U.S. Department of State 95/12/12 Daily Press Briefing

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

U.S. State Department Directory

Subject: U.S. Department of State 95/12/12 Daily Press Briefing

Office of the Spokesman

[...]

--Senate Meetings re: Bosnia ...........................1

[...]

FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

NATO Non-Expansion Deal w/Russia for Cooperation .......4

Congressional Resolution on Troop Deployment ...........9-10

Resolution Used as Political Cover .....................10

Participation of Malaysian Troops ......................11

Non-NATO Countries Involvement .........................12

Mujahidin Forces .......................................12-13

[...]

[...]

Secondly, Secretary Christopher has been following a busy schedule today. He met with Congressman Bob Livingston this morning. He'll be meeting with a group of Senators later on this afternoon about our hope that the Senate will vote positively tomorrow to support the Administration's deployment of American forces to Bosnia.

[...]

Q On Bosnia, you may have addressed this previously, but, if you did, I wasn't here. Peter Rodman has written an article for "The National Review," in which -- Peter Rodman, former National Security Council official -- in which he alleges that the United States has made a deal with Russia, that in return for Russia's cooperation in Bosnia, we will put off indefinitely, for the foreseeable future, is what he says, NATO expansion. Have you made any comment on that article?

MR. BURNS: That is absolutely preposterous and without foundation, and I would challenge anyone who would like to put that view forward today to a debate about it. Secretary Christopher was asked about this a week ago Sunday in Madrid when he appeared on the Brinkley program, and he said very clearly, there is nothing to it, and I think he used the word "preposterous."

The fact is that the United States and our NATO allies reaffirmed a week ago today in Brussels the goal -- the strategic goal of NATO enlargement that is going forward. In fact, we've entered a new phase or a second phase on the process of NATO enlargement. Throughout 1996 we'll be having an intensive dialogue with prospective new members of NATO about the condition, responsibilities and rights of NATO membership for these new countries.

We are absolutely committed to the goal of NATO enlargement. The Russian Government knows that. We're also committed to the goal of a Russia-NATO relationship that would proceed on a separate track but at about the same speed as the process of NATO enlargement.

Both of these objectives were outlined by NATO leaders at the January 1994 Brussels summit. They have both been reaffirmed as recently as a week ago today, and for anyone, much less Mr. Rodman, to assert that somehow there was a deal with Russia, that Russia would participate in IFOR and in return would get a stalling of the NATO effort, is absolutely preposterous.

There's nothing to it, and I would just love to have this debate. If he wants to come down here when I get back, we'll have this debate. But I think that a retraction is in order. This is a very serious matter pertaining to one of the foundations of American policy in Europe, and for this to be asserted by a former government official in a prestigious journal is just simply, simply incorrect.

Q Are you going to put a lookout for Rodman? (Laughter)

MR. BURNS: We can't do that. He's an American citizen. We'd never do that, George. But perhaps we can call him on the phone and challenge him to a debate. I'd love to have it. I'd love to that debate.

Q You mentioned, at the beginning, the Middle East. Before we leave that behind, is Secretary Christopher taking a basket of ideas -- I guess that's the newest phrase -- is he taking new ideas with him to Damascus, or is he just going there to listen and take those ideas on -- what is his agenda there?

MR. BURNS: Jim, let me just step back and give you what I think our perspective on the Israeli-Syrian track as we prepare to visit Damascus and Jerusalem and Cairo and Amman and either Jericho or Gaza in the next four or five days.

First of all, I think it's apparent to the United States as a result of the conversations that the President has had with Prime Minister Peres and the Secretary and President Assad, and that the Secretary has had with Foreign Minister Shara and others.

First, that both Israel and Syria want to move forward on peace negotiations.

Second, that both have indicated to us a great seriousness of purpose about these negotiations and renewed energy. The atmosphere, as President Clinton said yesterday, is clearly better now than it was at any time during the last six months.

There are differences that remain on very important issues, and we expect these negotiations that will be revitalized during the next week -- we expect they will be very difficult negotiations.

