U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #203, 96-12-17
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
926
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
Tuesday, December 17, 1996
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
I N D E X
DEPARTMENT
1 Welcome to Catherine Quinones
3 Dedication of the Main Exhibit
3 UN Declaration Against Corruption and Bribery
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
2-10, Update on Hebron Talks; Subsidies for Settlements; U.S. Policy
13-14 Towards the Legality of Settlements; U.S. Views on the Status
of Jerualem; Deductions of Loan Guarantees; Other Hebron Issues
NORTH KOREA
10-12 Four Party Talks and Aid to North Korea
12-13 Update on the Submarine Issue
TURKEY
14 Greek Prime Minister's Views on Turkey and the EU
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
14 Minister Dini's Meeting with Secretary Christopher
15 OSCE Delegation to Belgrade to Monitor Municipal Elections
RUSSIA
15-16 Six ICRC Workers Murdered
CHINA
16-17 Li Hyong Chol Meeting with Secretary Christopher
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #203
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996, 1:01 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good morning. Good afternoon. Welcome to the State
Department briefing. I want to introduce to you Catherine Quinones, who's
an intern from Stanford University. She is a history major, and she is a
movie reviewer for the Stanford Daily.
So we've given her her first assignment. She has to go see "The English
Patient" this weekend and come to the briefing on Monday and - see, it's a
wonderful movie.
OUESTION: It's depressing.
MR. BURNS: It's a very good movie, Barry. (Laughter)
I think it's the best movie in the last 20 years.
OUESTION: Does she personally know George Shultz?
MR. BURNS: George Shultz. Well, you can ask her. Do you know George
Shultz?
OUESTION: No, I don't.
OUESTION: He's a nice man.
MR. BURNS: But what was George Shultz's view on settlements-that's the
question. Thank you, Catherine. Nice to have you with us.
OUESTION: There's a piece in The New York Times today, the C Section, on
the real Count Almasy by the way.
MR. BURNS: Oh, yes, I've seen that.
OUESTION: He was not a nice guy.
OUESTION: He's not a nice guy at all.
MR. BURNS: It's still a good movie.
OUESTION: The real Count Almasy.
OUESTION: He was a real English -
MR. BURNS: It's still a good movie. I have to hurry up through this
briefing, because I understand Roger Clemens has a press conference that
he's going to have in Houston.
OUESTION: Mo Vaughn.
MR. BURNS: Mo Vaughn said that Roger Clemens does not speak for him. Mo
Vaughn is loyal to the Boston Red Sox. Not like that traitor, the Benedict
Arnold of our times, Roger Clemens.
OUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Barry, we can talk further about that if you'd like. Roger
Clemens does not speak French, so I don't think he speaks any known
language actually.
OUESTION: Greenwell signed with Japan.
MR. BURNS: It's okay if Greenwell signed with Japan. He's a bum,
too.
OUESTION: (Laughter)
MR. BURNS: They're a bunch of bums, Barry. We don't need them. We'll
win the pennant without them.
OUESTION: Do you know how much money Clemens is making?
MR. BURNS: The Red Sox paid Roger Clemens over the last ten years enough
money so he can retire and buy an island in the Caribbean, if he wants to.
He doesn't need the measly $4-$5 million that the Blue Jays -
OUESTION: The Secretary this morning made the statement -
MR. BURNS: The Secretary has given me wide berth here on baseball
matters, and he understands that from time to time - you know, when you're
pressuring me for comments, that I've got to put the State Department on
record, which is what I did yesterday. The Secretary has always backed me
up on baseball matters. I never criticize the Los Angeles Dodgers. As
long as I keep away from the Dodgers, I'm okay.
OUESTION: But it's okay to say the Israelis -
MR. BURNS: The Israelis did not sign Roger Clemens, so we don't have to
talk about this. But if the Yankees had signed, it would have been a
greater crisis for us all. All right, we've gotten that off our chest.
Let me just recommend to you an event at 4:30 p.m. this afternoon.
It's open press. The State Department has never had an exhibit on American
diplomatic history in our 200-year long history. Well, we are building one
right now, and, if you go down to the Exhibit Hall after the briefing,
you'll see that most of it's put together. Secretary Christopher is going
to come down. We have several hundred invited guests. In fact, a lot of
former ambassadors, a lot of former assistant secretaries and under
secretaries of state are coming back for this event. He's going to
inaugurate it, cut the ribbon. He's going to make some remarks about the
value of diplomacy, about diplomatic readiness, about what the Congress
should do to give the State Department greater resources to do its job in
the future - remarks that are familiar to you from his West Point speech
but an issue that he feels quite strongly about.
