U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #157, 96-09-30
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, September 30, l996
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Newly Elected Bosnian Presidency Holds First Meeting..........1
Secretary Christopher to Have Photo-op with PM Klaus of
Czech Republic..............................................2
Department Background Briefing on Middle East Peace Process
Today at 3:30 p.m........................................ 2
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
Chairman Arafat, PM Netanyahu, King Hussein to Attend
Washington DC Summit...................................... 2
Egyptian Foreign Minister Moussa to Attend Summit/Absence of
President Mubarak..........................................2,4,9
White House to Release Schedule of Summit Meetings............2
Secretary Christopher Role in Summit Arrangements.............3
U.S. Role as Intermediary in Negotiations/Objectives..........3,
5-7,10-12
European Allies Briefed on Scheduling of Summit...............7-8
King Hussein Suggestion to Establish Commission on Religious
Sites in the Old City...................................... 11
Relationship of US Aid to Continuing Violence.................8
Ability of Palestinian Authority and of Israel to Control
Security Situation..........................................14
AFGHANISTAN
Situation in Kabul............................................14-16
US Condemns Execution of Najibullah.......................... 15
US Contacts with the Taliban................................. 15-17
TURKEY
PM Erbakan Visit to Libya, Contact with Sudan................ 17-18
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
Certification of Sept. 14 Elections/Possibility of Lifting
of Sanctions/UNSC Vote on Res. 1022................ .........18,21
FM Milutinovic Mtgs. at the Department.........................20,21
US Encouraging Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina to Establish
Diplomatic Relations............................. ...........22
AFRICA
Secretary's Travel Schedule Remains Firm/Itinerary to Include
Tanzania, Ethiopia, Angola, Mali, South Africa............. 22-23
GREECE
FM Pangalos Comments on US Involvement in Efforts to Resolve
Aegean Issue/Mtgs. between Secretary Christopher and PM
Pangalos at UNGA................................ ............24-25
LIBYA
Involvement in Bombing of Pan Am 103..........................27
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #157
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, 1:20 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department briefing. I
have one announcement, and then I'll be glad to go into your questions. We
are dealing with two very big issues today. Obviously, the situation
concerning preparations for the summit that the President has called for in
Washington.
I want to begin, however, with an announcement on Bosnia. As you know, the
newly-elected Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina held its first meeting
today. That session took place in Sarajevo, at the Hotel Saraj inside the
city of Sarajevo. It was attended by the three Presidency members who were
chosen in the September 14th election, the results of which were certified
yesterday by the OSCE Mission, by Ambassador Frowick.
The participants were President Izetbegovic,Mr. Krajisnik, and Mr.
Zubak.
The United States officials worked very closely with Carl Bildt, the High
Representative, to bring this meeting about. It represents the beginning of
what we hope will be regular meetings among the three who share this
office. The United States welcomes this important action in building the
joint institutions which came into being as a result of the election.
Today's meeting is the critical first step in a process which will involve
the convening of the parliament and the creation of the Council of
Ministers and the creation of a central bank and of a court.
We congratulate the members of the Presidency. We congratulate the people
of Bosnia on this historic first step following the elections, and the
United States will continue to work very closely with all of them and, of
course, our Contact Group partners, so that the Dayton Accords, and the
promise of the Dayton Accords, can be fulfilled.
Now, turning to the Middle East Summit that the President and the Secretary
State are arranging. I can tell you a couple of things. First, operational
in terms of guidance for how we can do our business today.
The Secretary of State will have a photo opportunity with the Czech Prime
Minister -- Prime Minister Vaclav Klaus -- at 3:00 p.m. today. He'll be
glad to take your questions on a variety of issues at that photo session,
which is up in the Treaty Room.
Following that, there will be a BACKGROUND briefing by a senior Administration
official, well-known to all of you, at 3:30 p.m. in this Briefing Room.
That will be ON BACKGROUND.