The Secretary intends on his trip to do the following. He intends to renew the dialogue and to revitalize it; to see how much progress can be made in the coming months, and his goal is to have thorough and comprehensive discussions with all the parties, but particularly with the Syrian and Israeli leadership about these issues.

He'll be going on, as I said, to Amman to visit King Hussein, to talk about King Hussein's view of this part of the peace process. He'll also be talking to King Hussein about how we can follow up on the Amman Economic Summit to build greater support for regional economic growth and stability.

He'll be having discussions with Chairman Arafat, either in Jericho or Gaza -- we're not quite sure yet -- about the implementation of the Israeli-Palestinian agreement. It's going quite well. You saw that the Israeli forces have withdrawn now from the largest city in the West Bank -- Nablus. They withdrew from Tulkarm over the weekend -- another northern town -- and they, of course, withdrew from Jenin a couple of weeks back.

There will be discussions on that track -- the Israeli-Palestinian track -- as well as on the issue of economic development in the West Bank and in Gaza. Of course, the United States is very much interested in that, and Secretary Christopher has a great personal interest in that.

We'll also be visiting Cairo, where the Secretary will have discussions with President Mubarak about all aspects of these issues, because we find that Egypt is one of our most important partners in this peace process.

So I think, Jim, we go with a certain degree of hope that it is now possible to revitalize the Israeli-Syrian track; that there is renewed energy, renewed purpose, but these are going to be difficult negotiations, and I think that we all have to continue to remind ourselves of that.

As you remember, back in last March and June, when the Secretary was in the Middle East, there was a sense of hope then that there might be progress in 1996 on the Israel-Syria issues, and that hope was not realized.

So as we enter this process of a renewed set of discussions, I think we've got to be mindful of how difficult these issues are.

Q Is he taking with him a set of new ideas, or any mix of the old ideas --

MR. BURNS: We're an active player in the peace process. We're not a passive player. When it's appropriate and when we feel we can make a difference, we, of course, suggest our own ideas. We haven't changed -- Dennis Ross has been in the region twice since the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin. He'll be, of course, accompanying the Secretary. I think both the Secretary and Dennis Ross believes that we have something to offer, and we will be offering it.

What I cannot do, and I'm not willing to do and what Dennis will not be willing to do along the way, is to get into the specific discussions on these issues because we really have to have those discussions privately and confidentially with the various countries.

Q Recognizing the privacy that's needed, is the goal to get back to where -- you mentioned March and June -- to get back to where the process was late spring/early summer, that is, revive the military talks? Is there some short-range goal in the process here?

MR. BURNS: We're not trying to replicate, Judd, in all of its dimensions the talks as they existed, say, when the Secretary left Damascus and Jerusalem in mid-June. It's a new phase. It's a renewed peace process. The conditions are quite different. There's been a very tragic event in the meantime -- the death of the Israeli Prime Minister.

There's a renewed sense of purpose in Israel itself which Prime Minister Peres talked about to the Congress this morning. So I think it's a different time.

Our objective over the long haul here, of course, is a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. That has been the objective of many, many American administrations going back into the 1960s, and that remains of this objective of this Administration and, I think, of our partners in the Middle East as well.

Q So it's possible that the process could go forward without renewing those military talks that had been aborted during the summer?

MR. BURNS: I understand. It's a good question. I understand why you're asking it. I think what we've got to do first is the Secretary has to move through his discussions in Damascus, Jerusalem, Amman, Cairo, and Jericho. He has to kind of get a sense of what the parameters of these discussions can be, of how much movement can be made; how much progress can be made in the coming weeks before we start talking specifically about what our benchmarks are.

Q As you know, Saudi Arabia and Qatar had, or are still having a disagreement over the selection of a new Secretary General for the GCC. Do you have any comment?

MR. BURNS: My only comment would be that the United States is a very strong supporter of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Secretary Christopher tries, whenever he can, to meet with the GCC representatives. He did in Jeddah in March, as you remember. The GCC and the United States have worked well together.

The last thing we want to do, though, is get involved in the debate about who should be the next leader of the GCC. We'll leave that for the participant states.

