U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #18, 97-02-03
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1383
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
February 3, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
DEPARTMENT/ANNOUNCEMENTS
1-2.....Secretary Albright's Visit to Houston, Feb. 7-8
2-3.....Secretary Albright's Trip to Europe and Asia, Feb. 15-25
BURMA
3-4.....US Policy on Burma: Human Rights/Sanctions/International
Investments
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
4-6.....Demonstrations in Belgrade/Injured U.S. Marine
5, 12...US Condemnation of Use of Police Force in Kosovo
6-10....Karadic Interview with Greek Newspaper re: Dayton Accords
5-8.....Assistant Secretary Kornblum and Charge D'Affaires Miles
Protest of Serb Government Actions
10-12...Additional Sanctions/U.S. Support of Serb Opposition/Further
U.S. Actions Against Milosevic Government
ZAIRE
12-13...Fighting in Eastern Zaire
13......Political Stability of Mobutu Government
22-23...EU Official's Misunderstanding of U.S. Ambassador's Comments
on Hutus
SOUTH AFRICA
14......UK Involvement in Mercenary and Revolutionary Movements
SUDAN
14......Sovereignty of Sudan
COLOMBIA
14-15...Meeting of Justice Minister with Assistant Secretary
Gelbard
CHINA
15-16...Recommendation of Preparatory Committee to Repeal
Hong Kong's Bill of Rights
PERU
16-17...President Fujimori in Washington: Meeting with President
Clinton, Meeting with Assistant Secretary Davidow, Discussions
on Lori Berenson
NORTH KOREA
17-18...Joint Briefing with US and South Korea Postponed
18......Cargill-DPRK Grain Deal/Additional Food Assistance
SWEDEN
18-19...Allegation of Discovery of Nazi Gold in Swedish Banks
VIETNAM
19-20...Protest Over VOA Broadcast on 1997 Human Rights Report
TURKEY
20......Sale of Sea Hawk Helicopters
CYPRUS
20-22...U.S. Policy on Resolution of Cyprus Issue
BULGARIA
22......Situation in Sofia
GREECE/MACEDONIA
23......Cyrus Vance Mission
AFGHANISTAN
23......Taliban Delegation Visit to the US
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #18
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1997, 1:28 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department.
I want to welcome 10 students from the Washington Semester Program
at American University and their professor, Carole Ashkinaze --
I think you're seated on both sides, right? No -- and look forward
to seeing some of you after the briefing.
I want to talk first before we go to questions about two trips
that Secretary Albright intends to take in the next couple of
weeks. One is a domestic trip, and the other is a worldwide trip.
The first trip that she'll be making outside the Beltway as Secretary
of State -- she's already made a couple of trips to Capitol Hill
-- will be this Friday and Saturday to Houston, Texas. Friday,
February 7, Saturday, February 8. She'll be meeting on Friday
in Houston at Rice University with the Mexican Foreign Minister,
Jose Angel Gurria. She's looking forward to that meeting very
much. They had a good phone conversation a couple of days ago,
and I think there's no question about the importance of U.S.-Mexican
relations in the period ahead. This will be a good opportunity
for her to start a working relationship with Foreign Minister
Gurria and to get into the major bilateral relations and issues
that we have with the Mexican Government.
Later on, on Friday afternoon, mid-afternoon, she'll give a major
policy speech at the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy
at Rice University. This will be hosted by former Secretary of
State James A. Baker III and by the Institute Director, Ed Djerejian,
well-known to many of you. Ed was our Assistant Secretary for
Near East, our Ambassador to Syria and Ambassador to Israel before
retiring.
I understand Secretary Baker will be introducing her before her
speech. Then she'll make her speech and take questions from students
at Rice University. This speech is set for about 2:00 a.m. at
the Grand Hall in Rice --
QUESTION: P. M.
MR. BURNS: 2:00 p.m. I'm just trying to make sure you're
paying attention. (Laughter) 2:00 p.m.
QUESTION: Who's speaking (inaudible).
MR. BURNS: Secretary Albright, I think, but let me check
that. (Laughter)
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Yes, it's Secretary Albright. 2:00 p.m., Grand
Hall, Rice Memorial Center. She'll then take questions from students.
The following morning, Saturday, February 8, she's going to have
a breakfast meeting with former President George Bush at his home
in Houston. Those of you who would like to accompany us on the
Secretary's trip to Houston are cordially invited to do so, and
there will be a sign-up sheet available to you in the Press Office
after this briefing.
Secretary Albright, as she has said to you, intends to take many
trips within the United States to talk to the American people
about the importance of our interaction with the world -- our
engagement in the world, and the importance of United States'
leadership. She believes that talking about the resources problem,
the Chemical Weapons Convention, the fact that the United States
has got to have a concerted, active foreign policy are issues
that ought to be discussed with the American people at a very
high level, and she intends to do that in a variety of fora this
year, starting in Houston.
She also believes very strongly in bipartisanship, and therefore,
the choice of Houston, the fact that she'll be seeing Secretary
Baker and President Bush, meeting with both of them; the fact
that she'll be speaking at Secretary Baker's Institute, I think,
is an indication of the importance that she attaches to bipartisanship
in American foreign policy.
For the second trip, the long-awaited announcement on the second
trip. Secretary Albright will be making actually a circumnavigation
of the globe from the 15th to the 25th of February. This is the
long-awaited announcement, and I want to tell you that she's going
to be going both to Europe and to Asia on this trip, because that
reflects that statement, and that trip reflects the fundamental
national interests that we have, both in Europe as a European
power, and in the Asia-Pacific region as an Asian-Pacific power.
She intends in all the places which she will visit to renew relations
with the many, many world leaders with whom she has worked over
the past four years and some even before that, and to make new
acquaintances -- make acquaintances with some of the other world
leaders with which she has not worked.
She obviously will be discussing in each of the capitals that
she visits the core interests that we have with those countries;
the basic issues, both bilateral and multilateral, that are on
our agenda with those countries. Let me just run through the
schedule very briefly.
She will be leaving Washington on Saturday, February 15, and she'll
fly to Rome. She'll spend Saturday night, February 15th and part
of Sunday, the 16th, in Rome for meetings with the Italian Government
leadership.
On Sunday afternoon, the 16th, she'll fly to Bonn. She'll spend
the 16th and part of the 17th in Bonn for meetings with the German
leadership.
She'll fly the afternoon of the 17th, spend the night in Paris,
have meetings the next day with French government officials.