So we really want to invite all of you to come. It's going to be a very
nice event, and you'll get to see 17 panels on our diplomatic history from
Thomas Jefferson to Warren Christopher; also some cases that take on
special issues like the Dayton peace accords, the modern Foreign and Civil
Service; the role of Diplomatic Security and Consular Affairs. It's
actually quite interesting, and we uncovered a lot of interesting
historical artifacts all around this building in putting this together. So
I really encourage you to come down.
I just have one more thing, and that is that we're issuing a statement
today. You'll find it in the Press Room after the briefing. The United
States applauds the adoption yesterday by the United Nations General
Assembly of the U.N. Declaration against corruption and bribery in
international commercial transactions. We believe this is a significant
step in the global effort against commercial bribery and a clear call for
action by national governments to eradicate this practice.
As you know, President Clinton began to speak out about this issue in 1993,
and this Administration has made this a major issue in multilateral
gatherings, and we're very pleased that the United Nations General Assembly
has decided to take this action. It's a rather long statement, and I've
just given you the first part of it, but I commend it to you.
Barry.
OUESTION: We'll make a deal with you. We'll go to the exhibit if you'll
tell us - this is called bribery - if you'll tell us why suddenly out of
the blue after almost daily telling us without any specifics that the
negotiators on Hebron were making progress did the Secretary and you decide
today to register your - I think you said you were very disappointed. Can
you be a little more specific what caused this? Is it the passage of time
or -
MR. BURNS: Just the brilliance of the questions that were put against
us.
OUESTION: How's it going in Hebron, you mean? (Laughter)
MR. BURNS: I couldn't find a way to get around the question.
I think Judd - maybe it was Sid that asked me. Actually, as we look back
on it, we believed the elements of a Hebron deal were quite apparent in
late September or early October and should have been put together. We've
been working with the Israelis and Palestinians on this, and we'll continue
to work with them.
It is not unreasonable for the United States and other countries to be
disappointed that this agreement, which is fairly straightforward, should
not have been put together by now. We are asking the Israelis and
Palestinians to put their shoulders to the wheel to get the deal done. This
is a time of great tension in the Middle East.
You don't want to wait forever to negotiate a deal when that deal is in
front of you.
By the way, I should say, Barry, that these comments are directed not at a
particular negotiator. They're directed at both. They bear equal
responsibility for these negotiations.
OUESTION: Will the - well, first of all, we're aware of some sticking
points. Would you care to identify them, or would you like us to ask you
questions about whether they're resolved or not?
MR. BURNS: It's not my practice to identify the particular sticking
points in the negotiations.
OUESTION: All right. Then how about this proposition?
The United States has weighed in now with an opinion - you might even call
it pressure - on the settlements issue. Is the U.S. prepared to weigh in
on one side or another, specifically on one side or another, to get the
Hebron deal completed?
MR. BURNS: We are willing to use our influence with both of them to get
the Hebron deal completed. We have on the ground two American diplomats
who are involved in the negotiations - Ambassador Martin Indyk and Consul
General Ed Abington. We have here Secretary Christopher and Dennis Ross -
all four very much involved, and we'll stay involved. But it's not a
question of the United States putting pressure on Israel or putting
pressure on the Palestinians. We're really encouraging both of them to
make progress, understanding that in the final stages of a negotiation, you
do get down to these tough issues, and you need to encourage both to
compromise in order to get the final result.
OUESTION: No, but if the issue is, for instance, how heavily armed police
should be, or is there a right of hot pursuit by the Israeli troops,
possibly phrased with different words to make it less offensive, I guess,
to the Palestinians - has the State Department until now or will the State
Department say, "We think that's a good idea, we think that's a bad
idea"?
MR. BURNS: Without commenting specifically on those issues, Barry, yes,
we have views. We have views. We make our views known privately, and we
offer suggestions. We offer ways to get around a problem in the negotiations
or to slice through a problem, to resolve a problem. We're an active
intermediary.
We're not passive.
