very closely
with the Turkish Ambassador to Washington, Ambassador Kandemir.
I think, frankly, too much was made in the column about who is responsible
for what. The fact is that the Turkish people are responsible for what
happens politically within Turkey, not the United States Government.
The conditions in Turkey that were described in the column are the
responsibility of the Turkish people and Turkish Government.
The United States Government's responsibility is to meet its obligations to
Turkey, to have a stable relationship. I can assure you that the President
and the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and others are
absolutely committed to that.
Turkey is, without any doubt, one of the priority countries in the world to
the United States. I think that's the way I would answer the column.
I don't want to go through each paragraph and take on each specific point.
But it was an important column and well done, as usual, well written, but I
think we disagree with most of the points made in that column.
QUESTION: You said that there has not been any policy change since the
Bush Administration. Yet, we very well know that the U.S. assistance in
different categories practically went down the sink.
MR. BURNS: That's not because the Clinton Administration did not want to
have healthy assistance levels. It's because the United States Congress, in
the appropriations process, has significantly cut the ability of the United
States, in terms of economic assistance, to extend economic assistance to
Turkey.
But in the strategic sense, there is unity between the last two Administrations
-- the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration -- on the
importance of Turkey, how the United States should relate to Turkey, and
the major initiatives that should be undertaken in all respects: Our
cooperation with Turkey and northern Iraq; our cooperation with Turkey on
Central Asia -- on the five Central Asian countries; our cooperation with
Turkey on Bosnia; on the Middle East negotiations where Turkey has played a
role and where Turkey, we believe, still has a role in developing a new
relationship with Israel.
We encourage the Turkish Government to maintain its new relationship with
Israel.
I see a lot of common ground and links between these last two Administrations.
QUESTION: Isn't the politics of it are more concrete? May I ask what the
Administration did to compensate Turkey for the $27 billion of loss due to
Turkey's participation in the coalition-led effort to isolate Iraq?
MR. BURNS: As we've said many times, publicly and as Secretary Christopher
mentioned to Mrs. Ciller in their private meeting, we understand the
sacrifice that Turkey has made in implementing the international sanctions
on Saddam Hussein. Turkey has been a front-line state and has suffered
economically. We know that. That's why the United States proposed
originally UN Resolution 986. It's one of the reasons why. Because we
didn't want to see an ally disadvantaged, and we do want to see that go
forward at some point in the future.
But the reality is that both Turkey and the United States have a common
self-interest in containing Saddam Hussein. The price of that is severe for
both countries but it's worth it.
QUESTION: Nick, assuming Turkey is still in Europe, could we switch to
the Middle East? It's hard to tell sometimes.
MR. BURNS: Turkey is in Europe. Turkey is a European country.
QUESTION: Maybe not this week.
MR. BURNS: Just to be fair, we have several Turkish and Greek correspondents
here. I want to make sure that in our response to the Hoagland column, I
think we've said what we have to say.
QUESTION: From Turkey's point, if they want the U.S., bluntly put, to put
their money where their mouth is -- despite all these tremendous losses,
nothing is coming through other than the rhetorical help, reminding that
Turkey is a front-line state and all that, which is part of what Mr.
Hoagland is saying.
MR. BURNS: There's one person responsible for this situation: Saddam
Hussein. If he hadn't undertaken his wreckless aggression in northern Iraq,
UN Resolution 986 would have been fully implemented by now and the pipeline
would be filled with oil. Saddam Hussein is the one that the Turkish
Government and the Turkish people should blame for that.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: I've already said that.
QUESTION: The U.S. went out of its way to help Jordan, and the question --
MR. BURNS: I would also say -- I would also say . . .
QUESTION: What did you do for Turkey?
MR. BURNS: . . . there has been no better and no more consistent ally of
Turkey on all of these issues in the United States on the PKK issue, on the
cross-border problem, on the issue of Turkey's role and place in Europe.
The United States has been the most faithful ally, and we'll continue to be
the most faithful ally to Turkey.
QUESTION: On the same subject.
MR. BURNS: Yes, Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: Since you said earlier that the Turkish Government is
responsible for the present political system in Turkey, what would you
advise them?
MR. BURNS: I have no advice to offer the Turkish people. The Turkish
people are sovereign. They are free. They are free to make their own
political decisions.
We comment on issues that are international,
Mr. Lambros, like the situation in Libya the other day. We had very strong
comments on that. But we're not going to offer advice to the Turkish people
on electoral politics.
QUESTION: One more question. Since the victorious "Roman Commander,"
Necmettin Erbakan (inaudible) yesterday, I'm wondering if the Turkish
Government has given any explanation to the U.S. Government regarding its
detrimental statements against the U.S., as you said the other day?
MR. BURNS: Yes. We have under review, in our diplomatic context, the
incidents that were objectionable to the United States in Libya. We stand
by everything we've said. Our concerns are well-founded, but we've decided
to carry that on now in private since for two days running, we had a very
public display of our unhappiness.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) "Commander" so far to the U.S. Government?
MR. BURNS: We're having an active conversation about it. We've transmitted
messages to each other and had conversations about it, yes; both here in
Washington and in Ankara.
