U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 95/10/19 DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

From: hristu@arcadia.harvard.edu (Dimitrios Hristu)

U.S. State Department Directory

Subject: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 95/10/19 DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

OFFICE OF THE SPOKESMAN

[...]

FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

Two Missing French Pilots in Bosnia .....................14-15

Assistant Secretary Holbrooke's Diplomatic Mission ......15

--Status of Ceasefire ...................................16

--Agenda for Proximity Peace Talks ......................16

--Agreements on Eastern Slavonia, Liaison Offices .......15-16

--War Crimes Tribunal, Human Rights Abuses ..............16,21-22

--Contact Group .........................................16

Support for Deployment of U.S. Military Forces ..........16-20

Assistant Secretary Shattuck's Trip to Region ...........21

--Human Rights Abuses ...................................21

[...]

TURKEY

Human Rights ............................................23-24

[...]

GREECE

Report of NATO plan for Province of Thrace ..............24

[...]

Q There were reports yesterday about the whereabouts of the two downed French pilots in Bosnia. Can you clear up the waters at all on that?

MR. BURNS: All I can do on that is to direct you to the statements of the French Foreign Minister who said that the excuses given by Karadzic were grotesque excuses. These are French pilots. The French Government has spoken plainly, clearly, and effectively on this issue. We would associate ourselves with the comments of the French Government. We support the French Government in its efforts to locate these two aviators

There can be no excuse given by the Bosnian Serbs that would justify holding them, in the first place, and then losing them, apparently, if you trust what they say, in the second place. It is preposterous for anyone to believe that they could be lost by the Bosnian Serb military leadership.

Q A brief follow-up. So this Administration now believes they're alive?

MR. BURNS: We hope very much that these two aviators are alive. I don't think we're in the best position to make that judgment. That's a judgment that the French Government, and certainly the Bosnian Serbs, are in a better position to make.

Q A second follow-up. There's also some reports that there may have been some sort of commando rescue of those guys, perhaps by the French, perhaps aided by the Americans. Anything to say about that?

MR. BURNS: I have nothing for you on that. Nothing for you.

Q Can you tell us, are you reassured by President Tudjman that there will be no military assault on East Slavonia?

MR. BURNS: We were pleased that President Tudjman told Dick Holbrooke personally and directly this morning in Zagreb that Croatia would not resort to military force to try to regain control over the region of Eastern Slavonia.

As Dick Holbrooke said publicly this morning, there is a diplomatic process underway that provides an avenue for Croatia to achieve what it wants and, in fact, what I think most of the international community wants, and that is a transfer of authority back to Croatia -- a reversion of authority -- of the Eastern Slavonia region.

The United States has played the leading role, working with the Serbs in Eastern Slavonia, with the Croatian Government and the Serbian Government to try to draw up constitutional principles for this transfer of authority. We will continue to do that. As Dick Holbrooke said this morning, this will be part of the agenda for the Dayton, Ohio, Proximately Peace Talks that begin just a week and a half from now.

Let me just say a couple of other things about Bosnia. I had a chance to talk to Dick Holbrooke. He's on his way back from his fifth shuttle mission to the region. I think he had his 15th trip to Zagreb alone this morning.

There are a couple of important aspects to the shuttle this week that he was on, that he led. First, he was able to see, on his last shuttle trip to the region before the Proximity Peace Talks, President Izetbegovic, President Milosevic, and President Tudjman. He impressed upon all of them the need for universal adherence to the cease-fire in Bosnia. He made the comment that a cease-fire is a cease-fire is a cease-fire. You can't elect to observe certain parts of a cease-fire and not other parts.

I think it's our impression that the cease-fire continues to gain hold throughout Bosnia although there is still today continued fighting, reduced in level compared to last week but nonetheless continued fighting around Sanski Most.

Dick reviewed with all three leaders the agenda for the Dayton, Ohio talks -- territorial issues; constitutional issues; the right of return of refugees, whether they're Serbian or Muslim or Croatian; political issues having to do with the future makeup of a government, having to do with the peace, having to do with the effort to ensure the peace after a peace agreement is signed.