OUESTION: Nick, yesterday at his news conference, the President was asked
if the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are an obstacle to
peace. He answered, "Absolutely."
Does that mean, then, that this phrase, "obstacle to peace," now becomes
what was called the other day "the mantra" by the State Department on
settlements?
MR. BURNS: The President obviously spoke very clearly on this issue
yesterday, and I can't improve upon the President's remarks except to say
that I think he answered two questions, I believe, on this issue. In the
first question, he went into some detail about the real nature of the
problem of announcing new subsidies for existing settlements, and the
nature, as the President said, is the following: that when two countries
are in a negotiation and when they've already decided that a certain highly
emotional and highly problematic issue will be decided in the next stage of
the negotiations -- i.e., the final status talks - that it doesn't make
sense and is not helpful for one party to the negotiations to take pre-
emptive steps on that issue.
That's what the State Department said Friday. That's what we said
yesterday, and that's what the President said yesterday.
So we've been very clear and consistent about this since the announcement
by the Israeli cabinet on Friday of this new decision to subsidize the
existing settlements, and the President's remarks obviously speak for
themselves.
OUESTION: My question, however, went specifically to that phrase. Is
that now embedded in U.S. policy that the Jewish settlements in the
occupied territories are "an obstacle to peace"?
MR. BURNS: I think, Jim, I'd prefer to say that our policy is clear to
the Israelis as well as clear to the Palestinians on this issue. The words,
I know, sometimes take on larger meanings.
I know there are comparative analyses of what did the Carter Administration
say versus Baker versus Clinton and Christopher.
I think our President made himself very clear. He chose the words he
wanted to use, and he answered the questions the way he wanted to answer
them.
OUESTION: One other question about the statement of U.S. policy, which,
as you say, sometimes has great weight. Are the Jewish settlements illegal
under international law?
MR. BURNS: I think one thing that has changed -- I saw The Washington
Post this morning do this comparison. The Carter Administration says one
thing; the Reagan Administration says this. Bush, Clinton. What has
changed and what does distinguish this Administration's public comments
versus all of our predecessors is the following: there is an Israeli/Palestinian
understanding of 1993 and 1995, and the second understanding talks about
this issue being discussed in the final status talks.
That has led us to the conclusion that we're going to reserve most of our
comments on this particular issue, as well as the status of Jerusalem and
the other really difficult issues to our private conversations with the
Israelis and Palestinians. We don't attach as much meaning, perhaps as
you do, to branding it illegal or complicating or unhelpful or an obstacle
to peace.
That's why we prefer not to say very much, because we think that our role
as intermediary is going to be enhanced if we restrain ourselves publicly
and if we leave our clear advice and our frank views to private discussion.
So it's a very polite way and perhaps not a very satisfactory way in your
view of not wanting to answer the question.
OUESTION: But there is a difference between unhelpful and an obstacle,
isn't there?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
OUESTION: There is a difference between saying settlements are not
helpful and they are an obstacle.
MR. BURNS: You heard President Clinton yesterday. He answered the
questions that were posed to him in a very clear way, and I think the
message was sent and the message was felt, and it's hard for someone as
lowly as myself to improve upon the President of the United States.
OUESTION: We just need to know that when you say our views are well known,
what they are?
MR. BURNS: Our views are well known. Look at what the President of the
United States is saying and go from there.
OUESTION: Nick, the judgments by the Carter Administration that
settlements were illegal was based on their reading of international law.
That law isn't changed one way or another by interim agreements to take up
certain issues at a future time. So if you don't want to say whether the
Administration has fallen all the way back to the hardest line of any
Administration, which was the Carter Administration, that's your prerogative.
But it isn't the change in circumstance that determines the legality of the
settlements.
They're either legal, because occupying forces are entitled to move in
civilians, or they are illegal because they change the configuration
illegally under international law.
So you want to beg Jim's question, that's your prerogative, but the
international law has not changed.
MR. BURNS: Good point, Barry, but let me just say this.
My inclination in answering the question goes along the following lines:
what has changed are the circumstances. And what has been very clear since
the late 70s is that this is one of the major issues of dispute between the
Israelis and the Palestinians - and all sorts of charges have been traded
about this issue.
What changed was they decided to stop arguing in public and to start
negotiating in private in the final status talks. Because that's where
they are, they have decided they're going to sort this out privately. We
think it's best for us not to have a high profile public statement on this
every day, because we want to be helpful to them, and we want to improve
our ability to be effective.