Q Are there any contacts with the parties -- with either Saudi Arabia or Qatar?

MR. BURNS: About this issue?

Q Yes.

MR. BURNS: I just don't know. It may be that we have; it may be that we have not. I just don't know. We are in regular touch with each of the member governments, of course, as you would expect. We have good relations with all the GCC members.

Q Could you take the question?

MR. BURNS: I'll look into it, but I can assure you that the last thing we would want to do from this podium would be to put our oar in the water in this debate about who should be the new head of the GCC.

Charlie.

Q Nick, to go back to Israel and Syria and the U.S. efforts to play a role in that. Last June, in Damascus, President Assad gave his word to Secretary Christopher that there are to be a certain set of events which didn't happen.

Notwithstanding the effort to try and move things along, what would lead you to think that the Secretary should believe anything he hears this time from President Assad if he didn't keep his word last time?

MR. BURNS: I don't subscribe to any part of the question, with all due respect, Charlie. The United States doesn't look upon the events of the past six months in the same way that you do.

The fact is that these countries are engaged in very difficult negotiations. In one way or another they've been at this for the past 28/29 years. It's difficult and it's complicated, so we're not going to make any judgments about what happened over the last six months.

What we are going to do is proceed forward with renewed emphasis on the importance of building a revitalized peace process. We're not going to try to keep score about what happened or what didn't happen last summer. It's a new era. I think you've seen that in the comments that Prime Minister Peres has made to the Congress and that he made to the press yesterday at the Old Executive Office Building.

Q That the new era -- or doubting that there is a new era. But is it not true that last June President Assad told Secretary Christopher that there would be two sets of military meetings, the second of which did not take place?

MR. BURNS: When the Secretary left for the Middle East last June, we thought that we had worked out a series of events that would move the discussion forward. That discussion was not moved forward for a variety of reasons. I'm not going to point the finger at any one person or any one country.

The fact is that all of us are in this together, including the United States, as a helpful partner. All of us bear responsibility for the fact that the peace process did not move, as well as bearing responsibility for hoping that it will move in the future.

Q Bosnia. On the Bosnia votes, there are going to be two or three different resolutions voted on in the House and Senate, I think. At least one of them is a non-binding resolution that just expresses a lack of confidence in President Clinton's decision to send troops to Bosnia.

I wonder, how do you think that resolution, which I understand is likely to pass -- what effect do you think that will have on the confidence of the NATO allies and others in the region as you start this deployment, which is supposed to last a year? Already there are some people who are wondering whether the United States will stay.

MR. BURNS: I was at the NATO meetings last Tuesday and Wednesday. I didn't detect any lack of confidence in the United States. In fact, what I saw in the room when General Joulwan made his presentation to the Foreign and Defense Ministers, and certainly when Secretary Christopher and Secretary Perry spoke, was respect for the United States; respect for our leadership role in the IFOR deployment; respect for the fact that we led the effort to turn this situation around since last July when we led the NATO bombing campaign in September. We led the diplomatic effort. We produced the peace agreement at Dayton.

I think we have in Europe right now a great deal of confidence in the commitment of the Clinton Administration to see this mission through to the end. That means to keep our troops on the ground for roughly a year. We'll be true to our commitments to our NATO allies, as well as to the parties. I, frankly, just would take issue with the basis of your question.

Q What do you think the purpose of that resolution is?

MR. BURNS: What we're looking for in our discussions with the Senate is a supportive resolution -- a resolution that would clearly have the United States speak with one voice, on a bipartisan basis, and that would also show all of our young men and women, who are being deployed now and in the next few weeks, that the American people are behind them.

It's very important that after the signing of the peace agreement, two days from now in Paris, the American people join together and support the soldiers.

If the Senate can take action tomorrow that would express that degree of confidence in our troops as well as in the Administration, then that would be a beneficial resolution from the point of view of this Administration.

Q Do you think the non-binding resolution is simply an attempt to take political cover in case the mission goes badly?

MR. BURNS: I would say that Senator Dole and Senator McCain have shown great leadership over the last couple of weeks. It hasn't been easy for them politically, certainly. They've shown leadership. I think they are trying to work out a bipartisan consensus. We are trying to work with them, and we have great respect for what they've been doing.