On to Belgium, to Brussels, on the 18th of February, where she
intends to have a meeting with Secretary General Solana and a
session of the North Atlantic Council -- a Ministerial meeting
of the North Atlantic Council.
Then to London that evening, February 18th, for meetings on the
19th with officials from the Government of the United Kingdom.
Then to Moscow, February 19th and 20th, so evening of the 19th,
all day on the 20th for meetings with Russian officials.
Then on the 21st, the Secretary will be flying east to Seoul,
with a refueling stop some place in between, probably some place
in the middle of Russia, where she intends to have meetings with
the South Korean leadership on the 22nd.
And on to Tokyo, Japan, on the 23rd and 24th for meetings with
Japanese leaders, and then she'll conclude her trip with a visit
to Beijing, China, on the 24th -- the evening of the 24th, meetings
on the 25th in Beijing, and then she'll depart Beijing on the
25th and return directly to the United States, arriving back at
Andrews Air Force Base sometime in the evening of February 25th.
As you can see, this is going to be an action-packed schedule
for an action-packed agenda. She's going to have to move very
quickly, because she's covering a lot of ground. We have limited
seats available on the Secretary's 707, and for those of you who
would like to join us on that trip, I cordially invite you to
sign up in the Press Office. There's a sign-up sheet that's available
to you.
Barry.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask you about Burma and what course
of action the U.S. may have planned there.
MR. BURNS: What course of action we have planned?
QUESTION: If any, yes.
MR. BURNS: As you know, we've been --
QUESTION: I mean, you know, their leading, whatever intellectualist
suggested sanctions and all. Is there some new --
MR. BURNS: We have --
QUESTION: I'm sorry. You go ahead.
MR. BURNS: We have been concerned with the situation in
Burma for quite a long time and have consistently supported the
position of the National League for Democracy and Aung San Suu
Kyi for greater political and human rights of the citizens of
Burma, but I think we've seen a concerted policy by the SLORC,
by the military dictators in Rangoon, that denies the democrats
who won the 1990 elections both their seats of power but also
denies them basic rights.
As you know, we have followed a rather tough policy against the
Burmese Government. We do not encourage American investment in
Burma. We have most recently in the last couple of months put
in place visa sanctions against the leading members of the government
and their families, and we, of course, have worked for the Congress
on the Cohen-Feinstein legislation to at least have in reserve
the possibility of further U.S. sanctions against Burma, should
that be necessary.
We will look seriously at that question as the situation proceeds,
Barry, but I'm not aware of any decision that's been made to actually
go forth with any of those sanctions, at least at this point.
QUESTION: What do you think of the Unocol Corporation's
decision to expand their cooperation with the Burmese Government?
MR. BURNS: We don't encourage American investment in Burma.
We don't actively discourage an American company from going in,
but we don't encourage it either. What we have done is we've
taken away the ability of American companies to draw upon the
Ex-Im Bank, OPIC, the Trade and Development Authority. We've
also worked to limit the ability of Burma to receive assistance
from the IMF and the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.
We don't have a trade office or a commercial office in Rangoon
and don't intend to open one.
So I guess it's Unocal's decision if it wants to go in, but, of
course, this Cohen-Feinstein legislation at least presents the
possibility of further sanctions, and should the situation warrant
it, then the Administration has that as an option.
QUESTION: Nick, could I ask you about the situation in
Belgrade. Have you been following it, and what do you think is
happening there exactly?
MR. BURNS: We have followed the situation in Belgrade
very, very closely over the weekend, as you can imagine. First
of all, let me say we saw the terrible reports of police brutality
and state violence directed against the demonstrators yesterday.
I understand today that there were exceedingly large demonstrations
in the streets of Belgrade and further use of brutal police force
against the demonstrators.
The United States strongly condemns the violence by the Serbian
police against the demonstrators, who by all accounts have demonstrated
peacefully. We call on the Serb police and the Serb authorities,
led by President Milosevic, to exercise restraint in the streets
of Belgrade.
Yesterday evening, Serbian police used water cannons and tear
gas to disperse thousands of protesters. This is the most serious
use of police force to date. The Serbian police brutally beat
and arrested peaceful protesters as they tried to escape through
the downtown streets. This is particularly ironic and particularly
disturbing, because the crowd was attempting to disperse at the
time when the Serbian police came in to use their physical force.
There were many people injured, some quite seriously, including
one of the most noted opposition leaders, Vesna Pesic, and even
an off-duty American Embassy Marine guard was caught up quite
unwittingly and was also beaten by the Serbian police.
Accordingly, our Charge d'Affaires, Dick Miles, met with Foreign
Minister Milutinovic this morning to condemn the police action
and to call upon the Serbian Government officially to refrain
from using police force in the streets of Belgrade or anywhere
else in the country where people are assembling peacefully, as
they have for the last two-and-a-half months.
Mr. Miles also met with the opposition leader, Vuc Draskovic,
to express our support for the opposition's track record of peaceful
protest and to counsel restraint on all sides. We believe that
the actions taken by the Serbian leadership to unleash their police
and security forces over the weekend will only further Serbia's
isolation and deepen the political crisis in Belgrade.
This is an extremely discouraging set of events, and I believe
you only have to look at the statements by Foreign Secretary Rifkind,
by Minister de Charette and by many other European leaders who
are saying the same things that the United States is saying today
to understand the gravity of the situation.
I should also say that we've been quite disturbed also by the
use of police force against people who we believe have been also
exercising their rights peacefully in Kosovo. Just over the last
couple of days a disturbing string of incidents with the Serbian
police have used force and have sometimes acted unjustly against
innocent people in Kosovo, and we have brought this to the attention
of the Serbian Government as well.
QUESTION: Does this string of events suggest to the --
to you and your observers that something significant -- that a
significant turning point has been reached in this whole crisis?
MR. BURNS: It's hard to know if it's a significant turning
point in terms of what the end-game is going to be like, but it's
a disturbing turning point, because until about ten days ago,
the Serbian Government had refrained from the use of force against
the people in the streets, because the TV cameras showed all the
world they were acting peacefully; they were not inciting violence,
they were not committing acts of violence against the government.
About ten days ago -- I believe it was a week ago Friday evening
-- the Serbian police did use force in the streets. Twenty people
ended up in the hospital in demonstrations that went into Saturday
morning. Now we saw over the last 24 hours an escalation of this
strategy to intimidate the opposition. All that it seems to have
succeeded in doing is bringing larger numbers of people into the
streets today, and that is very disturbing.