That's why I'm choosing to respond the way I am.
OUESTION: Nick, David Bar Illan - I believe he's one of the Prime
Minister's spokesmen and advisers - just before the briefing began -
dismissed all this mincing of words on what settlements are or are not, as
described by the United States. He called it "semantic posturing." Is it
just semantic posturing, or is there something - is there a deeper move in
this Administration to pressure Israel towards concessions to the
Palestinians?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe that's a polite way to refer to the words of
the President of the United States who, after all, is a very, very clear
supporter of the State of Israel and has followed, since he came into
office, a policy of support for Israel's defense needs, support for the
security of Israel, real friendship for Israel in a thousand different
ways. So when the President of the United States speaks, we very
respectfully would hope that other friendly governments would listen with
respect.
Should we have disagreements, which is normal in any relationship - we have
disagreements with the French. We sometimes have disagreements with
Israel. When we have them, let's reserve those disagreements for private
conversations and let's continue to have a respectful public dialogue.
OUESTION: Leaving aside for a moment the propriety of such a comment,
history would show that when Israel is backed into a corner, as they appear
to be now, that bad things happen.
Are you not concerned about that in your escalation of words towards what
they're doing?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe that Israel is backed in a corner. Israel is
the strongest country in the Middle East.
Israel's security is assured, and the United States has a profound
attachment to the security of the Israeli people, and that is clear.
Israel and the Palestinians together face this historic challenge - to
build a peace between the Palestinians and Israeli peoples. They've made
tremendous progress. Our view is, they should continue on that road. They
should not deviate from it; they should not fall off the commitments of
1993 and 1995. That is a message for both of them, not for one of them,
but for both of them, in general.
OUESTION: Is there any diminution of the United States security
commitment to Israel?
MR. BURNS: No. None whatsoever. Our policy towards Israel is clear and
hasn't changed.
OUESTION: Nick, does the U.S. Government believe that it can be possible?
And how so can it be possible with Israeli settlement announcements, on the
one hand, and on the other hand, the Palestinians, Mr. Arafat, allowing
Hamas to demonstrate and rail against Israel as they have in the past? How
can there be trust? How can there be goodwill for an agreement in
Hebron?
MR. BURNS: Bill, they've already made tremendous progress over the last
four years. Surely, they can go the rest of the way on Hebron. Yes, we
believe a deal is possible; very possible.
The Prime Minister of Israel said this morning, he thinks a deal is just a
few days away. Let's hope so. We don't know how far away it is. We think
it's rather disappointing that they haven't got a deal yet. So we
encourage them to make progress quickly.
OUESTION: Can you comment on Yasser Arafat allowing Hamas to have a
demonstration on the West Bank?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if that was, in fact, the case.
All I know is this: we believe it's important for both Israel and the
Palestinians to do and say things that move the situation forward towards
peace and not away from it; away from confrontation and towards compromise
and cooperation.
OUESTION: Nick, the President and the Secretary of State are both
lawyers. Can you find, or can someone help you find, anything in the
Interim Agreement that prohibits Israel from granting tax benefits to
people who live on the West Bank?
MR. BURNS: You know, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not inclined to perhaps look
for that myself. All I can say is that the President and Secretary of
State have enunciated U.S. policy and U.S. reaction to these events as have
I. Our position is quite clear.
It gets to the psychology of the negotiating process.
It gets to the sense of trust and commitment in the negotiating process.
That's what is important here. Both sides are responsible for that. Not
just Israel but the Palestinians as well.
OUESTION: All right, if you have no legal backing and it's more spiritual,
in a sense of trust, would you apply the same -
MR. BURNS: Barry, let me be clear about what I'm saying?
OUESTION: Doesn't that fairly summarize what you're saying?
MR. BURNS: A little bit. Let me just be clear about what I'm saying.
That is certainly part of the problem here.
I just said that I wasn't willing to look into the legal part of it. I
don't have a text of the Interim Agreement in front of me, and I'm not a
lawyer. But I'm quite willing to talk to the heart of the problem which
was implicit in all of our remarks over the last couple of days.
OUESTION: Dennis Ross pretty much struck that point -- the sense of trust,
the sense of commitment, which he thinks, he said yesterday, is demonstrated
by taking hard decisions and keeping to them. So you're talking about a
sense of trust.