Mideast. Judd.
QUESTION: Nick, when you announced the talks moving to Eilat and Taba, I
think you said it was a major step that both sides have agreed not to
reopen -- previously agreed upon in the Oslo Agreement. Wasn't that decided
in Washington last week? Haven't you been saying that for a week? Was this -
-
MR. BURNS: Prime Minister Netanyahu committed last week in Washington
that he would not attempt to reopen or renegotiate the Oslo Accords.
As you know, the reality is that this has been the talk of these negotiations
in the margins and the newspapers and the airwaves. To have both of these
delegations commit through Ambassador Ross, who is making this official
statement from Israel, is a good sign and a step forward.
Dennis Ross has said over the last two days, obviously, these are difficult
negotiations, and they'll continue to be very complex negotiations.
But his sense is that they are negotiating in good faith with each other.
They have a sense of each other's needs and concerns. That's a very
important first step along the way towards an agreement, and we're
confident that an agreement will be reached.
QUESTION: But substantively they haven't progressed beyond Washington?
MR. BURNS: Well, substantively, we're in radio silence and TV silence on
the substance. I'm just talking about the process and the atmosphere and
the tone.
QUESTION: Nick, this morning the BBC, in London, made the statement or
attributed the statement to Mr. Netanyahu saying that he is going to build
more Jewish settlements around Hebron no matter what it takes. Do you
consider this as another attempt to steer or foment the feelings of the
Palestinians at the time that Israel should begin confidence-building
measures to allay the fears of the Palestinians?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of that statement, Mr. Abdulsalam. We'll look
into it. Our position on settlements are well-known and hasn't changed.
QUESTION: If this is the case and you find the credible source of this
statement, you will also find that such -- I know your position about the
settlements. But do you find that such measures of building more settlements
will be against and contradictory to the terms of the $10 billion U.S. loan
guarantees to Israel?
And, by the way, did you get the information that Jim Anderson was looking
for --
MR. BURNS: Yes, we did, and it's available to every reporter in the
room.
QUESTION: Did you post it? Is it available?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if we posted it (TO STAFF), Charity. This is the
question asked last week about the amount of money returned under the loan
guarantee program, and so forth, in comparisons with years. We had it as a
taken question last week.
Two points. We can't be drawn into a specific discussion of this. We have a
very clear policy on settlements -- very, very clear policy on settlements
that have not changed at all.
Since I've not seen the Prime Minister's remarks, I just simply can't
comment on them.
QUESTION: I know you will check on that. Let's just follow from this. Do
you consider that this -- I don't think the BBC was making a false
statement about this. But if this statement is there, do you consider that
this is a behavior which is conducive to try to create more good environment
for continuous talks between Taba and Eilat in the next 20 days?
MR. BURNS: Since I haven't seen the statement, I'm not going to comment
on it in any way.
As you know better than anybody else in the room, what is so much more
positive this year than, say, ten years ago about the Israeli-Palestinian
problems, is that the Palestinians and Israelis have a place to talk about
these disputes. If there's unhappiness about a statement made on the BBC,
there's a negotiating process, there's a table to sit down to, to talk
about it directly.
The United States does not have to be the intermediary from the State
Department podium with the Palestinians and Israelis. That's a real step
forward from, say, ten years ago where there was no such venue to discuss
these issues. So I haven't seen it, can't comment on it, but the Israelis
and Palestinians can talk about this if it's of concern to the Palestinians.
QUESTION: But you'll look into it?
MR. BURNS: Even if I look into it, I'm not sure I'll have much to say.
Our position on settlements is clear, well-known, and hasn't changed.
We choose not to intervene publicly in public disputes between the Israelis
and Palestinians. We do it privately at the negotiating table, and we don't
talk much about it in public because that's the way we remain an effective
facilitator/intermediary/partner -- whatever words you like; whatever word
of the week you would like to choose.
QUESTION: With due respect, Nick, there is an involvement of $10 billion
of loan guarantees by the United States not to build anymore settlements
ever since --
MR. BURNS: And the United States adheres to that law. That's an American
law. The United States adheres to the terms of that law. We returned $60
million -- we withheld $60 million -- excuse me; and we've now (inaudible)
on September 30th of this year because of some of this settlement activity,
and that is consistent with our understanding of the way Congress wrote the
law. We've met all of our commitments here.
QUESTION: Nick, the Muslim plan for a new prayer hall at the Temple
Mount?
MR. BURNS: We've seen the press reports of this. They're quite confusing
because there are various claims and statements being made both factual and
rhetorical about this. What we'd like to do first is get a sense of what
the issue is because we have not been advised by anybody officially about
what plans the Islamic Wafd -- the Muslim religious authority -- and the
Haram al-Sharif, what plans it has. Until we get our own facts straight, we
can't comment.
I would also say, Barry, even when we get our facts straight, we can't
comment.
I would also say, Barry, even when we get our facts straight, again, there
is a place where Palestinians and Israelis can talk about issues pertaining
to Jerusalem that are in dispute -- religious issues or political
issues.