Our Assistant Secretary of State John Kornblum was in Sarajevo
today. He has spoken out publicly against this use of force,
and he instructed Mr. Miles to go into the Serbian Foreign Minister
this morning and to give this very stiff American protest to the
Serbian Foreign Minister.
I spoke with John Kornblum on the phone, and I think he in his
private discussions and also in his public statements, and Mr.
Miles and his discussions have left no doubt about the concern
of the United States in this question.
QUESTION: The Marine that was beaten, was he in uniform?
What's his name? How was he caught up and --
MR. BURNS: He was off-duty, so, therefore, I don't believe
he was in uniforms. Marines -- I think the practice overseas
with our Marine guards is that when they leave the compound, they're
off-duty, they're not dressed in uniform. I understand he simply
had a night out and had had something to eat and was on his way
back to his home when he was literally caught up in these demonstrations
in the street, and he was one of the people beaten by the protesters.
Obviously, we've delivered a stiff protest about this activity,
but not just about him, about the actions against all the Serbian
protesters in the streets.
It was an eventful 24 hours. Let me go to another --
QUESTION: Just a little more on that before you go on.
Was he hospitalized? Is he okay?
MR. BURNS: He's going to be fine. He was beaten, but
he does not have serious injuries. He is fine and, as I understand,
he's on the job.
QUESTION: (Inaudible).
MR. BURNS: I wanted to stay on this situation just for
a little bit. Nearby, Radovan Karadzic spoke up today. I thought
I would say a few words about that. You know that Radovan Karadzic
is a war criminal. He's an indicted war criminal. Last July
19, the former Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs,
Dick Holbrooke, traveled to the Balkans and worked out an arrangement
that prohibited Mr. Karadzic from speaking out in public, from
speaking to the press, from running for political office.
Mr. Karadzic stepped over the line today. He gave an interview,
I believe, to a Greek newspaper. In that interview, he essentially
repudiated the terms of the Dayton Accords. His statements are
outrageous. They are in direct violation of July 19 agreement
in which he stepped down formally from all positions of influence
in the Republic of Srpska, and he has violated his agreement not
to appear in public.
Assistant Secretary Kornblum, when he called me just a little
while ago, said that he spoke to Mr. Krajisnik and also to Madam
Plavsic. I understand that their political party has now issued
a formal statement repudiating the words of Radovan Karadzic.
Karadzic, essentially, takes issues with the Dayton Accords,
takes issue with the fact that he is an indicted war criminal.
He even had some comments, Mr. Lambros, on the situation in Cyprus.
I guess his view goes beyond the Balkans these days. Mr. Kornblum
reminded Madam Plavsic and Mr. Krajisnik that they are responsible
for making sure that the July 19 agreement with Mr. Karadzic is
kept and that he no longer steps over the line.
Also our Charge, Dick Miles, in Belgrade has reminded the Serbian
Government of its obligation to make sure that Mr. Karadzic stays
in line. I just wanted to point that out because it is a particular
egregious violation by Mr. Karadzic.
QUESTION: Nick, can I follow up on Mr. Kornblum's trip
to the region? As of last week, he was not intending to go to
Belgrade. Is the Department --
MR. BURNS: And he did not go to Belgrade.
QUESTION: Is Secretary Albright giving any thought to
the notion of sending him to Belgrade to deliver an even higher
profile message of America's displeasure?
MR. BURNS: No, there's no reason for that because we have
consistently spoken out against the Serbian Government's actions.
We have a senior American diplomat who lives in Belgrade who
delivers these protests personally to the Serbian Foreign Minister,
and we have great confidence in Mr. Miles. So there's no reason
to send John Kornblum to Belgrade.
In fact, just the opposite. It's good to give the Serbs a sense
that they're not going to have a lot of senior-level visitors
in Belgrade as long as they continue these actions.
QUESTION: Well, I was going to ask you the same question
in a different way. You know what I'm going to ask you. You
just announced a trip where the Secretary of State is going to
China whose human rights record the State Department hardly disproves
of. This may not be the forum, but, once again, because Yugoslavia
is in the news and so is China, wouldn't it give added weight
to the American message to upgrade the messengers who is delivering
a message? Wouldn't it have more weight if John Kornblum were
there?
MR. BURNS: You know, this has been going on, Barry, since
November 17. You know that we've had Secretary Christopher, when
he was Secretary of State, in late November and early December,
did send personal messages to Mr. Milosevic as well as Milutinovic.
John Kornblum has spoken out publicly. Our Charge has been in.
There's not a problem here with communication. The Serbian Government
has got the message from the United States. It has just chosen
to go its own way. In doing so, it just has dug the hole deeper
for itself and further isolated itself. The "outer wall"
of sanctions will be maintained because of the actions of the
Serbian Government against the opposition but also because of
the actions of the Serbian Government in Kosovo. We have always
said that we believe in enhancement of the political rights of
the Kosovars. The police actions against them over the last couple
of days are not doing Serbia's case any good in the international
community.
So I beg to disagree with these -- I thank you for the advice
on how we carry out U.S. foreign policy, but I just think we're
doing okay. I think we've really got their attention, Barry.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) logic, who you send your Secretary
of State to and who you send the Deputy Ambassador to. So far
as Karadzic is concerned, because hanging in the air is a possibility,
the second Clinton Administration will be a little more vigorous
than the first Clinton Administration in encountering -- I guess
the word of choice -- war crime suspects.
MR. BURNS: Is that a verb?
QUESTION: You spoke of when you encounter --
(Multiple questions.)
MR. BURNS: (Inaudible) encounters.
QUESTION: Well, you don't hunt down war criminals. You
encounter them. I think you say, "Excuse me, are you Mr.
Karadzic?" So, here was --
MR. BURNS: I 'm not sure that's in the instruction booklet.
I don't believe that's the first line, Barry. I don't think
so.
QUESTION: While it hangs in the air -- so I have a double
reason for asking. It's something that happened with Karadzic
and hanging in the air is the possibility of a more vigorous pursuit,
as if there's been pursuit. Was the U.S. Government aware of
Mr. Karadzic's coming out of the closet, so to speak? Maybe he
doesn't have to be in the closet. Maybe he's been public all
along.
MR. BURNS: He came out of the closet, so to speak, this
morning. We were not aware that he was going to do so but once
he did, we decided that we had to fire a little shot across his
bow which is why I'm saying what I'm saying and why John Kornblum
personally complained to Plavsic and Krajisnik.
