U.S. Department of State 96/01/31 Daily Press Briefing

From: DOSFAN <gopher://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/>

U.S. State Department Directory

U.S. Department of State

96/01/31 Daily Press Briefing

Office of the Spokesman

GREECE/TURKEY
Dispute re: Islet/Withdrawal of Forces...............8-13
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
Monitoring of Sites of Alleged War Crimes............14-15

[...]

Before we get to Greece and Turkey, I just want to -- Lambros, I know that's what you're interested in -- I want to make sure that we cover all the Middle East questions first, and then we'll go to Greece and Turkey.

[...]

Q Could you please elaborate on the State Department's involvement yesterday under the auspices of Mr. Richard Holbrooke to defuse the crisis between Greece and Turkey over the Aegean?

MR. BURNS: If I could just take a little bit of issue with the way you framed your question, just in the interest of being completely accurate, this was actually not just a State Department operation yesterday. Actually, the President, President Clinton, was on the phone with --

Q (Inaudible) question at the White House, that's why I talk to the State Department.

MR. BURNS: No, understood. But President Clinton, of course, had conversations with the Greek Prime Minister, the Turkish Prime Minister and the Turkish President about this. Secretary Christopher had conversations with the Turkish and Greek Foreign Ministers. Secretary of Defense Perry, Chairman Shalikashvili and National Security Adviser Tony Lake all were involved in the effort yesterday to try to defuse this crisis.

There was at a very late hour a mutually acceptable agreement which called for the immediate withdrawal of ships, the personnel and the flags of both sides from the area. Both Turkey and Greece have assured us that the islet will return to the status quo ante.

Now we understand that Greek and Turkish forces have withdrawn, and we have monitored and we have verified that there is a complete withdrawal of Greek and Turkish forces.

This agreement, we believe, results from the common sense and the courage of both governments, and their mutual recognition that it is inadmissible for two NATO allies to risk a military confrontation, as was the case yesterday.

The United States has no position on the question of sovereignty, and we believe that both Turkey and Greece and should work together to find a solution to the problem and the other issues which divide them. We will certainly be talking to both governments on a daily basis about this, and I think that you know Assistant Secretary Holbrooke will be making a trip to the Aegean before he leaves office in late February to follow up on our concerns that the United States does continually remind Greece and Turkey of the inadmissibility of military confrontation in the Aegean.

Q The U.S. has no position on the sovereignty? What do you mean by this?

MR. BURNS: I'm saying that this is obviously the question at the heart of this issue, Lambros, the sovereignty of this island --

Q No, it's very important -- you raise a very, very important issue.

MR. BURNS: Thank you, I always try to...

Q So I repeat it. Why the U.S. Government has no position on the sovereignty of Greek territory and -- (laughter) -- that's exactly, this is the case.

MR. BURNS: I know that my --

Q No, no, no. It's very important, very important. Let me give you a question. Do you recognize the territorial integrity of Greece, the U.S. Government?

MR. BURNS: Lambros, let me just -- in the interests of being absolutely clear, let me just repeat what I said.

Q Okay.

MR. BURNS: As you know, the United States is a NATO ally with both Greece and Turkey, and we know that the question of sovereignty is at the heart of this dispute over the islet, which has two names -- a Greek name and a Turkish name -- and the United States prefers not to take a public position on the question of sovereignty.

What we prefer to do is to use our diplomatic influence with two friends to make sure that question can be resolved peacefully and amicably and without resort to military action.

Q It came to my attention that in your official exchanges here, the Department of State, from the above, that you are using the Turkish name Kardak -- K-a-r-d-a-k -- for the Greek island Imia -- I-m-i-a -- and I wondered why.

MR. BURNS: Actually, you'll be pleased to know that in the piece of paper right in front of me, we have both names, and I'm glad to even repeat them or recite them in either order that you choose. I'm glad to start with the Greek name.

There is a dispute here. There's an obvious dispute. We understand that the Greeks use one name and the Turks another. I'm looking to the Turkish journalist for support here -- to support me with you -- and we simply do not want to take a position. We're not supporting Turkey, and we're not supporting Greece. We are friends with both, and we will stand with both in an attempt to resolve this problem.

Q The point is that --

MR. BURNS: We have used the Greek name. In fact, I think Monday we only used the Greek name, and I think some Turks took us to task for that.

Q No, no --

MR. BURNS: So now we use both names to describe this.

Q Why? Why?

MR. BURNS: Because there's a dispute between two friends. We don't want to take sides publicly with one friend against another.