We understand there are religious sensitivities on both sides. We
understand that very, very well, given the religious and physical
juxtaposition of the Jewish sites and the Muslim sites. We're just not in a
position to comment on the reports this morning.
QUESTION: When you say "there's a place," I suppose you mean, or do you
mean it's a final status issue?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if it's a final status issue. They decide -- the
Palestinians and Israelis -- what a final status issue is.
QUESTION: The tunnel last week --
MR. BURNS: If any of these issues are final status, in theory, hypothetically,
then there's a place to discuss them -- the final status talks.
If they're not final status talks, Israelis and Palestinians are now
meeting all the time. Therefore, they can discuss the issues. They've got
to decide what's final status and what's not.
QUESTION: I didn't mean the distinction between current and final status.
I mean a unilateral action. You had a tunnel entrance opened a couple of
weeks ago. Now you have a plan in Solomon's Stables for a new prayer hall --
Muslim prayer hall.
A lot was said about a -- a lot was said a lot of rocks were thrown over
the tunnel entrance, opening. I thought the Administration's position,
although it was somewhat nuanced and subtle, was that this is the kind of
thing the two sides ought to talk about.
Is the Muslim prayer hall the kind of thing that the two sides should talk
about?
MR. BURNS: If it's of concern to either side. For instance, if it's of
concern to the Israelis, then they ought to talk about it. They ought not
to fight about it. They ought not to have any kind of violence in the
streets about it. They ought to talk about it.
Barry, I'm a little bit limited today because I know that our Consulate in
Jerusalem and our Embassy in Tel Aviv are not fully apprised of the facts.
So, therefore, I've got to be a little bit restrained in how I answer your
question.
QUESTION: Not to beat it to death, you're not suggesting that somebody
has to notify the U.S.? These are unilateral things that are being
done.
Netanyahu didn't tell you he was going to open the entrance; and then this
Muslim group, I don't suppose told you about this plan?
MR. BURNS: I don't know the answer to that question. We do have Consulate
officers in Jerusalem. I don't know if they know or not. I don't know, and,
therefore, I can't speak about it.
Whether we knew all the facts or didn't know all the facts, they have an
ability to talk to each other about these issues. They can exercise that
right at any time.
QUESTION: Of course, they have an ability.
MR. BURNS: Right.
QUESTION: I thought the U.S. was concerned about unilateral actions that
seem to bear on religious sites. I thought the U.S. had a preference that
these things not be done without them being discussed. In fact, there was a
venue for such discussions.
MR. BURNS: That was one of the points we made in public when the tunnel
issue was raging three weeks ago. But since I don't have the facts about
this particular episode, I have to limit my comments today.
David.
QUESTION: Bosnia: Ambassadors Galbraith and Redman find themselves under
attack on Capitol Hill today. A group of Republicans have charged that
there was wrongdoing, or there may have been wrongdoing either on their
part or on the part of American officials in connection with the flow of
weapons from Iran to the Bosnian side during the war. Do you have any
comment on what has been said on Capitol Hill today?
MR. BURNS: I do have a comment, yes. For those of you who may be in the
dark about this, there was a -- I don't know if you call it a press
conference, but there certainly was a press opportunity where some of the
majority members of the House stated that there had been wrongdoing, and
they made all sorts of charges about this conflict, this two-year old
conflict about Iran and Bosnia.
I have a couple things to say. First, I think that the message that all
members of Congress should understand and accept as fact is that the policy
of this Administration has succeeded. We stopped the war in Bosnia. The
United States stopped the war in Bosnia in 1995.
We then successfully negotiated with the parties a peace agreement in
Dayton, Ohio, that is succeeding. We deployed more than 15,000 American
troops to enforce that peace treaty. We are succeeding. We've stopped the
bloodshed. We've help them make the peace.
Through the elections, they now have an opportunity to put this war behind
them.
I think, rather than negotiating to death small issues from several years
ago, they ought to reflect on that basic fact.
Secondly, the people who made the Bosnia policy and who are now subject to
this incredible scrutiny by some members of Congress are honorable people
and they are honest people.
Some members of Congress are questioning their honor and their honesty and
their integrity, and it's wrong. These people, for whom I work and with
whom I work, are dedicated public servants. Their actions should not be
questioned.
Third, the Administration has cooperated fully with the Congress in this
matter. I think, in order to defend ourselves, I need to give you a sense
of how we've cooperated.
The Secretary of State instructed the Department of State to cooperate in
every possible way with the Congressional inquiries. Indeed, the President
requested all Cabinet agencies to do so.
The State Department made available in an expeditious fashion over 600
documents in response to an urgent request from the subcommittee as well as
from other Congressional committees reviewing these issues. Thirty-nine
current and former employees of the Department of State took time to meet
with the subcommittee and respond to their questions. Some of these people
were under oath, and they included Acting Secretary Strobe Talbott, Under
Secretary Peter Tarnoff, former Assistant Secretary Dick Holbrooke,
Ambassador Peter Galbraith -- all people who have served honorably and
successfully in leading us on this policy.