QUESTION: I'm not trying to be picky, but the interview
appeared in print when you heard about it, or you knew he was
giving an interview?
MR. BURNS: No. We actually saw it. I'm sure Mr. Lambros
saw it, too. I think I've got it here.
QUESTION: But you didn't know about it until it was in
print, eh?
MR. BURNS: No, we didn't. Am I pronouncing this right
-- Eleftheros Typos?
MR. LAMBROS: Eleftheros Typos.
MR. BURNS: Thank you. Mr. Lambros has a better Greek
accent than I do. Eleftheros Typos. Mr. Karadzic has a friend
in the newspaper there. He had quite a sensational interview
where he talked about world events. He talked about -- he said
all sorts of outrageous things, and we just felt we should take
note of this today.
Let me just say one more thing because Charlie and Barry have
given us some useful tactical diplomatic advice. I think we've
got their attention. I think we've communicated our message to
the Serbs and the Bosnian Serbs, and the fact that the Serbs have
isolated themselves, they don't have any economic assistance,
they don't have a relationship with the World Bank or IMF. The
Bosnian Serbs are not getting any of the money that the United
States and the European Union are putting forward for reconstruction.
This is the penalty and it's a very severe penalty and they know
that. We just take the opportunity to remind them of that from
time to time when their actions are particularly outrageous as
they have been over the last couple of days.
QUESTION: One of the things that he said in this interview
was that he's surrounded by 2,000 bodyguards who would start shooting
the minute someone tried to arrest him. He said that anybody
who would tried to arrest him knows that they'd immediately have
500 dead bodies on their hand and it wouldn't be Serb fighters.
Was this aspect raised in Kornblum's conversation with the Bosnian
Serb authorities? And what's your response to that kind of statement?
MR. BURNS: I think it's probably an exaggeration. I think
Mr. Karadzic is prone to exaggeration. But in terms of the number
of people around him, I don't think he has that many friends left
in Pale.
What's interesting to me to read all of the commentary about the
issue of war criminals, which is a very serious issue, is that
often times we forget that the fundamental commitment and the
fundamental responsibility to arrest the war criminals lies with
Mr. Krajisnik and Madam Plavsic and Milosevic and Tudjman and
Izetbegovic. They're the people who have the responsibility.
They're the ones who said they would do it. They have not done
it with the exception of Mr. Izetbegovic who has complied more
or less with the war crimes provisions.
It is also true, as Barry helpfully points out, that when SFOR
soldiers encounter war criminals, they are obligated to detain
them and arrest them and that has not happened over the last year,
but they're obligated to do so. Those are the rules of engagement,
as we've spelled out everyday, probably since December 1995.
I don't say this in order to avoid the Western responsibility
for this issue, only to note that the fundamental commitment lies
with the parties to the accords, and we continue to address ourselves
to them.
John.
QUESTION: Nick, despite the overtures and the messages
from the United States and its allies to Mr. Milosevic, consistently
announced since December, there hasn't been an improvement. In
fact, irregardless of what we've said and the Western Europeans
have said, he's not only maintained his position of refusing to
let them take their seats in the municipalities but has increased
the use of police force.
Once upon a time there was a suggestion that perhaps we might
think about new sanctions. I'm wondering whether or not given
what's happened over the weekend there's any new impetus or thought
in that direction either by ourselves or in concert with our allies?
MR. BURNS: Any additional sanctions -- if you're talking
about reimposition of the full-scale sanctions that were in place
during the Bosnian war, that would require the unanimous decision
of the Security Council. So I'd just note that as a fact out there,
which would be difficult to achieve.
But I don't think you and I ought to minimize the effect of the
current sanctions in place on Serbia. We can't control the situation
in Serbia, and we can't change it by ourselves. But we certainly
can make it hurt when Mr. Milosevic continues to obstruct democratic
elections, as he clearly has done over the last three months.
A country the size of Serbia, having gone through a war for five
years without access to the IMF and the World Bank, without access
to normal credits from Western and North American Governments,
that country is not going to succeed. Milosevic can't play the
game forever. Without access to capital, he will not succeed.
His economy which is already on the skids will skid further.
So he's got to be worried about that. We think he is. That
is a very severe penalty, and I would not minimize that. That's
the penalty that the United States, through its application of
the "outer wall" of sanctions has placed upon him.
QUESTION: The opposition today, though, said it would
like to see an increase in pressure from the international community
on Mr. Milosevic although we know they oppose the reimposition
of full sanctions. Are there any thoughts in terms of other kinds
of even symbolic measures that the West can take vis-a-vis Mr.
Milosevic?
MR. BURNS: It's hard --I think it's a little bit difficult
for the United States to get much tougher, and let me tell you
why. We don't have an ambassador, unlike most countries. We've
chosen to have sub-standard diplomatic relations. We have a Charge
d'Affaires. We have these "outer wall" of sanctions.
We have no U.S. assistance to Serbia. We have held out the prospect
that he will not have a normal relationship with us in any way
or form until he acts in a democratic way towards the opposition.
The United States has taken a very tough, forward-leaning position,
ahead of almost all other countries in the world, consistently
since about two days after these elections. So we're going to
maintain that very tough position. I think that is going to hurt
him over the long term and I think at some point will affect his
behavior.
QUESTION: Given what's going on, though, over the last
couple of days, do you think it's inappropriate for our allies
to continue maintaining full diplomatic relations with Serbia,
including the presence of their Ambassador still in Belgrade?
MR. BURNS: The United States has made its own decisions.
I'm going to leave it to our allies to make their decisions,
but I think there is an increasing sentiment in Europe as well
as North America that there has to be a way found to isolate Mr.
Milosevic. The United States has done it's part, and we certainly
don't want to give public advice to our allies. But if you look
at the statements issued today, particularly from London and Paris,
they were very tough statements. That reflects the increasing
frustration with Mr. Milosevic in the West.
QUESTION: How actively or how frequently is the United
States talking to, or U.S. diplomats, talking to alternatives
-- alternative political leaders?
MR. BURNS: We have an active relationship with Mr. Draskovic
and Ms. Pesic and others -- the opposition leaders -- Mr. Djindjic
as well. We'll continue that. I don't mean to say that we've
signed on to their political program because we don't want to
interfere politically to that extent, but we certainly support
their rights to demonstrate in the streets, to have themselves
seated in Belgrade and the other municipalities because they won
the elections in 15 of the 18 constituencies. So we'll continue
that policy of speaking to the opposition and creating links to
them.