Jerusalem also was -
MR. BURNS: And commitments.
OUESTION: And commitments. Jerusalem also was designated as a final
status issue. Is it the Administration's position that nothing should be
done in Jerusalem? Neighborhoods shouldn't be changed, streets, people
moving from one area to another? The tourist tunnel was open. Are all
those things in violation of the commitment of the Interim Agreement?
MR. BURNS: I can't comment on all those issues, specifically, Barry.
We'd be here all day if I chose to do that. But, in general, I can -
OUESTION: But in time, will they settle it?
MR. BURNS: I can respond to you in general. And that is to say that we
do have views on a variety of issues - these tough issues - but we're going
to reserve them for our private conversations. The United States is not
going to make itself publicly part of this debate between the Israelis and
Palestinians.
We're not going to begin to take sides on every issue.
We have commented on several issues: Settlements issue - right? We've
commented on the demonstrations when they occurred in September. But we've
chosen not to comment on the full range of issues in front of the
negotiators because that diminishes our ability to be effective. I
respectfully just don't want to go into analyzing each and every -
OUESTION: I'm just giving you some examples that you could play off if
you wanted to. Israel's settlement policy, even though it hasn't begun any
new settlements and kept that promise, is in conflict with the commitment
made to the Palestinians in the Interim Agreement, is what I understand the
Administration's position to be. Has Israel done anything in Jerusalem
that, similarly, is a break of a commitment, of a pledge, of a trust?
MR. BURNS: I don't have a catalogue of recent Israeli actions in
Jerusalem in my head, and so I don't wish to make a comment on that, except
to say that when there are problems on any of these issues, we do talk
about them. But our best way to do that is privately, not publicly.
OUESTION: Well, you went public yesterday. That's why we're asking
today.
MR. BURNS: We choose to do so from time to time when we feel it's
important.
OUESTION: That's why we're asking today.
OUESTION: Nick, yesterday - I believe it was Jim who asked whether the
new announcement on settlements and tax breaks and so forth would trigger
the legislation and calls for reduction in loan guarantees. Is that
something you can deal with today?
MR. BURNS: I'd rather try to get you a written response to that, Sid.
It's a very involved program. But as you know, deductions are calculated
at the end of the fiscal year. I believe it was in the last couple of days
in September of this year when we informed you that $60 million-odd dollars
--roughly, $60 million; I think it was slightly more than that - was
deducted from the amount of loan guarantees for actions over the past
year.
But the loan guarantee program, I think, is going to end in Fiscal Year
1997. So therefore it's very difficult for me to say whether there will be
new deductions because we've already made deductions in September, and
deductions are always made looking ahead 12 months. It's very complicated
legal issue.
I've just given you a general sense of it. What I'd like to do is get our
lawyers to give you a considered response here because it is so involved,
and it does pertain a matter of law.
OUESTION: (Inaudible).
OUESTION: Just for the record -
MR. BURNS: Pardon?
OUESTION: The law (inaudible) -
MR. BURNS: If the loan guarantee program ends, then there's no longer a
question of deductions.
OUESTION: There's no longer a mechanism to discourage settlements;
right?
MR. BURNS: There are a variety of ways to exercise influence and to
exercise one's point of view; not just through this particular program. The
purpose of this program is not to exercise punishment.
The purpose of the program is to help the Israeli Government - mainly in
Israel; solely in Israel - construct housing for its population.
OUESTION: Just for the record, in the last fiscal year, the amount
determined to have been spent on Israeli settlements was $307 million. Of
that, all but $60 million was wiped off the books. The same thing happened
in the previous fiscal year.
I think the figure then was $245 million. All but $60 million was wiped
off the books. Does this, in retrospect, do you think, send a message to
the Israelis or to the Palestinians about how serious the United States
takes this issue?
MR. BURNS: I think they know from the remarks that the President and
Secretary of State that we do take this issue very seriously, first.
Second, we apply the law as it is written, and we have a responsibility
legally to do that. We are faithful to all aspects of this law, Jim.
OUESTION: On North Korea. Could you describe this package that the
United States, South Korea, and North Korea, and perhaps China, that you
all have been working on this last week or so that apparently have elements
involving renewed aid to - more aid to North Korea, convening of the Four
Party Talks and an apology from North Korea to South Korea for this
submarine infiltration?