Our embassies in Zagreb, in Prague, and elsewhere supported staff
delegations from the Congress who undertook missions to Europe to look into
this matter; all types of hotel and logistical and car and personal
support.
At the request of the subcommittee, the Department twice transmitted
requests for interviews to third-country governments and facilitated
specific interviews with individuals -- Serbs, Bosnians, and Croats.
The Department of State undertook a thorough, prompt declassification
review of classified documents. We declassified them. Several of them were
highly sensitive, and we made them available to the Congress.
We coordinated two staff trips to Europe, the second of which was canceled
at the last moment by the subcommittee. We assisted the subcommittee in
identifying phone numbers, locating individuals that they wanted to talk
to.
We figure that, in total, the Department of State personnel probably spent
over 2,000 hours just over the last couple of months in fulfilling requests
from the Congress on this issue. We've cooperated. We've done everything we
can to turn over information and to talk to the Congress.
But the facts of the case are that the policy has succeeded. If anybody in
the Congress is concerned about the Iranian presence in Bosnia, it was the
United States who got the Mujahideen and Iranian fighters out of Bosnia
over the last nine months. No one misled anybody. Everything was done
according to the law.
I don't think that public servants ought to be subjected to grandstanding.
If these concerns were widely felt in the Congress, perhaps they should
have been made in October 1995 rather than October 1996. I would ask you to
pause and reflect upon those two dates. Everything that is known about this
policy was known in October 1995, so it's now being raised in October 1996.
I don't believe that's a coincidence.
QUESTION: Nick, do you have any information about this Contact Group
meeting?
MR. BURNS: No. I'm sorry. I don't know if you came in late. I said that
John Kornblum was there. The meeting was ongoing. It has not concluded. The
meeting has not concluded.
QUESTION: Do you have any sense of what's going on there?
MR. BURNS: No, the meeting has not concluded. Ambassador Kornblum has not
exited from the room to call me, so I have nothing to report but perhaps I
will later in the day.
We work hard in these Contact Group meetings. Sometimes they go all night.
I remember one in Noordwijk that went until 3:00 in the morning. Remember
that meeting -- a press conference at 4:00 in the morning? I'll never
forget it.
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to Bosnia --
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Carl Bildt had a news conference where he said an international
force might be needed in Bosnia through 1998?
MR. BURNS: I just saw the press reports. I have really no comment to
make. The United States has a well-known position on that particular issue,
which has not changed in the last 24 hours since we last met.
QUESTION: Do you have any information about Richard Holbrooke as a Nobel
Prize winner?
MR. BURNS: I have no information. I'm not Norwegian. I'm not on the
committee. I've not talked to anyone in Norway, and I couldn't possibly
have a comment on that issue.
QUESTION: You are hoping that --
MR. BURNS: I couldn't possibly have any comment on this issue.
Still on Bosnia? Yes, Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on Germany's Minister of Interior's
statement yesterday that Germany is not a land of (inaudible) against
thousand of helpless refugees from the former Yugoslavia; that the
(inaudible) creates additional problems to the Dayton agreement?
MR. BURNS: This was a statement by the German Minister, you said?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: I don't have any particular comment on that because I'm just
not aware of that. I would just repeat what I said yesterday, that Germany
accepted almost half the total number of Bosnian refugees -- 320,000.
Germany paid $2.8 billion annually -- annually -- for the support of 320,
000 refugees.
The German effort was unprecedented. It was superior in size and scope to
any effort made by any other country. The German Government and German
people ought to be commended for that they've done to harbor refugees.
That said, the United States Government fully supports the lead role of the
UN High Commission on Refugees which sets the timing and scope and pacing
of refugee resettlements. We are encouraging the German Government, of
course, to work with the UNHCR. I'm sure that's happening.
QUESTION: The protest from the humanitarian groups and also from the UN
High Commission for Refugees to this -- German plan?
MR. BURNS: The German record on refugee return is excellent, it's humane.
I know that October 1 is the official starting date, but I don't believe
that Germany expects a large-scale repatriation until sometime next
year.
QUESTION: They're fighting for peace. According to the (inaudible)
deportation of Albanians from Germany would provoke a new war in the
Balkans?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe that will be the case. I don't believe there
will be a new war in the Balkans. Germany is working with the international
community to exercise its responsibilities in a highly appropriate
way.
QUESTION: So after the U.S. Government approved the German plan for
deportation --
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, for two days running now I've given you our
views. Today, I noted that Germany is working, and should work, with the
UNHCR which has the lead in establishing the scope and pace and timing of
refugees.
QUESTION: To remove all of them from Germany to the former Yugoslavia?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: To expel 320,000 --
MR. BURNS: No one is talking about expulsions here. The German Government
is doing what it is doing in concert with international organizations.
QUESTION: Nick, can we skip back -- two things I want. They're different
areas. Let's do China. Deja vu all over again. Yesterday was technology;
today, there's some Chinese pro-democracy citizen who thinks maybe -- asked
the communist party to uphold free speech rights, and he ends up with a
three-year prison sentence. Has anything changed in Beijing with all the
U.S. conversations with the Chinese about proliferation and today's quest
would be with all the discussions with them about human rights? Is their
record any better than it has been?