Q But I raised the question yesterday to Mr. Davies, the point is that you are a signatory of the Treaty of Paris, 1947, regarding the starting of war over this island, including the (inaudible). Turkey is not a signatory, so here the Department of State -- you have all the legal definition as far as the border between Greece and Turkey. So otherwise you are placing into question the border between Greece and Turkey. This is my question.

MR. BURNS: No, we're not placing that into question at all. We're telling Greece and Turkey you should not resort to a military altercation, frankly, over, as Dick Holbrooke said so well, "over a piece of territory that's no larger than this building."

What you ought to do in our message to both countries is, as Glyn Davies said so effectively yesterday, is stay calm -- right, Glyn? -- I thought it was effective -- stay calm and negotiate these differences and don't fight over them. So, Lambros, I really can't improve on the guidance that I have on what has been said by the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Adviser, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Assistant Secretary of State. We all agree on this, and I can't change --

Q (Inaudible) that they are challenging the sovereignty of Greece.

MR. BURNS: -- I can't change a U.S. Government position just because there's unhappiness.

Q Nick, could I break in here?

MR. BURNS: Do you want to talk about Greece and Turkey?

Q Yes, same subject. (Laughter)

MR. BURNS: Maybe you can come to the defense of Mr. Lambros. I don't know.

Q No, I have a technical question. Mr. Holbrooke -- then you - - said that the U.S. helped monitor the withdrawal last night. Holbrooke said it was done with U.S. military aircraft. Can you elaborate on how it was actually monitored?

MR. BURNS: I can't elaborate on it. I can just say that we did monitor it through our military assets in the area, and that we are satisfied that there has been a complete withdrawal.

I should say one thing. We understand that there was, unfortunately, a helicopter accident -- a Greek helicopter accident in the process of the Greek military action. We understand the three crew members of that Greek helicopter are missing, and we certainly will give all support to the Government of Greece that we can to try to help locate those three missing crew members.

Q A follow-up. But to have this statement -- because the helicopter has fallen down in an island which is being invaded by the Turkish forces -- we're talking about the second one -- and I would like to know what is the U.S. position? Besides the Imia island -- I-m-i-a - - also the Turkish forces invaded the second one where the action has taken place. So I would like to know what is the U.S. position over the second invasion of the island?

MR. BURNS: Our position is that if there are disputes between Greece and Turkey over sovereignty, over flags, over who should stand on islands that are in some cases no bigger than piles of rocks -- that those disputes should be worked out peacefully and amicably. We're not going to take a public position.

I'm going to have to close this avenue for now, because I've now repeated myself three or four times. We're not going to take a public position on the question of sovereignty.

Q The Turks landed ten seals on that second islet as a pressure tactic against the first islet. Have you verified that those troops are gone?

MR. BURNS: We know that they're gone from the islet that was in dispute. I can take your question, Barry. I'm just now sure about that.

Q And a corollary to that is, is the sovereignty of that island something the United States takes no position on?

MR. BURNS: Let me check on that. I was referring to the island with two names.

Q Sure. That's been a center. (Laughter)

MR. BURNS: The islet, I should say. It's not even an island. I think all of us agree it's not an island.

Q Well, it's an islet, and it's ten acres and seven Greek coastguardsmen landed on the island. But the Turks countered by landing ten -- the ten, I guess they're called seals, on an adjoining or -- not adjoining, nearby islet. So I wonder if that little thing is over with, and also how much of the Aegean does the U.S. not have a sovereignty position on?

MR. BURNS: Barry, we think it's a wise decision.

Q I know you believe things should be settled peacefully.

MR. BURNS: We think it's a wise decision not to assert a U.S. position on sovereignty in this particular case.

Q Is it a final -- (laughter) --

MR. BURNS: I don't believe they're final status problems, unless I've missed something.

Q I mean, except for Jerusalem and a couple of islands, I'm not so sure that the U.S. doesn't have a position on sovereignty around the world.

MR. BURNS: We have a position on sovereignty on many areas of the Aegean that is quite clear, and I'd be happy to talk about it.

Q (Inaudible)

MR. BURNS: Yes, happy to talk about that --

Q But these are the islands that at least two NATO allies almost came to war over this while, you know --

MR. BURNS: Exactly, and that's the point.

Q Yes, and it was a big deal, and it isn't -- I don't think the deft American diplomacy necessarily forecloses a dispute some place later on.