MR. BURNS: No, I cannot. All I can do is tell you that we've having
meetings with the North Koreans. There was a working level meeting in New
York yesterday. There's another meeting today.
Mr. Li Hyong Chol, the senior diplomat from the North Korean Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, is still in New York and he's participating in these
meetings.
We're talking to them, as you know, about our agenda.
Our agenda involves the submarine incident. As Secretary Christopher told
you just a couple of hours ago, we continue to believe that the North
Koreans need to offer some type of gesture to the Republic of Korea - South
Korea - for this flagrant violation of South Korea's sovereignty. We're
talking about the continuation of the Agreed Framework in all of its
permutations and about the commitments that need to be made by everybody
involved to keep that going. We're talking about the Four Party talks
proposal, which we hope will lead to a new peace agreement for the Korean
Peninsula. There are a variety of bilateral issues.
We talk about all these issues all the time. I personally am not aware of
any package being put together. I know the story you're referring to. It
was a very interesting story in U.S. Today, but I'm personally not aware of
that kind of package.
OUESTION: If the United States and North Korea and South Korea are able
to get past this issue of a gesture, if they do actually come forward -
MR. BURNS: It's a very important issue for the Republic of Korea, and we
support the Republic of Korea in its request that some type of gesture be
made.
OUESTION: If it is made, is there a possibility of renewed food -
humanitarian assistance for North Korea? Is that something that might flow
from that?
MR. BURNS: We've always said on that issue, understanding the very
severe situation in North Korea, that we'll take our cue from the United
Nations - the World Food Program and the other United Nations agencies that
have experience in North Korea. We have responded twice to U.N. appeals for
food aid.
I'm not aware of any impending or imminent announcement about additional
food aid, but we'll always agree to look at any request. It's a serious
request.
OUESTION: The pace of these talks with the North Koreans in New York has
picked up, obviously - twice this week.
MR. BURNS: We have this gentleman here, Mr. Li Hyong Chol, who is the
Director of American Affairs in the North Korean Ministry in Pyongyang.
He's a senior official. He is an interlocutor who brings a lot to the
table. Our Korean Desk Director, Mark Minton, and he have these discussions,
and we find them to be useful discussions.
OUESTION: Nick, even though you're not aware of any pending U.N. appeals
concerning food aid or food needs in North Korea, the subject of possible
U.S. food assistance is being discussed in New York; is that right?
MR. BURNS: Oh, I don't know if it's being discussed specifically. I
don't know if it's being discussed specifically.
All I know is that we've said since the last tranche of U.S. aid was
delivered that we are open at any point in the future to further requests
from the U.N. I'm not aware that the World Food Program has gone public
with any kind of request. It's an issue, George, but I don't want to lead
you to believe it's the first issue on our agenda. I think the others that
I mentioned are probably discussed far more frequently.
OUESTION: Any chance Mr. Li will come down to Washington and have an
announcement -
MR. BURNS: I don't believe there's any idea that he would come to
Washington. I think he's in New York and we're very comfortable meeting
him in New York. We don't have meetings in Washington, as you know. We
don't have a North Korean mission.
We don't have a U.S. Mission in Pyongyang. New York is a convenient
meeting place.
OUESTION: So once you have agreement with North Korea, and North Korea
agrees to express some kind of (inaudible) on issues, do you expect North
Korea to have an announcement in New York?
MR. BURNS: Oh, I just don't know where the announcements would be. It's
up to them, really. If there's any agreement reached by the United States
with North Korea, we would, of course, work very closely with the Republic
of Korea - our ally - as we always do on these affairs. Where we announce
it is simply a function of where we are at the time and, I suppose, where
they are.
OUESTION: Would there be an announcement given the North Koreans' feeling
about publicity?
MR. BURNS: We're pretty open here at the State Department.
If you ask questions and we have some kind of agreement in the future on
any of these issues, I'm sure I'll be glad to tell you about it. So if
they're not going to be open, we'll be open.
Yes, Betsy.
OUESTION: Is the U.S. telling them that there needs to be some kind of
apology for the sub incident before the U.S. is willing to go forward or
that it is part of any kind of a package which may be - I mean, you're
saying that it's something that we would like to see them do. Are we
telling them that it is something they must do?