MR. BURNS: On which issue, Barry?
QUESTION: Human rights. We did technology. Today, it's human rights.
MR. BURNS: Ad nauseam.
QUESTION: Tomorrow, it's likely to be technology again. You found a
change in the technology behavior --
MR. BURNS: I would refer you --
QUESTION: I wonder if you found a change today in the human rights
behavior?
MR. BURNS: I'll be glad to speak about the human rights issue if I can
digress for one sentence.
QUESTION: Sure.
MR. BURNS: I'd refer you to the Washington Post article on the
technology issue this morning, which I found highly substantive --
QUESTION: All right, let's get into the Washington Post article.
MR. BURNS: -- and inaccurate.
QUESTION: Oh, inaccurate. There, again, let's --
MR. BURNS: I want to be clear about the pronunciation here: "And accurate
in many respects."
QUESTION: Did the U.S. official -- because the reporter is a responsible
specialist on arms control issues -- did the official, or the official
sources, who told the Washington Post that this transfer took place
before the May 11 pledge, which makes the Chinese look a little better than
they did yesterday -- is that an official subject of prosecution?
MR. BURNS: Barry, I don't know who the officials are who spoke to the
Washington Post ON BACKGROUND. I did not speak to the reporters ON
BACKGROUND. I don't know who did.
All I'm saying is that as we look at this very complicated issue, we have
two reports -- newspaper articles -- juxtaposed to each other.
As I look at this morning's report in the Washington Post, I found that
to be a fair and comprehensive look at the question, which I thought really
gave a more illuminating picture of all the factors involved here -- of all
the factors involved.
QUESTION: Did it take place before the pledge?
MR. BURNS: I couldn't possibly comment on that. I didn't yesterday and I
can't today. I'm on the record. I'm not able to do that.
QUESTION: But an official told the Washington Post that, presumably
based on information he had gleaned for officials even -- more than one. Is
it going to be a (inaudible) to find them and prosecute them for burnishing
China's record a little bit?
MR. BURNS: No. Actually, there's quite a distinction between talking to
reporters ON BACKGROUND about policy and facts versus giving a reporter a
highly classified intelligence document. Right?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: The illegality concerns the transfer of classified information
to anybody -- not just a reporter -- anybody who does not have a security
clearance. There's nothing illegal in general about talking to reporters on
background. We do that all the time. I do that all the time with you
guys.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) since there's not a security issue here, are you
able to tell us?
MR. BURNS: But I have no idea who all these people are who are talking to
the Washington Times.
QUESTION: Okay, if it's not a security --
MR. BURNS: And I wish we knew who's talking to the Washington Times and
giving -- illegally giving documents to the Washington Times.
QUESTION: Well, we have you here, and since it's not a security issue --
MR. BURNS: Let's talk about human rights.
QUESTION: No, let's do this first. (Laughter) Since you wouldn't be
subject to prosecution --
MR. BURNS: I'm sorry I digressed. That was a huge tactical error on my
part.
QUESTION: No, it wasn't. You reminded me that I wanted to ask you about
the Post article. But can you tell us then since no security issue is at
stake in your addressing this question --
MR. BURNS: I'm never going to digress again with Barry. It's a major
mistake.
QUESTION: Was the technology transferred before the Chinese took the
pledge? I shouldn't say "transferred." Was the agreement --
MR. BURNS: As I said --
QUESTION: Was the agreement reached? It may not have gotten to Pakistan.
Did China enter into an agreement with Pakistan to provide technology that
could be used in a nuclear weapons program prior to the May 11 pledge? It
sounds like Alcoholics Anonymous -- but the pledge.
MR. BURNS: I do not know the answer to that question.
QUESTION: But you do say the article is accurate, and the article says
that.
MR. BURNS: What I thought was good about the article was it was a broad
overview of all of the complexities surrounding this issue rather than some
sneak attack using an alleged highly classified intelligence document,
which is a very narrow look at the issue.
QUESTION: You won't say what part of the article is accurate.
MR. BURNS: Oh, no, I'm not going through the article -- the very fine
article in The Washington Post this morning in detail. I'm just saying it
was more satisfactory from my perspective as a reader than the first one,
which relied upon this highly dubious source. You know, you have a paper
that consistently just prints or regurgitates or summarizes intelligence
documents, or alleged intelligence documents. I don't think that's a proper
way to take a complete look at an issue. I think reporters have an
obligation to have several sources, broader sources, and I think the report
in the Post certainly reflects that.
QUESTION: Nick, there was another article in the Washington Times this
morning, and it raises another -- on this subject, and it raises another
question that I have for you, which is did the State --
MR. BURNS: I thought we were going to back to human rights.
QUESTION: We'll get back to human rights, but we're still on arms. Did
the State Department or the U.S. Embassy in Beijing on September 28 of this
year send a demarcate or a protest to the Chinese concerning the subject of
arms shipments to Pakistan?