I can also tell you -- and I know that Mike McCurry has gone over some of
this in his briefing -- that we have just received word that Chairman
Arafat will attend the summit meeting. In fact, he's stopping in Luxembourg
to talk with the EU Foreign Ministers -- with the Troika, the past, present,
and future EU Presidents. Following that, he will depart Luxembourg for
Washington, and we expect him to arrive in Washington in the early morning
hours of tomorrow morning.
Prime Minister Netanyahu is due in around midnight. King Hussein is due in
earlier -- I think late afternoon today. We also understand that following
a conversation that the President had with President Mubarak late this
morning, that President Mubarak will not be attending the summit. He has
asked that his Foreign Minister, Foreign Minister Amre Moussa, attend the
summit. Foreign Minister Moussa is most welcome to attend.
I can tell you in terms of the schedule -- I know Mike has gone over this.
This is still a work-in-progress. We expect that there will be, of course,
some preliminary meetings when the delegations arrive that Ambassador
Dennis Ross and his other colleagues will be having with the Israeli and
Palestinian and Jordanian delegations.
Tomorrow, I think the White House will be putting out a schedule. We expect
there to be a series of bilateral meetings, and then probably a group
meeting. At some point after that, the President and the Secretary and
others will decide how to proceed with the meetings, what best combination
of meetings need to take place on the remainder of Tuesday and into
Wednesday, to make this summit a success.
Let me just remind you what our objectives are here for this summit. After
the violence last week, which was among the worst that anyone had seen in
30 years in the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem, it became very clear
watching that, hearing reports on it, that there was no substitute for a
meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat.
As you know, Secretary of State Christopher, who was in New York late last
week, worked literally around the clock on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and
Sunday to produce this meeting. He had conversations with all the relevant
leaders; many, many conversations with the President over the weekend.
That's our first objective, to get the two leaders together so that they
may begin discussing the problems between them and break the cycle of
grievances and cycle of violence and hostilities that have dominated
relations between the two for the last week.
Second, we obviously would like them to agree that they will stop the
fighting on the streets.
And, third, that they will begin a substantive discussion -- begin, again,
a substantive discussion -- of the issues that are needed to be discussed
to fulfill the Oslo Accords, and there are many such issues.
There is a need to restore calm and stability on the streets of the West
Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem. There is a need to put the fighting behind
them. There is a need to get together and to talk and begin a discussion.
We don't underestimate the challenges in accomplishing these objectives.
You've seen even the difficulties that we have experienced today about a
number of questions about who will participate.
As Ambassador Ross said earlier today, these are deeply-held grievances.
There are raw emotions and there is much bitterness that separate Israel
and the Palestinians. Our task, as the principal intermediary, is to help
bring them together to begin the process of turning their relationship back
into one where they work together to fulfill the Oslo Accords and to
negotiate their differences. That's what we hope to accomplish over the
next couple of days.
QUESTION: Nick, when you speak of bilateral meetings, is it known now
that Arafat and Netanyahu will meet face-to-face without, as well as with,
but without American mediation?
MR. BURNS: I think they'll certainly meet face-to-face. At this point,
Barry, since we're still pulling the schedule together -- and we do need to
consult with both of them when they arrive and their staffs -- I'm just not
in a position and, I think, neither is Mike McCurry to say, "Here is the
way all the meetings will be conducted for the day and a half or two-day
period." But, certainly, there will be bilateral meetings that the
President and Secretary of State will have.
The Secretary, of course, will be very active, probably operating out of
Blair House tomorrow. The President will be hosting this at the White
House. That will happen. We expect there to be a group meeting. After that,
we'll just have to see how the summit transpires.
As you remember, this is the way that many of the previous Middle East
summits transpired. It's also the way that the Dayton Accords transpired.
QUESTION: So you don't know for sure that Arafat and Netanyahu will meet
face-to-face without American participation?
MR. BURNS: We'll just have to see what decisions they make. But,
certainly, in asking them to come to Washington, we expect that they will
meet in the same room together and discuss these issues face to face. We'll
just have to leave that up to them as to how they decide to do that.