QUESTION: Was it the Secretary last week who said the
Dayton Accords don't depend on one individual or --
MR. BURNS: That's exactly right.
QUESTION: That's just an inference at that point. Can
you flesh it out? Are you -- is the U.S. Government actively
trying to bolster support, show its support for -- register its
confidence in -- are you trying to grease the skids for Milosevic,
or are you going to be a little more tactful about it for a little
bit? (Laughter)
MR. BURNS: We're always tactful, Barry. We're almost
always tactful.
QUESTION: What is it the U.S. is doing, or is it doing
besides conversation? Is the message that the U.S. is looking
for an alternative leadership in Belgrade?
MR. BURNS: First, it is quite right to say that the Dayton
Accords do not depend irrevocably on one individual or one or
two or three individuals. Mr. Milosevic is not indispensable
to the functioning of the Dayton Accords.
Second, we have reached out to the opposition, and we'll continue
to do so. It just makes good, common sense to have political
links to them. But I want to be clear about what our role is
here. The United States is not giving its support to any political
party. We're not siding with one political party against another
in this internal dispute in Belgrade. But we have spoken out
publicly and we'll continue to speak out about the right of people
to demonstrate in the street because the elections were stolen
from them; the right of people not to have Serbian police goons
beat them up in the street when they demonstrate peacefully.
That's what we saw. It was reminiscent of 1977 or 1967 or '57,
as opposed to 1997.
It is strange to see, still, in Central Europe but a sad truth
that there are authoritarian figures who deploy these security
goons to beat up democrats and to beat up people who are demonstrating
peacefully.
Let me give you a little bit more information about Kosovo because
we're very disturbed by it. We understand that three ethnic Albanians
were killed by Serbian police on Friday. Over 100 ethnic Albanians
have been arrested by Serbian police in what appears to be a coordinated
police round-up in Kosovo itself. Forty are still in custody.
A Serbian policeman charged with police brutality last week shot
and killed his Albanian accusers and their lawyers. This violence
is symptomatic of the ongoing Serbian repression of the Albanian
population, the Kosovars, in Kosovo. We're concerned about this
situation. As you know, we maintain a U.S. Information Office
and a U.S. Foreign Service officer in Pristina. We have first-hand
accounts of this, and we have complained directly to the Serbian
Government about this recent treatment of the Albanian population
in Kosovo.
This Serbian state of repression has been underway since 1989.
There is a basic denial of human and political rights to the
Albanian population which will remain a big concern, a great concern
of the United States.
QUESTION: A new subject. The fighting in Eastern Zaire
seems to be spreading a little. The authorities, apparently,
are bringing in foreign troops to assist Zairian military. Specifically,
an official said this morning that planes are being chartered
to bring in troops from Morocco, Togo, and Chad. Are you aware
of this?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me -- chartered by whom?
QUESTION: By the Zairian authorities, to bring in troops
from Morocco, Togo, and Chad. Number one, are you aware of this?
And, secondly, are you concerned about the fighting spreading?
MR. BURNS: I don't have information that Zaire may be
bringing in foreign troops into Zaire, into the fighting in Eastern
Zaire. But our position has been for many months that the United
States supports the territorial integrity of Zaire. We do not
wish to see Zaire dismembered.
The United States does not support the rebel groups that are fighting
to destabilize the Zairian Government, the rebel groups in Eastern
Zaire -- the rebel alliance. The United States does not support
any neighbors of Zaire intervening in the fighting in Zaire in
an unhelpful and destabilizing way. We hope that the fighting
could be brought to an end by mutual agreement between the Zairian
Government and the rebels themselves. That is our position.
We remain concerned about some of the Rwandan Hutu refugees who
we believe did not make it across the border in the exodus in
November but have been trapped inside of Eastern Zaire by the
fighting. We're concerned about the humanitarian situation of
these people. The United Nations and other humanitarian groups
have tried to get supplies to them and we've tried to support
those efforts, as you know.
QUESTION: When President Mobutu went back to Zaire after
his long absence of illness, you said you hoped that he would
be an individual who is able to restore order. Are you still
hopeful that he can do that? He's out of the country again.
I think he's in Morocco at the moment. Nothing really seemed
to have changed in the week since he has returned.
MR. BURNS: We believe that stability in Zaire is important
to stability in Central Africa as a whole. We do not wish to
see further instability or a challenge to Zaire's borders. We
think that's a very important principle. African countries, above
all, should understand the importance of that.
Therefore, some of the reports that there have been troop movements
across the border into Zaire have been disturbing.
QUESTION: What about Mobutu himself? What about Mobutu?
Do you still believe that he is the right man to hold this country
together?
MR. BURNS: It's not for the United States to choose Zaire's
leaders. As you know, we've had an uneven relationship, not always
perfect, with Mr. Mobutu in the past. We've tended to have a
closer relationship with other members of the government over
the last couple of years. We can't choose the leadership of Zaire.
That's up to others. But we simply have to note the principle
of the inviolability of state borders, in this case as in others,
in Africa and around the world.
QUESTION: Korea?
MR. BURNS: Still on Africa? Still on Africa.
QUESTION: You mentioned earlier the U.S. position with
regard to the mercenaries in the area. I was wondering, there
was a report that was issued under President de Klerk in South
Africa. A General Stein had done an investigation regarding the
use of mercenaries and the transformation of some of the internal
South African military and paramilitary forces into private agencies.
The Stein Report was issued and given to President Mandela who
did not make it public but it was then given to Archbishop Tutu
who did make it public. It indicated that there is extensive
activities of these mercenary groups in a variety of countries
in Africa where they're stockpiling arms in order to be able to
overthrow established governments.
I'm wondering -- if there is also indication that there was collaboration,
as was mentioned earlier, with a suggestion that there was close
contact with British SAS on some of these matters. I was wondering
if the Stein Report has been made available to the United States,
and, if so, what position do you have on it?
MR. BURNS: I just don't know if it has made available.
As you know, in the past, I've rejected any kind of inference
from any question that would implicate the United Kingdom in these
types of mercenary -- well, you're reporting them so I have an
obligation, I think, to an ally to say that I would reject any
implication that the United Kingdom has done anything untoward.
As you know, we have a firm position on the use of mercenary groups
in civil wars in Africa.