MR. BURNS: I'm not going to answer that question. I'm not going to answer
it because our diplomacy needs to be confidential, and I'm not going to
reward leaders who allege that meetings took place on this day or that day.
That would be rewarding the leaders and encouraging them to leak some more,
and I'm not going to do that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BURNS: It's a fair question, but I'm not going to do it. Back to
human rights.
QUESTION: If a nuclear bomb falls on you, your human rights are dead. But
in any event, how about human rights? On anyone, I mean. How about human
rights in China? How about this activist protest, asks freedom of speech be
allowed, ends up with a three-year prison sentence. Deja vu, right?
MR. BURNS: We've seen reports that Chinese citizen Liu Xiaobo has been
assigned by the Administrative Justice System in China to a three-year term
of detention in a re-education by labor camp for writing a letter
expressing his political views.
The official decision to arrest and sentence him as quickly as possible
highlights the abuses -- the due process abuses in China's re-education
through labor system, which is a distinct system from their criminal
justice system.
The United States is very concerned about this reported detention of a
respected individual. It underscores the gross intolerance in China for the
airing of divergent political views, no matter how peacefully these views
are expressed -- in this case very peacefully.
The Chinese constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have
provisions regarding freedom of speech, freedom of petition, and we call on
the Chinese Government to honor those rights and to allow their citizens to
exercise those rights.
We urge the Chinese Government to release without delay this individual and
all other political prisoners, dissidents, who are languishing and
suffering in Chinese jails solely because of their political views which
they have expressed peacefully.
I should also say that we are deeply concerned about another case -- the
reported decision by the Chinese Government to formally charge Mr. Wang Dan,
who is a noted democracy activist, after having held him for a lengthy
period of time.
This case has been raised by the most senior officials in our government
with senior Chinese leaders. We're very concerned about his condition.
We're very concerned about the conditions under which he is being held, and
we will continue to follow this case as well as Mr. Lieu's case and
others.
QUESTION: Was this -- perhaps you even knew it was about to happen to him,
but was this case discussed in -- I know this exists. I mean, with the
Soviets, too. You do these on two levels. The Secretary or some other
senior official will make a general presentation and then listen, etc. It
will be taken up by the people who work the area -- the subject.
Was this brought up in New York, either in the context of the Secretary's
meeting with the Foreign Minister or on the periphery?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: It was.
MR. BURNS: Yes. The Secretary --
QUESTION: Was it the second case?
MR. BURNS: The Secretary raised the issue of human rights, detentions of
people for expression of their political views, with Vice Premier and
Minister Qian Qichen. Assistant Secretary Winston Lord in other meetings
with Chinese leaders also raised specific cases. We normally do this at
meetings with the Chinese leadership.
QUESTION: Well, can you say whether either of these cases, you --
MR. BURNS: I can check and see if these specific individuals were raised
in particular.
QUESTION: Okay. And is their answer the stock answer that it's their
internal affair, and that human rights are just going swimmingly in
China?
MR. BURNS: I don't --
QUESTION: Which is what we heard in Amsterdam in a public news conference.
MR. BURNS: I would not venture to describe the Chinese position. I will
leave that to my counterpart in Beijing. But I think I've adequately
described and hopefully very forcefully described the very strong
opposition of the United States to these practices.
QUESTION: It's a very clear position. I don't think you need to tell them
that privately, but did the U.S. happen to tell the Chinese in any formal,
diplomatic way the sort of things you've told us?
MR. BURNS: Yes. Yes, we have.
QUESTION: Nick, is this of such concern to the U.S. Government that you
would ask Ambassador Lord who is in Seoul just a couple of inches away on
the map to go to Beijing and discuss this now, or perhaps this is of such
concern that it might impact the forthcoming visit of the Secretary?
MR. BURNS: First, I don't believe Assistant Secretary Lord has any plans
to travel to China. I believe he has plans to return to the United States
after his visit to Seoul.
Second, the Secretary's trip is going forward on November 21-22 to China.
We have a major, important, strategic relationship with China. We have a
number of differences with China. The best way to pursue those differences
and hopefully to have some ability to have an impact upon them is to meet
and talk. We've learned that, I think, both China and the United States.
It is a relationship that is second to none in its importance. We must
pursue it, and, when we get together, we talk about our agreements and our
disagreements, and these human rights issues are front and center in those
discussions.
QUESTION: Nick, while you talk about an inch -- while Charlie is raising
a point about an inch away on the map, if I'm not mistaken -- I may be --
it sounds like Ross' schedule has changed. A two-part question. It sounded
the other day like Ross was about --
MR. BURNS: How close is the Middle East to China? (Laughter)
QUESTION: You'll get the -- I'll make sense in a half a minute.
(Laughter) It sounded like yesterday like Ross -- well, some people think
that area is in Africa.
MR. BURNS: (Inaudible) Jerusalem and China -- we don't demarcate the
countries here, but I think that's several thousand miles.
QUESTION: A lot of us think those countries are in Africa.
MR. BURNS: Israel -- no. Israel is in the Middle East.
QUESTION: No, you don't think it is.
MR. BURNS: It's not an African country.