MR. BURNS: It's a very important issue. It's one of these issues that
really has to be resolved. We've used the word "gesture." The North
Koreans need to decide how they can appropriately atone for the egregious
violation of South Korea's sovereignty. We hope that they will take such
action expeditiously.
It's very important. It's a very important issue politically in Seoul but
also an important issue for the population in the country.
There's been a major violation, and very dramatic, of a sovereignty of an
ally of the United States. So we support South Korea in this request for a
gesture. Let's leave it up to the North Koreans to define exactly what
that will be. I think they know what the threshold is here. They know
what they've got to do, and we're waiting for them to take that step.
OUESTION: And we are saying, they must take a step?
MR. BURNS: Oh, they must. It's very clear. They must take this
step.
OUESTION: How long will it take this meeting to go?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
OUESTION: How long will it take this meeting?
MR. BURNS: How long will the meeting go?
OUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: We'll continue to talk to Mr. Li Hyong Chol as long as it's
useful for us to do so. I don't know what his travel plans are. He
probably enjoys being in New York more than Pyongyang. It's a good place
for him to be.
OUESTION: Nick, could I go back just for a moment to the Middle East.
This morning the Secretary said -- in talking about the negotiations -- he
said ,"Hebron and other interim issues." What are the other issues?
MR. BURNS: There's the redeployment issue - the redeployment of the IDF
from Hebron. There are some associated technical issues.
Some of them have not been included in the formal discussions on Hebron and
are being dealt with off-line. I can't enumerate for you. But I remember,
after the President's summit here in late September, there were a variety
of other issues.
Yes, Demitri.
OUESTION: Nick, I have a question regarding a statement by the Foreign
Minister of Turkey, Mrs. Ciller. Mrs. Ciller, upon her return from the
European Union meeting in Dublin, said that Greece is right to fear from
Turkey's military might; and if the hand that Turkey has peacefully
extended is rejected and Turkey be left out of Europe, there should be a
real reason for Greece to be afraid.
Since the United States is a close friend and ally of both countries -
Turkey and Greece - does the U.S. think that these kinds of statements are
helpful for reducing the tensions in the region? Also, do you think this
kind of attitude by Mrs. Ciller in Turkey, is helpful for Turkey's
integration into Europe?
MR. BURNS: There are a couple of different issues here.
First, the United States expects that all of our NATO allies, including
Greece and Turkey, will work with each other cooperatively, without any
kind of threat of the use of force. That's a basic principle among allies.
I think all NATO allies would agree with us on that characterization of
that issue.
Second, we very much support Turkey's inclusion in European institutions
and have made that clear with the European Union as well as with other
European countries bilaterally and will continue to do so.
Third, I've not seen Mrs. Ciller's statement, so I don't wish to comment on
it publicly without seeing it first. But I think my first answer probably
gives you a way to report back to the Greek readers about our general
attitude on these issues.
OUESTION: In principle, does the U.S. support those kinds of statements
between allies?
MR. BURNS: I said in the beginning, we never support and would never
countenance any kind of threats among allies, or, in this case, between two
allies. I just don't know what else Mrs. Ciller's said. I don't know if
she's being quoted accurately.
We have to be fair to her. But I think, in general, no, we don't support
any kind of threats by one NATO ally against another.
NATO is a collective defense organization to preserve the collective
security of all. It is not an organization where members have ever fought
each other or should fight each other, and we don't believe that's going to
be the case. We believe that Greece and Turkey will be able to resolve
their problems.
OUESTION: Serbia?
MR. BURNS: Serbia, yes. We have to go to Serbia.
OUESTION: About one hour ago I saw Minister Dini, Foreign Minister of
Italia, leaving the building. Do you have anything about his meeting with
Secretary Christopher, especially?
MR. BURNS: No, that meeting, unfortunately - I was not able to attend it
because I had to prepare for this briefing.
I think Serbia was going to be a principal issue on the agenda, because
Minister Dini just came from Belgrade in his talks with Milosevic and with
the opposition. I can perhaps get you a report further in the day, but I
know Secretary Christopher expected the discussion on Serbia to be quite
supportive, because we think Italy and the United States have pretty much
the same view.
What I can tell you is that the United States is very pleased that the
former Spanish Prime Minister, Felipe Gonzalez, has accepted the appointment
to lead the special OSCE delegation.