QUESTION: With regard to the sovereignty of the countries
in Africa, does this position also extend to the situation in
Sudan?
MR. BURNS: We do not wish to see Sudan dismembered, no.
But we have a major series of disagreements with the Sudanese
Government - specifically, it's support for terrorism, as you
know.
QUESTION: This morning, the Minister of Justice of Colombia
met with Ambassador Gelbard. Can you tell us if there were any
concrete results or satisfying your expectations on Colombia's
anti-drug performance?
MR. BURNS: I haven't received a report on Assistant Secretary
Gelbard's meeting. But if you would call his bureau, I'm sure
they would be glad to give you a briefing on what transpired.
As you know, the U.S. Government has not yet made a determination
on the terrorism list configuration that will be announced shortly
in 1997. That's an issue we need to continue to look at. We've
not made a determination yet.
QUESTION: You mean the drug list?
MR. BURNS: The drug list, yes.
QUESTION: You said terrorism.
MR. BURNS: Did I say terrorism? I'm sorry. I meant drug.
Sorry to confuse you.
Betsy.
QUESTION: Nick, do you have anything on steps taken this
weekend, votes taken to curtail human rights in Hong Kong?
MR. BURNS: Yes. As you know, I think we spoke out 10
days ago when the original recommendations were made by the sub-group
to the Preparatory Committee. We saw over the weekend - we understand
now that China's Preparatory Committee has recommended to the
National People's Congress that some portions of Hong Kong's Bill
of Rights be repealed on the grounds that they are inconsistent
with China's basic law for Hong Kong.
We also understand that the Preparatory Committee did not accept
the full recommendations of its legal sub-group and decided not
to automatically reinstate the previous colonial-era public ordinances
that were replaced in 1991.
The National People's Congress, we understand, will take up this
matter at its meeting in March. As we have said, the protection
of civil liberties in Hong Kong is an important part of the 1984
Joint Declaration between the United Kingdom and the People's
Republic of China. It's also an important element of China's
own basic law for Hong Kong.
This is a critical component of Hong Kong's way of life. We believe
it is vital to continue both confidence within Hong Kong after
July 1, 1997, and also international confidence in Hong Kong.
Therefore, the United States is deeply concerned by the attempts
to weaken these civil liberties and these basic freedoms in Hong
Kong. Any recommendations of this type made over the weekend
do not help foster confidence and stability in Hong Kong itself.
Therefore, we will continue to convey to the Chinese authorities
in Beijing and to future Hong Kong Government authorities as well
the importance that the United States attaches to China's actions
in upholding its commitments for Hong Kong, as expressed in the
Joint Declaration and in the basic law.
Most recently, this issue was raised by the NSC's senior Director
for Asian Affairs, Sandy Kristoff, in her visit to Beijing just
last week. We will continue to raise this as a priority issue
on our agenda with China.
On Hong Kong? Patrick.
QUESTION: Do you know of any plan for the United States
and its allies to evacuate from Hong Kong Chinese dissidents now
residing in Hong Kong before China takes over control of the territory?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any such plan, Patrick. No.
QUESTION: You've said that you're deeply concerned by
attempts to weaken the Bill of Rights. What's your message to
China on what economic impact, if any, such moves might have?
Do you think that China might kill the goose that lays the golden
eggs - a popular phrase about Hong Kong - if they go too far with
this? And are they going too far with it in these steps that
they're taking?
MR. BURNS: The United States certainly does approve, and
does not approve in any way, these recommendations by the Preparatory
Committee because they seek to diminish the political and civil
rights of the people of Hong Kong. We believe that there is a
link between measures taken to repress people politically and
economic growth of the type that we've seen in China over the
last decade or so.
The President spoke to this in his own press conference last week
and talked about this link. We don't believe that the Chinese
Government can comfortably figure that in the long run repressing
people politically is going to help in any way to build the type
of market economy that they seem to want. We believe the two
go hand in hand. You can't have a fully functioning market economy,
which is based on information and the free flow of economic data
and information - you can't have that type of successful economy
and repress people at home as well. There is a link. We are
obviously concerned by these developments over the weekend.
QUESTION: On Korea. Do you want to go to Korea or do
you want -
MR. BURNS: Still on Hong Kong? I think Steve was next,
Bill. Then we'll get to you.
QUESTION: Nick, do you have, or can you tell us what the
message has been from the Administration to Peruvian President
Fujimori? And beyond that, could you explain why his meeting
was moved to the White House with the President rather than with
the Secretary of State here as apparently was planned.
MR. BURNS: I believe that -- you'll have to ask Mike McCurry
this -- but I believe that the President decided, once he understood
President Fujimori was coming, that he wanted to have a meeting
with him. So it's as simple as that. When the President's going
to have a meeting, the Secretary of State normally joins the President's
meeting, in most cases without having a separate bilateral meeting.
What I'd like to do is direct you to the White House. The President
had the meeting today. Secretary Albright participated in that
meeting, and I believe that Mike or David Johnson is going to
give a readout on that particular meeting.
We have a well known position on Peru, which we've articulated
many, many times since the beginning of the crisis. Our Assistant
Secretary of State Jeff Davidow went out to the airport on Saturday
night to meet President Fujimori; had a good discussion with him
on the way in to town. He covered a lot of issues, not just the
hostage crisis but other issues in our relationship with Peru.
We're very pleased that we had this opportunity to have these
discussions with President Fujimori, who obviously is in a very
difficult position, and we hope for the early and immediate safe
release of all the hostages.
QUESTION: And on Korea -
QUESTION: Can I stay on the same subject?
MR. BURNS: On Peru?
QUESTION: On Peru. Do you know whether the Lori Berenson
case came up in any discussions with State Department officials?
MR. BURNS: I know that Assistant Secretary Davidow raised
the case with President Fujimori on Saturday evening, yes.
QUESTION: Do you know what was said in those discussions?
Could you give us something more?
MR. BURNS: I know that Assistant Secretary Davidow reaffirmed
some well known concerns we have about the fact that she was tried
in a military court without normal due process that one would
expect in a civilian court, and about the conditions of her detention
in the prison in which she's being held.
QUESTION: Nick, two questions on Korea. Will the North
and South be meeting in New York on Wednesday as scheduled? And
the second question is it's been reported that the North Koreans
will not meet until some kind of basic guarantee, some kind of
- something financial, I think, some support - underwriting I
think is the word, Nick - by the U.S. Government for grain sales
through Cargill to supply their needs. Can you comment on either
of those?