QUESTION: You think it's Middle East. You don't think Egypt is in
Africa.
MR. BURNS: Egypt is an African country.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BURNS: But Israel is --
QUESTION: But Taba is in Africa, isn't it?
MR. BURNS: Taba, yes.
QUESTION: Okay, so here's the point.
MR. BURNS: But Dennis Ross right now is in Jerusalem.
QUESTION: I know where Dennis is, but I know where the Secretary of State
is, and it sounded to me yesterday like Dennis was booking a --
MR. BURNS: The Secretary of State is right there.
QUESTION: I know where he is. It sounds to me like Dennis was booking a
flight home. Today it sounds like Dennis is going to hang around a little
bit longer -- maybe a lot longer -- and it struck me there are two
possibilities at least. One is that talks are going so well that Dennis'
efforts should be extended.
Another is when you refer to him reporting to the Secretary, wouldn't it be
fairly convenient that inch away for the Secretary to go there and get
Dennis' report.
MR. BURNS: On Sunday --
QUESTION: You're leaving that door open as the Secretary --
MR. BURNS: On Sunday, the Secretary is going to be down in --
QUESTION: I know, but he's trying for -- he's going for a new mileage
record, so --
MR. BURNS: -- southern Africa. He'll be in southern -- But he's got the
mileage record.
QUESTION: It's a chance -- yeah, but he's going --
MR. BURNS: He's the champion. He's the all-time champ. (Laughter)
QUESTION: But he's going for Shultz's record. He's going for Shultz's
record. He only has two more months, I mean.
MR. BURNS: Not Shultz's record. You know, this is the four-year record.
The four-year record is the big record to aspire to. All Secretaries of
State enter office thinking, That's the record, and the Secretary got
it.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: He's nearly 71 years old, and he runs in the morning, and he
plays tennis, and he's more active than anybody on his staff. He's doing a
great job.
QUESTION: He's in better shape than Bennett, I know.
MR. BURNS: He's in better shape than Bennett and better shape than --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) the food is what's happened.
MR. BURNS: Donilon. Better shape than Burns, any of us.
QUESTION: Well, Bennett's there, you know --
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any (inaudible).
QUESTION: Is Ross staying on longer than we were led to believe yesterday
and, if so, why? And, second, is there a chance that he will report to the
Secretary some place other than in Washington?
MR. BURNS: First question: Dennis, when he set out last Saturday, did not
know when he would be returning. He left that up in the air. He still
doesn't know when he'll be returning, but he certainly won't be there for
every day of the negotiations. He'll return at some point fairly soon, but
I don't know when that will be.
Second, I don't believe the Secretary has any plans after he visits South
Africa and Angola on Sunday and Monday to then return to the Middle East.
There are no plans. He expects to return to Washington next Monday evening,
October 14. He'll be here in the office on Tuesday, October 15.
QUESTION: Good day for a news conference here, but --
MR. BURNS: We'll see. Actually, we've got a couple of questions here.
We've got a couple of hands up.
QUESTION: There were a couple of contradictory reports about Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, and renewing -- according to The Washington Post, renewing
his term for a year or two. This is the story that came from John Goshko
from New York. And I read in the last 24 hours some stories that Mr.
Christopher is in Africa to look for a new candidate for the United Nations
to replace Mr. Ghali. Can you comment on these two --
MR. BURNS: One of the issues that the Secretary's been discussing in
Africa is the selection of the next UN Secretary General. We expect that
Secretary General Boutros-Ghali will leave office in December, and we
expect that some other person will take his place. As the Secretary said in
Mali the other day, we understand the sensitivity that Africans feel about
this. They'd like to have Africa retain the seat, and we're willing to
consider candidates from Africa.
I think this issue is being raised as the Secretary travels from Bamako to
Addis to Arusha to South Africa.
QUESTION: So he's interviewing candidates now?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any interviews that he's had, but it's being
discussed with various African officials.
QUESTION: On Colombia, a couple of questions. One, do you have any
reaction to the newspaper story that voices human rights groups' concerns
that U.S. aid to the Colombian military might produce more human rights
violations in that country? And, second, is there any reaction to the
Colombian Government's endorsement or recent endorsement to resumption of
extraditions between your two countries?
MR. BURNS: I think we've seen some recent positive actions by the
Colombian Government to fight narcotics. As you know, at the UNGA,
President Clinton announced that he'd notified Congress on September 14 of
his intent to direct two drawdowns of defense articles, services and
training for anti-narcotics assistance to a number of countries, including
Colombia.
Colombia will receive $40 million in defense drawdowns, including
helicopters, observation aircraft, flight support equipment, field
equipment, communications gear and river patrol boats. The equipment will
go to the Colombian military and the Colombian national police, elements
that have responsibility for counter-narcotics.
The Department of State and the Department of Defense have an existing
program in place. We review the use of this equipment. We review it
carefully. We are certainly encouraging the Colombian Government to do
whatever possible to interdict the production of drugs, narcotics, there
and their shipment outside of Colombia to the United States and other
countries.
QUESTION: The bit about resumption of extraditions, that you're
announcing, too?