We're very pleased that the OSCE acted so quickly, just in four days, to
form the delegation, to attract a very well-respected and high-level
European politician to lead the delegation. He has the full support of the
United States, and we understand that that delegation will be departing for
Belgrade shortly. That's very positive.
We hope that the OSCE delegation can engage in the following.
We hope that it can work with the Belgrade Government to make sure that all
the votes that were put in ballot boxes on November 17 be counted fairly;
that in 15 of the 18 mayoralty races, that there is an opportunity now for
the Serbian authorities to agree to go back and recount; and if the results
of the elections are as we expect - that the opposition won those elections
- those results should stand and the opposition should take office in those
municipalities.
So we have a very strong hope that the Serbian Government will respond to
the OSCE delegation. As you know, we have some skepticism about President
Milosevic's commitment to the OSCE, and in general we have a lot of
skepticism about his inclination to deal with this issue fairly. We do put
a lot of faith in the OSCE.
Mr. Milosevic met today with some student demonstrators in his office, and
apparently he told the demonstrators that anybody who has broken the law -
i.e., these election officials who stole the elections - they will be
punished. Well, let's see. We would like to see that happen. We would
like to see the people who have broken the law be punished for that, but we
have some skepticism that that will in fact take place.
So we're watching the situation carefully. As you know, John Kornblum, our
Assistant Secretary of State, met in Geneva at his invitation with Vuk
Draskovic and other leaders of the Together Coalition on Sunday. That was
an excellent two-hour meeting, and we believe the opposition continues to
have the right to demonstrate in the streets - they're demonstrating
peacefully - to speak out, and we certainly would encourage the Serbian
Government to open up a formal dialogue with the opposition.
OUESTION: Nick, in spite of President Milosevic's comments indicating it
might have been his underlings who miscounted the votes somehow, do you
have any doubt that the decision to overturn the elections came right from
Milosevic himself?
MR. BURNS: Very little doubt. That's why it's so important for Mr.
Milosevic to act in a just and fair way towards his own population, and
that's why you've seen such strong statements from the United States on
this.
OUESTION: Nick, on another subject. I'm sure you've seen the reports of
six medical workers being killed in Chechnya.
Do you have any insights, or have you talked to anybody in Russia, for
example, who might have any insights as to who did this?
MR. BURNS: We do not, but we are very, very disturbed about the reports
that six medical workers from the International Committee of the Red Cross
were killed in their sleep. They were from Norway, the Netherlands, Canada,
New Zealand and Spain. They were there doing international humanitarian
work. We don't know who committed this act. It's a barbaric act, and we
are condemning it in the strongest possible terms.
We call upon the Chechen authorities - this took place 11 kilometers
outside of Grozny - the Chechen authorities to do everything they can to
track down the murderers. We have great sympathy, obviously, for the
ICRC's inclination to suspend its operations in Chechnya. It's quite
understandable. You cannot have an international relief organization work
in these conditions, where people who are there objectively to help both
sides are gunned down in a most cruel and merciless fashion.
We will continue to support the ICRC, and, of course, whatever we can do to
help in this matter, we will do.
OUESTION: Nick, do you have anything, Mr. Li Huaqui of PRC? He's meeting
with Secretary Christopher.
MR. BURNS: Li Huaqui. Yes. He's meeting this afternoon, I believe, at
3:30, 3:45 with Secretary Christopher. We will not have press coverage of
that. If you're interested, I can get you a readout of that meeting. If
you come to the inauguration of the Diplomatic History Exhibit, then we'll
give the readout the press. If you don't come, then you'll miss the big
scoop about U.S.-China relations.
OUESTION: (Inaudible) linkage?
MR. BURNS: That's just the way it is - yes, linkage.
Kissinger did it. We can do it, right?
OUESTION: (Inaudible) will participate in the meeting?
MR. BURNS: Secretary of State Christopher and Under Secretary Tarnoff,
and I don't know if Ambassador Lord is here.
If he's not, I'm sure Jeff Bader, our Director of Chinese Affairs, will be
among the people participating for the U.S.
OUESTION: The issues?
MR. BURNS: He's here at the invitation of National Security Adviser Tony
Lake for a couple of days of discussions, and he's got a very strong
position as Minister of State. I think we'll deal with the major issues on
our agenda, which are quite, I think, transparent to all of you. Thank
you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:40 p.m.) (###)
|