MR. BURNS: We do not expect that the North and South and
the United States will be meeting in New York this coming Wednesday,
as we had proposed and as we had set. The North Koreans have
told us once again that they need to give, as they say, first
priority to their business discussions with Cargill and others
for the procurement of grain. So therefore it is uncertain when
this joint briefing will be rescheduled.
I think having postponed it once and set a date, I don't think
we're in a position where we want to set a date again. The North
Koreans believe they need to go through their grain discussions.
We hope that when those grain discussions are concluded or perhaps
even before that they might decide to have this briefing by the
United States and the Republic of Korea, which is the first step,
we hope, in putting together negotiations for a peace treaty in
the Korean peninsula of the type proposed by President Clinton
and President Kim last April.
QUESTION: So this has been indefinitely suspended, this
meeting, and the question about underwriting - was the U.S. asked
by North Korea to underwrite a grain deal between Cargill and
North Korea, and what would the definition of "underwrite"
be?
MR. BURNS: I don't know the answer to that question, but
I can tell you that the United States Government believes that
these are private grain discussions; that the North Koreans ought
to work out their deal with Cargill or any of the other companies
with which they are dealing, and that the United States Government
involvement would be limited to granting an export license if
a deal is consummated with an American company.
QUESTION: Nick, can you take that question about whether
the North Koreans wanted the U.S. to underwrite the deal?
MR. BURNS: I'd be glad to take that question, yes.
QUESTION: Nick, are there any plans -
QUESTION: Could we go back -
QUESTION: -- to give any further grain to North Korea?
MR. BURNS: We understand that the World Food Program is
considering an emergency appeal for North Korea based on the findings
of their assessment mission visit by the World Food Program and
the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations just
about five weeks ago in December of last year.
What we have said consistently is that if these organizations
do make an appeal, the United States will consider it very seriously.
We haven't received the appeal, but we understand they're going
to make one, and therefore we'll treat that as a very serious
issue. As you know, the United States has responded to these
appeals in the past.
Still on Korea. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: As a member of the Swedish TV, I have a question
here about the so-called "Nazi gold" and funds linked
to Nazi Germany, that is something that is under discussion over
in Europe right now. Sweden possibly holds about seven tons of
this gold, and, first, what is the U.S. position on that issue?
And, secondly, is it in the U.S. interest to investigate this?
MR. BURNS: First, we've seen the reports but cannot confirm
the reports that the recent finding of Nazi gold - allegedly Nazi
gold in the Swedish National Bank - the Riksbank - I would refer
you to the Swedish Government, I think, for the best answer to
that question. But if this is true, this would raise, of course,
complex factual and legal questions which would have to be reviewed
thoroughly by the members of the Tripartite Gold Commission.
The members of that commission are the United Kingdom, France
and the United States. This was set up just after the Second
World War to deal with this issue, the adjudication of Nazi gold
issues among various countries. I think there were 12 in Europe
at the time.
I know that that consultation with the Swedish Government will
be under way. We're confident that the Swedish Government will
respond to this issue in a forthright and very quick manner.
But the fact is that Sweden has a quite good, commendable track
record on these issues since the Second World War.
We understand that just after the Second World War, the Swedish
Government at the time carried out an inquiry and was in touch
with the Tripartite Gold countries - the three that I mentioned
- including the United States, and that some gold presumed to
have been looted by the Nazis was returned to the Tripartite Gold
Commission by Sweden.
We know that the World Jewish Congress visited Stockholm in November;
that they had discussions with the Swedish Government on this,
and we know that the Swedish Government has created a high-level
commission to look into the issue of gold and Holocaust-era assets
by Jews and by other governments around the world.
We understand the Swedish Government expects this commission to
report its findings by August of this year. We're in contact
with the Swedish Government, and we think that the Swedes probably
don't need a lot of public advice from us, but they do need our
encouragement to get to the bottom of these questions, and they
have it.
I would just note we have an excellent relationship with Sweden,
with the current government, particularly with the Swedish Ambassador,
Henrik Liljegren, here who's done a lot personally to elevate
the relationship between Sweden and the United States over the
last five years.
QUESTION: Nick, if it is established that Sweden actually
possesses some remaining amounts of funds or gold, would the Commission
or the United States claim that gold on behalf of the Holocaust
victims?
MR. BURNS: I'm not an expert in the internal workings
of the Tripartite Gold Commission. I'm not familiar personally
with the mechanics of that process, but I do know that this is
an issue that the Tripartite Gold Commission could possibly have
an interest in. But that will depend on the study, the Commission
that the Swedish Government has set up, and I think we need to
let the Swedes do their work, and then we expect to work very
cooperatively with that government.
QUESTION: Nick, are you aware of the Government of Vietnam's
angry reaction - they lashed out at VOA, but VOA was simply doing
a broadcast on the Human Rights Report, calling it slanderous
and all that. I suppose the Human Rights Report didn't get a
great reception in lots of countries, but are you aware of Vietnam's
apparently frontal assault on the VOA and really on the Human
Rights Report, and do you have anything to say about it?
MR. BURNS: We saw the press reports of the Vietnamese
protest, but I must say there were lots of countries that were
very unhappy with the Human Rights Reports. We saw lots of interesting
statements made the day following our presentation. We expected
that. It's particularly the authoritarian governments, the governments
that do not accord to their own people basic human rights, that
seem to scream the loudest when these Human Rights Reports are
issued.
QUESTION: Are they an authoritarian government?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Is Vietnam an authoritarian government?
MR. BURNS: I didn't single out Vietnam. I said particularly
the authoritarian governments like the Libyans and the Iraqis
and the Iranians.
QUESTION: Oh, sure.
MR. BURNS: Vietnam has its own system, but it doesn't
have - the Vietnamese people do not have full civil and political
rights by any stretch of the imagination, as we said in our Human
Rights Report issued last week.
Yes, Yasmine.
QUESTION: Nick, Congressman Gilman wrote a letter to Secretary
Albright last Wednesday, asking her not to go forward with the
sale of the Sea Hawk helicopters to Turkey. I have two questions
on that. First of all, what's the U.S. Administration's policy
on the proposed sale? And, secondly, does this government see
any link between the situation in Cyprus and the military sales
to Turkey?
MR. BURNS: First, let me just take the first question
and try to get you an answer. I don't know if we've articulated
a position on the Sea Hawks.