In addition to the agreement on Eastern Slavonia from President Tudjman, yesterday's agreement on the establishment of Liaison Offices was a small but important step forward. We are encouraged by that.

Dick also raised with all of these leaders the importance of continued adherence and support for the War Crimes Tribunal. We do not believe that we should take our concentration away from the effort to find those, whether they're Croatian or Serbian or anyone else, responsible for the brutalities, both brutalities of the last few weeks and brutalities of the last few years.

Dick gave a very strong message to all parties that the United States will continue to support the War Crimes Tribunal. He specifically raised the case of Arkan -- the criminal Arkan -- with President Milosevic. He reaffirmed the interests that the United States has in seeing that the Serbian Government stop the activities of Arkan.

Finally, I would just point to an important political fact, and that is that the Contact Group, for the first time, traveled together on the same plane to all of these meetings. Dick did not have individual meetings with these three Presidents. Carl Bildt and Igor Ivanov were with him throughout. They made the first direct flight in from Belgrade to Sarajevo together. They worked well together which augers well for the Proximity Peace Talks that we're planning for Dayton, Ohio. Because these talks will be co-chaired with Dick Holbrooke, Ivanov, and Bildt together. That's an important aspect of this.

Final point. There was a lot of talk over the last couple of days, a lot of debate on Capitol Hill. Secretary Christopher believes that this was a good beginning to our national debate about whether or not the United States should deploy military forces as part of a NATO implementation effort. He believes that the case is strong. He believes it's clear, and he believes that eventually -- and before too long -- the American people and the Congress will decide to support the deployment of American troops to the region.

We want to make sure that the debate in this country is a rational debate, a reasonable debate, and a constructive one. We would not like to see an environment created that might detract from the Proximity Peace Talks, that might lead some to believe that the United States Government, the Congress, and the American people are not united in one respect. We all want to see these peace talks succeed.

Americans, while they may differ over the issue of deployment of American forces, ought to be united in our effort and in our stewardship of the peace process to see the Dayton, Ohio talks proceed. It was not always clear from the debate in Congress over the last two weeks -- two days, excuse me -- that this was, in fact, the case. We certainly would not want to send a message to anybody overseas or any of the participants in the Proximity Peace Talks that Americans aren't united in our quest for peace.

That's a very important point that occurs to us, that flows out of a discussion on Capitol Hill over the last two days.

Q You say that you are confident that the Congress will decide to support U.S. participation. Does that mean that the Administration will go to Congress for a joint resolution or other form of literal support?

MR. BURNS: I mean to say here, Jim, that the Secretary is confident, in the wake of his four Committee hearings over the last two days, that the case that the Administration is putting forward -- and we just began that process this week -- is a compelling one, and that it speaks to our vital national interests; and it's in our interests to send American troops to take part in the effort to ensure a peace.

The Secretary said many times during the last two days that the Administration would welcome support from the Congress to deploy American troops. That was, in fact, in the opening paragraph of his testimony before each of the four Committees.

Q I know. I was asking if the Administration has now decided to go and ask for specific support.

MR. BURNS: No, I'm not making that statement this morning. I don't believe that decision has been made that we're seeking a particular resolution or a bill. We're seeking support. That means that when the time comes, and if the time comes, if these peace talks are successful in Dayton and if a peace agreement is then signed in Paris, then the United States will face the choice -- the Administration, the Congress, the American people -- do we participate in the NATO effort to enforce the peace, ensure the peace.

At that time, having seen a successful peace conference and a signing, we can't imagine that the Congress, frankly, would not come to the conclusion that having led the effort to achieve the peace, we would abandon the effort to enforce the peace.

Why would the United States use all the power and influence that we have to organize and galvanize the international community on the effort to stop the Bosnian Serbs -- as we've done over the last couple of months -- to lead the diplomatic process, and then suddenly at the eleventh hour, at the end of the game, just to walk away and say to the Canadians and the British and French and Germans, this is your business. You've now got to take the situation and enforce the peace."