MR. BURNS: No, but I'm glad -- I like the adjective, and I think that the diplomacy was very successful --

Q You have to come down on one side or another ultimately.

MR. BURNS: It was very successful in deterring a military confrontation yesterday, and that was our prime objective yesterday. Part and parcel of our effectiveness in working with Greece and Turkey, of course, is not to take sides publicly with one or the other.

Q (Inaudible) if we know exactly the context of the assurances by Mr. Holbrooke to Mr. Baykal, because Mr. Holbrooke raised exactly the issue about the sovereignty of some islands over in Greece, and they're talking about a kind of a package deal in the process (inaudible) he is going over to Athens and then to Ankara and then to Nicosia, including the Cyprus problem. So I would like to know what is it about this package deal he's going to present to both sides?

MR. BURNS: I hope that the Greek and Turkish Governments are now looking forward to the visit of Assistant Secretary Holbrooke. He's going to turn his considerable diplomatic skills on the problems in the Aegean.

Q Could I go to Bosnia?

MR. BURNS: Sure.

Q There is at least one, and perhaps more, sites of alleged mass graves which is in territory which on D-plus-45, which is a few days away, the Muslims will no longer be in control of. The mass grave I'm thinking of is a mass grave allegedly containing the bodies of Muslims.

What is the U.S. position on such sites? What action should be taken, if any, to assure that evidence cannot be compromised and by whom?

MR. BURNS: You're right, David, and welcome back. The deadline for the withdrawal of military forces from areas to be transferred is D- plus- 45, which is February 3. There will then be a 45-day period, during which the entity which will take over the area will not place its military forces on that area for 45 days.

There are many sites that are of interest to the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal, and those sites, I think, encompass territory held by all three of the parties to the Dayton Accords. We believe that the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal investigators should have access to all these sites.

In some cases, Justice Goldstone has told us that he will not seek physical access for his investigators until there's a thaw. I mean, I'm talking now about a thaw that will come with the spring.

In the meantime, we are conducting aerial surveillance -- IFOR is conducting aerial surveillance of these sites. There are patrols, but not constant military presence at the more important sites, and we will make every effort we can to help the investigators on site and to provide security for them when they do get to these sites.

I think the larger points we made here are these: There is too much evidence. There's too much factual evidence, there's too much personal testimony, for the Bosnian Serbs or for anyone else responsible for war crimes to think that they can cover up their crimes by tampering with the sites where those crimes took place. It simply will not work.

Fifty-two people have already been indicted, and we think there's sufficient information in those indictments to lead to convictions once those people are detained. Much more information has been developed since the 52 were indicted, and more indictments will be coming down the road just in the next couple of months, according to Justice Goldstone.

So people out there who have something to hide should be under no illusion that they can hide their crimes from the United Nations and the international community.

Q Do you think IFOR is doing everything it should and that it's been authorized to do to protect such sites?

MR. BURNS: I think the best answer to that question comes from Justice Goldstone who said publicly in his visit to Washington last week that he is satisfied with the arrangements he has made with Admiral Smith for aerial surveillance, for patrols; and, when these United Nations investigators go in, then some more specific measures to enhance their security will allow them to do their job. He's also satisfied with the level of commitment from the United States, which, as you know, is the leading country in support of the War Crimes Tribunal.

Still on Bosnia before we move on?

Q If I could follow on David's question, Lord Owen was on the radio here in town this morning and asked about the mass murders. He said that he believed that most of the missing Muslim men were dead and buried. I would like to ask, Nick, what would our Department, in view of what Judge Goldstone has said and the other information that's been gathered in the last thirty-plus days -- what would this Department tell the wives, the Srebrenica wives, who rioted in Tuzla at the Red Cross about the fate of their husbands? Are they presumed dead, probably dead, possibly in concentration camps, or what? What would you say?

MR. BURNS: Of the six to eight thousand men and boys who disappeared in the days after the fall of Srebrenica in mid-July, we believe that the majority of them are probably dead. I don't know how we can come to any other conclusion. There is too much eyewitness testimony to the terrible events that took place when the Bosnian Serbs ruthlessly massacred them.

We are not sure of the exact number of dead. Some people got away and have given testimony to the United Nations, to the United States, to the International Committee of the Red Cross. But unfortunately many thousands of people appear to have been massacred, and that is why Mladic and Karadzic have a lot to answer for. They have been indicted by the War Crimes Tribunal, and the crimes at Srebrenica are at the core of those indictments.

[...]

(Press briefing concluded at 2:12 p.m.)