Second, we have a view on Cyprus, and that is that all parties
should work together for peace on Cyprus. We have some very important
commitments made by the Government of Cyprus not to deploy the
Russian anti-aircraft system, not to deploy Greek fighter aircraft
to the base that's being constructed in Cyprus. Those are very
important concessions - very important statements by the Cyprus
Government.
We also have an alliance relationship with both Greece and Turkey,
and there will be continued U.S. military assistance to both countries
in the context of that NATO alliance. So no one's talking here
about shutting down military relationships that are vital to the
United States and to those governments.
QUESTION: Today some Greek newspaper reports that Secretary
Albright sent a letter to Greek Foreign Minister Pangalos, and
the same kind of letter that President Clinton sent to Prime Minister
Simitis to urge them, the Greek Government, to cool down the Aegean
subject and don't provoke especially in the Cyprus issue. Can
you confirm these letters?
MR. BURNS: I'll have to look into whether or not a letter
was sent. I'm not aware of it personally. It may or may not
have happened. But in essence the advice we've given to Cyprus,
Greece and Turkey is to usher in a period of restraint in their
relations with each other, so that this issue might be resolved.
QUESTION: Follow-up. Yesterday, a major U.S. daily by
referring to U.S. officials said that reunification is the secret
desire of the Administration as a way out of this problem. Has
there been a shift from bicommunal, bizonal federation solution?
MR. BURNS: There's been no shift in the position of the
United States in what we believe should be the outcome of the
Cyprus conflict - bizonal, bicommunal.
QUESTION: Reunification is not in the cards?
MR. BURNS: Pardon?
QUESTION: Is reunification -
MR. BURNS: I just want to tell you there's been no shift
in our language. There's been no shift in our position, and we
stick to our position.
Yes, Dimitri. In just a minute, Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: Can you comment on the meeting by Mr. Hannay
here in the State Department today?
MR. BURNS: Mr.?
QUESTION: David Hannay.
MR. BURNS: Yes, I know that he's in town. I don't have
actually his schedule, but we can look into that for you. Perhaps
our European Bureau can get that for you.
Mr. Lambros, you've been waiting.
QUESTION: According to The Washington Post, the President
of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr. Clerides, has given the U.S. a
commitment, as you said earlier, that no Greek warplanes will
be deployed to Cyprus as long as he's the President of the Republic.
He promised that to Mr. Cavanaugh when they met in Cyprus last
month. President Clerides, however, yesterday denied categorically
the existence of such a commitment. Who is wrong finally? Clerides,
Cavanaugh or Washington Post? (Laughter)
MR. BURNS: That's an easy one. Clerides and Cavanaugh
are right. Clerides and Cavanaugh have to be right because they
had the conversation together. I believe, Mr. Lambros, that the
assurance that we have is that Greek military aircraft will not
be deployed to the new base on Cyprus for 13 months. I believe
that is the assurance here, and so therefore we have great confidence
in Mr. Cavanaugh and we have great respect for President Clerides,
and I believe their conversation was along those lines.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Turkey so far for your proposed
moratorium over Cyprus.
MR. BURNS: Well, why don't you ask the Turkish Government.
We want to follow up on that moratorium. We think it's a good
idea, and we'll continue to raise it in our conversations with
all the concerned parties.
QUESTION: But the Greek Minister of Defense, Mr. Tsokhatzopoulos,
stated yesterday, "We cannot speak of a moratorium in Cyprus,
a country under occupation, where the airplanes of the occupation
powers at any moment can circulate undisturbed over the island."
Any comment?
MR. BURNS: No comment.
QUESTION: Nick, do you have anything new about the situation
in Bulgaria, which is getting worse?
MR. BURNS: I don't have anything new to say. We made
a statement last week of concern for stability and for peaceful
adjudication of disputes. We think that's a very important principle.
Our Ambassador, Avis Bohlen, has, of course, been in contact
with the government and many others in Sofia, and we'll continue
to assert the principle that civil problems ought to be adjudicated
on a peaceful basis.
QUESTION: Was this today or was this - is this still from
last week?
MR. BURNS: I don't know about her actions today, but I
know that she's been active over the last week.
QUESTION: Can we go back to Zaire for a second. Speaking
today in Brussels, European Union Commission Emma Bonino on her
way back from Zaire said, and I'm quoting: "I heard statements
that upset me supposedly from the U.S. Ambassador in Kigali, according
to whom - and I'm quoting - no more aid should be sent to these
people - meaning the refugees, the 200,000 refugees - in Zaire."
Ms. Bonino said, "I found this inappropriate said by a diplomat
of a civilized country, and I hope this would be denied in the
form - in the substance of the statement." So if you'd like
to -
MR. BURNS: It might have been a good idea if she had checked
officially with the United States Government about what was said
and what was not said. The United States Government is concerned
about the Hutu refugees who have been trapped inside of Eastern
Zaire. That's our policy. We have said it repeatedly from this
Department and, of course, our Ambassadors in the field all agree
and are following that policy. So I believe that our Ambassador,
who I would like to defend here, has been misquoted, and I would
think that a responsible person in the European Union would want
to check to make sure the statement was accurate before making
such a statement against an American Ambassador.
QUESTION: Cyrus Vance is almost ready to submit his final
conclusion and the Greek Foreign Minister, Mr. Pangalos, stated
in the Greek Parliament the other day, "In the worst case,
the name will be simply mainly 'Macedonia,' but in the best case
composite." What that means is up to Mr. Pangalos to explain,
but do you have anything on that?
MR. BURNS: I do not. We have great confidence in former
Secretary Cyrus Vance, and we don't want to get ahead of his mission
and his own report.
QUESTION: On Afghanistan, there's reportedly a high-level
Taliban delegation in the United States or coming to the United
States following a meeting that Robin Raphel had in Pakistan with
the Taliban. I wondered, do you know of this delegation? Are
they meeting somebody at the State Department and what level?
MR. BURNS: Assistant Secretary Raphel had meetings in
Pakistan with a Taliban representative. We reported that to you,
and we said at the time that the Taliban would be sending a delegation
to the United States. So I expect a delegation will arrive.
Let me check and see if they are here and with whom they are meeting.
Our position on the Taliban is that we don't recognize it as
the legitimate government of Afghanistan. We don't recognize
any of the parties to the conflict as the legitimate government.
But if the Taliban is here, they're going to hear a lot from
us about their fundamental violation of the rights of women and
girls inside Afghanistan, which is a big concern of the United
States.
Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:26 p.m.)
(###)
|