Q What about the others?

MR. BURNS: I don't have any particular comments on the others.

Q Could you please comment on Colombia's status towards the 1996 drug certification. Ambassador Frechette made some comments this morning on NPR, talking about the difficulty that Colombia would have in the upcoming certification process?

MR. BURNS: I didn't hear the Ambassador's remarks -- Ambassador Frechette's remarks. This is the number one issue: the issue of narcotics between the United States and Colombia. We've had an up and down discussion with the Colombian Government throughout the past year since we made our last determination in March. The next determination will not come until then, so I don't want to predict what it will be.

But I can predict that we will keep this issue at the forefront of our relationship. We are looking for a commitment from the Colombian Government that it will join us in the fight against international narcotics trafficking. That's just as much in Colombia's interest as in ours.

Q Malaysia seems interested to send its troops to Bosnia. I'm just wondering, where would they be positioned when they get to Bosnia? And under whose command? Is there an exit strategy for these non-NATO forces should something go wrong with the peace process?

MR. BURNS: One of the things that we've been very pleased to see over the last few weeks is that a great number of non-NATO countries in Asia -- Muslim countries as well as European countries -- Central European countries -- have come forward and have volunteered troops to work with IFOR.

As these countries come forward with commitments that they will put a certain number of troops in the field, IFOR is working out sectors that they will be deployed in and the supportive relationships that they'll have with NATO members.

I don't believe we've finished our discussions with the Malaysian Government on that, but we certainly welcome the participation of Malaysia in this effort. Malaysia has been a leader in the Organization of the Islamic Conference on this issue, and we respect that and certainly want to continue to work with Malaysia.

The second thing I would say is that, as we look at the challenge to bring peace to Bosnia and to sustain the Dayton accords, the military side is just one side of the equation. The other side of the equation is the civilian side.

That mission is going to go on for a number of years. Not just a year, as is the case on the military side.

It is perhaps a more challenging mission than the military mission because Bosnia, which is a ravaged economy and landscape, needs to be rebuilt with international aid. Two million refugees need to be returned to their homes or they need to be compensated for the loss of their homes.

An international police force and a local police force have to be trained and deployed in the area. Human rights have to be respected. There are arms control provisions. All of this will take place under the coordination of former Prime Minister Carl Bildt.

Here, I think the Muslim countries -- particularly, Malaysia, as a leader -- need to play a very active role in supporting us on the civilian, not just on the military side.

Tomorrow, Dick Holbrooke will be in Paris during the day. He'll have a meeting with the OIC Contact Group. This is one of the points that he'll be making, that their involvement in both the civilian as well as the military sides is most welcome.

Q How many other countries -- non-NATO countries -- are involved?

MR. BURNS: How many?

Q How many and who are they?

MR. BURNS: I don't know the latest count. There are a great number of non-NATO countries participating. We can get you a specific number and a list of those countries after the briefing. I know we do have that information.

Q (Inaudible) the report about Richard Holbrooke wanting the Muslim Government out of Bosnia when the NATO forces are deployed?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me. I didn't quite understand the question.

Q They said something about the Muslim Mujahidin getting out - -

MR. BURNS: The Mujahidin.

Q Yes.

MR. BURNS: That's absolutely accurate. The fact is that there are between 700 or 800 -- or 2,000 or 3,000 Mujahidin forces in Bosnia. They've been helping the Bosnian Government over the last couple of years. There's no longer any reason for them to stay. The Dayton accords clearly spell out the need for them to leave.

One of the missions that Dick Holbrooke had over the weekend was to elicit a firm commitment from the Bosnian Government that the Mujahidin would leave. President Izetbegovic gave that commitment publicly. He said that the Iranians and Algerians and Afghanis and others would be leaving. It's a very good sign because however helpful they may have been in the past, they will not be helpful in the future.

The agenda that a number of these forces had, frankly, is a radical agenda which is inconsistent with the agenda that IFOR has.

[...]

(The briefing concluded at 1:48 p.m.)

END