We would destroy our credibility as the leader of NATO if we did that. That is the compelling argument for congressional support and American public support for this effort.

Q Nick, the Secretary thought that the case was strong and clear. It certainly didn't seem clear to a lot of the people from their questions -- to a lot of the Congressmen and Senators over the last two days that they believe the case is clear.

Does the Secretary think that the case has been made, period, or does he think that there's a lot more work that needs to be done?

MR. BURNS: The Secretary said publicly -- I believe it was in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the second hearing -- that he thought that we had begun this debate in the United States; that he very firmly believes that Congress has a right to ask questions. Congress has a right to disagree. Congress has a right to expect that the Administration will continue to make this case over the next couple of weeks -- from the President on down -- and we'll certainly do that.

But the Secretary also believes that we are making a compelling case. If you examine it on its merits and try to put aside some of the political emotions of the moment and the partisan differences, but look at the merits; look at the clear U.S. national interests in continuing a strong NATO; in preventing an outbreak, a spreading of the war in Bosnia; in seeing that our allies are supported as part of this peacekeeping force. Those are compelling national interests.

If you try to put away some of the emotions of the moment, we think that we'll be able to convince the Congress and the American people that this is the right thing to do for the future security of the United States.

That's what he means, Charlie. This is the opening of our national discussion on this. He certainly does not believe that having appeared four times, he now no longer needs to go up to Capitol Hill. He intends to maintain a very active dialogue with the Congress on this issue. This is the most important issue facing us, and this is where the Secretary is putting his time.

Q Nick, since this discussion started on the Hill during days while Secretary Holbrooke was meeting with the principals, what did he say to the principals to calm them, to assure them that the Administration was on solid ground, despite these complications?

MR. BURNS: Assistant Secretary Holbrooke certainly reaffirmed what both President Clinton and Secretary Christopher have said many times. The United States has been asked by the Bosnian Government, by the Serbian Government and the Croatian Government, not only to sponsor the peace talks here in the United States, but to play the leading role within NATO in the implementation of the military effort. That is a commitment that we take seriously.

We have made a commitment that we will be centrally involved in both the diplomacy and in both the effort to assure the peace afterwards. We have made a commitment, we'll stick to that commitment. So they can be assured that we will live by our commitment.

Q Did he tell them that the Administration -- in the Administration's view the War Powers Act would not apply in such a case?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe that Assistant Secretary Holbrooke got into a discussion of those particular issues. But he certainly has reaffirmed the intention of the Clinton Administration to live up to its commitments, both to our allies and to the countries in the Balkans.

Q Nick, the question I asked yesterday: How can there be time for a full discussion of the issues for deliberation and consensus- building when the details of the agreement will not be completely known until after the conference -- the Proximity Talks. There will apparently be a short time in Paris, and then there's only a matter of, what, four or five days, before the implementation and the first troops to go in?

How would there be time for this country to deliberate it?

MR. BURNS: The deliberations have begun, Bill. They began, certainly, before this week, but they came into full public view this week. The Proximity Talks are ten days away. Those talks could take anywhere from one day to three or four weeks, if not longer. Then, if the talks are successful, there will probably be a period of about a week before the Paris peace conference was convened, and then there will be 96 hours after the signing of an agreement before a NATO force is entered into the area.

We certainly have enough time to discuss these issues. We know basically, Bill, what the shape of the peace will be -- basically, although not in detail. We know basically what the mission of the military force will be -- the NATO force. Secretary Perry and Chairman Shalikashvili, I think, went through that in quite a detailed way with the Congress.

There's enough time for us to have a national discussion on this and to make up our minds. The Clinton Administration has a very clear and certain idea of how we think we should proceed, and where we think we should be heading.

Q Can I ask you a specific about deployment, Nick. Deployment of troops and the strategy and the rules of engagement was discussed -- or asked about quite a bit, and there were a lot of holes in the strategy so far.

But if United States troops were on the ground in a buffer situation, in a DMZ kind of situation, and there was an artillery exchange between one party and another, would the U.S. have to respond by punishing -- being the biggest dog, you know, out there by punishing either or both sides? Would we punish the Muslims if they were involved?