MR. BURNS: Yes. This is positive, and it's the kind of thing that has to
be done to fight narcotics.
Judd.
QUESTION: Burma. This is a two-part question, Nick. Senator Helms has
said the Administration should impose sanctions on the Burmese or that the
Burmese have taken actions (inaudible). And, secondly, there are a number
of localities, one state, I believe, and a couple of cities, that have
begun the process of banning business dealings with companies that trade
with Burma, etc., selective purchasing orders. Does this hinder State
Department diplomacy, or is this something you favor?
MR. BURNS: On the first question, the recent legislation passed by the
Congress gives the Administration a lot of flexibility to determine when
various sanctions should be applied, should that be necessary. The
President took the step last week to deny members of the ruling military
dictatorship to travel to the United States -- members of their families
that travel to the United States.
We are watching the situation closely, and it is an open option for us
whether or not to apply additional sanctions, but no decisions have been
made on that.
As to your final question, I'm just simply not up to speed. I know that
there are some towns in Massachusetts that have undertaken their own
unilateral municipal measures to ban their companies from trading.
We in Washington in the federal government should never, ever be in the
position to discourage local and municipal governments from exercising
their political rights, from saying what they want to say, from passing
decrees that they want to pass.
Having said that, to be effective internationally, the United States for
the most part should act as one voice and have one major decision-making
locus, and that is the federal government. But I'm speaking very generally,
not with any benefit of intimate knowledge of these local municipalities'
plans.
QUESTION: Nick, the UN issued a report in the last couple of days, saying
that poppy production in the Afghanistan province of Helmand has increased
and comprises 80 percent of the poppy production in all Afghanistan. Now,
this particular province has been under the control of the Taliban for
about one year. I was wondering, is that of concern for the U.S. Government,
and has this problem been raised in our contacts with the Taliban to try
and stop the production of heroin?
MR. BURNS: Yes and yes. We're concerned, and we have raised this
particular issue with the Taliban. We've told them in addition to human
rights and the treatment of women, the narcotics problem, which is so
critical in Afghanistan, it's going to be an important factor in whatever
relationship we develop with the Taliban. Yes, it's an important issue.
QUESTION: Second, there are also reports that in Jalalabad, Osama bin
Laden, who has been connected to a variety of terrorist operations, is
there now. I think the U.S. earlier, when there were rumors that he was in
Sudan, had expressed concern that Sudan was becoming a free haven for
terrorism. Now he's said to be in Afghanistan. Is there also concern here,
and have we also broached the question with the Taliban?
MR. BURNS: Yes, we're concerned about him personally and his activities,
and we have noted that in our discussion not only with the Taliban but with
other factions in Afghanistan.
QUESTION: And also in conjunction over other terrorist groups around the
world, including the Middle East -- Hamas and the Islamic Jihad and
Hizbollah and others -- is there an attempt by the United States to put a --
like all-points bulletin, whatever it is, to corner him, arrest him,
because he's one of the biggest masterminds of terrorism in the world.
MR. BURNS: We are working with governments all over the world to try to
deter people from funding or directing the operations of terrorist groups,
and I think you know who some of those people are, and we do, too.
QUESTION: Nick, two quick questions. Economic summit in Egypt still on
track November 14?
MR. BURNS: Yes, it is. November 12. The Secretary is planning to
attend.
QUESTION: Secondly, the Marwani Mosque in Solomon's Stables, that is
considered to be by Hussein under his jurisdiction under the Israel-Jordan
peace treaty. Has the United States cautioned both parties to be careful
before they cause a second outbreak?
MR. BURNS: Barry asked this question previously -- earlier in this
briefing -- and I answered the question. I'd be glad to go into it with
you.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: No, but the general question.
QUESTION: Well, the general question, but, I mean, that opens a whole
area that you don't --
MR. BURNS: We could go on forever this afternoon on this. Would you like
me to --
QUESTION: Well, I mean --
MR. BURNS: -- consider another aspect of this that I haven't covered in
the past?
QUESTION: Well, really, there's a basic question here, whether, you know,
the control of the administration of holy sites is up for grabs, in the
U.S. view, under Oslo, or certain things have been resolved, and the U.S.
prefers them remaining status quo.
MR. BURNS: These issues are worked out by local officials -- by the local
Jewish and Moslem officials, and the Government of Jordan has a relationship
with the Moslem officials, and it's not up to me to describe that
relationship. But there is a very clear line of demarcation on most of
these issues over who has control of what territory.
When that's not clear, the Israelis and Palestinians and others have a
venue to discuss that.
QUESTION: Speaking of that issue --
MR. BURNS: Okay, very quickly, because we really have to move.
QUESTION: Following criticism by King Hussein, Mr. Netanyahu had some
kind of an interactive television interview with Moslem leaders, I believe
Moslem journalists, to build, I take, trust and credibility, Nick. Is this
a just and, how do you say, effective thing that the United States would
support or does support?
MR. BURNS: I'm just not aware of the interview you're talking about, but
you know what we support: peace, reconciliation, negotiations. Thank
you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:24 p.m.)
(###)
|