MR. BURNS: It's really a question that was debated throughout the last two days. I think Secretary Perry and General Shalikashvili gave complete answers to that question. You've asked a hypothetical question. I don't think it's useful to answer questions like that for the most part. I think that the Pentagon gave a very full description of what we would and would not do -- could and could not do under certain situations. That's pretty clear to me.

Q You mentioned Arkan. Did Assistant Secretary Holbrooke mention in his discussions with President Milosevic a connection between settling the Eastern Slavonian problem and the future of Arkan?

MR. BURNS: No, I don't believe he linked it to the problem of Eastern Slavonia. In addition to his conversation, as you know, John Shattuck, our Assistant Secretary of State, visited Zenica this week; traveled throughout western and central Bosnia; visited Knin in the Krajina region; talked to hundreds of refugees in Zenica and Knin.

He gave a press conference that I would refer you to, a press conference in Zagreb this morning. But in short, he has been able to develop and I think corroborate evidence of mass brutalities committed by the Bosnian Serbs in and around Banja Luka. The figures are staggering -- the figures that he gave to me over the phone just an hour or two ago: 6,200 refugees at Zenica; 2,000 family members of those 6,200 left behind in Banja Luka; consistent reports from a variety of refugees in Zenica of brutal killings; of systematic looting of houses; of forced expulsions of Moslems and Croats from Banja Luka.

The picture is a very grim and brutal picture of what the Bosnian Serbs, among them Arkan, did to the Moslems and Croatians around Banja Luka. In the Krajina, he visited Knin. He talked to the Croatian Government about his trip there when he was in Zagreb. We are pleased that the Croatian Government has now arrested at least 25 people who may be complicit in the crimes against the Serbian population that was forced from the Krajina region in August and September.

Assistant Secretary Shattuck is bringing back to the United States a very, very sordid picture of human rights abuses, and that's why I wanted to accentuate the point about the War Crimes Tribunal. That's why Dick Holbrooke also raised that point with the three Presidents.

Q Nick, you said earlier that Serbia should put a stop to Arkan's activities. Did we make any suggestions to Serbia how they should do that?

MR. BURNS: I don't want to go into the details of the discussion that Dick Holbrooke had with President Milosevic on this issue. But suffice it to say we raised it in a very serious and determined way.

Q The way you phrased it earlier seems to go a little bit farther than the way you've phrased it in the past about saying that they have influence. That seems to be calling for some action.

MR. BURNS: They certainly have influence, and we've called upon the Serbian Government consistently to exercise that influence for the good in Bosnia.

[...]

Q Secondly, I was wondering if you would have any comments on recent New York Times' editorial claiming that the U.S. Administration is arming Turkey's oppression?

MR. BURNS: My only comment would be that we have an alliance with Turkey. We have a good relationship with Turkey. We have a security relationship that makes sense for the American people and Turkish people, and that will continue.

We also have an interest in human rights, and we have made known to the Turkish Government on a continual basis some concerns that we've had for the human rights situation within Turkey. This is not a surprise to you or anyone else. We have a human rights report published annually that talks about this in print. But we have a good relationship with the Turkish Government.

When we have differences, we prefer to keep them private, as one normally does, in a relationship like this.

Q Did you think the editorial's characterization of the State Department's recent report on Turkey's southeast problem was accurate?

MR. BURNS: I can't quite remember exactly how the editorial depicted that problem, so I don't want to answer that question. But certainly we will continue to have a relationship with Turkey that is balanced; that accentuates the positive aspects of our security and political relationship, but that never, of course, submerges the very important emphasis on human rights that the American and Turkish peoples, I think, would agree on, that has to exist in this relationship.

[...]

Q There are reports in the Greek press during the week that NATO developed a plan providing for the partial autonomy of the Greek province of Thrace -- western Thrace -- and do you have any comment on that?

MR. BURNS: I don't.

Thank you very much.

(The briefing concluded at 2:07 p.m.)

END