QUESTION: And from Mubarak, "no thank you." Is that something that hurts
your effort? Is that a slight? It almost reflects that you look to Egypt to
be a moderating force.
Did Mubarak give a reason? I suppose he has a busy schedule, but is his
absence a slight? Does it hurt in any way your efforts to resolve these two
problems?
MR. BURNS: Obviously, in extending the invitation, we had hoped that
President Mubarak would come to Washington. He has been, since he became
President of Egypt many years ago, a very able and productive leader in the
region who has consistently called for peaceful dialogue. We have worked
extremely well with him in the past and we'll continue to, I'm sure, in the
future.
So, certainly, it would have been preferable to have had President Mubarak
here. The fact that he's sending his Foreign Minister is a good thing.
Egypt will be represented. Egypt will be present at these talks. Egypt is
one of the major Arab countries. As I said, Egypt has been a voice of
stability and reason in the Middle East and is a good partner of the United
States.
QUESTION: Nick, are you looking for some just general statement of, yes,
we'll get back together and start peace talks again? Or are you looking for
a date specific?
MR. BURNS: Carol, I don't know if there will be any statements at the end
of this. I don't know what the result of the summit will be. None of us do.
This is something that's going to be produced and be decided in the course
of the discussions.
I do want to accentuate, as Secretary Christopher did yesterday in his
television appearance, how difficult this is. I think that our expectations,
frankly, should be set at a realistic place and a realistic bar for these
meetings. It is normally done by spokespeople before significant international
meetings, as you know. But I think in this case, if you look at the
substantive disagreements between them, if you look at the bitterness that
was produced by last week's events, I think you will agree that bringing
them together, getting them to talk again, and hopefully having an
agreement that they will stop fighting is a realistic way to look at this
meeting. But I would not encourage you to think that this meeting can
achieve something well beyond that.
This is a process that we're trying to jump-start here. They've had a lot
of success over the last three years in negotiating with each other.
Frankly, they had some good meetings, we thought, since Prime Minister
Netanyahu had come into power.
But after the horrible events of last week, with over 50 people killed,
with hundreds if not thousands wounded, with the divisions and grievances
and hostility that those events produced, I think we have to be realistic
that the Washington Summit, we hope, will jump-start the peace negotiations,
bring them back together talking. But we would expect that this process
would have to continue well beyond their departure from Washington. They
will not be able to resolve all the issues between them at this summit.
QUESTION: Two questions. One, are you expecting all the meetings to take
place in Blair House and in the White House?
MR. BURNS: I think you're going to see a variety of things. When the
delegations arrive, I think Ambassador Ross will probably be going to their
hotels or meeting them elsewhere. I don't believe that's been decided yet.
I would think that the majority of meetings would be held at the White
House and Blair House, yes. This is a Presidential Summit, and the
President has called this. Therefore, it will have the Presidential
imprimatur.
QUESTION: What role are King Hussein and Foreign Minister Moussa to play
in these meetings?
MR. BURNS: The President and Secretary thought, when they decided to
convene this summit over the weekend, they thought it was very important
that Egypt and Jordan be represented because Egypt and Jordan have been the
pillars, the foundations of the peace negotiations with Israel. Both of
them have peace treaties with Israel. Both of them have fully, normal
relations with Israel. In particular, His Majesty King Hussein and
President Mubarak have been among the most constructive, most effective
Arab leaders, in a general sense, on all of the peace negotiation issues.
They're also good friends of the United States.
QUESTION: Nick, I understand what you're saying about the United States
acting as host, and that being a difficult thing in itself. But if asked,
is the United States prepared to put forward any substantive ideas that
might help the parties come together?
MR. BURNS: The United States is an active intermediary in these
negotiations. We have been for years. If you wish, we have been for decades,
going all the way back to the late 1960s and 1970s. We've always been an
active intermediary.
During the last three and a half years of the life of this Administration,
at junctures such as this, following the Hebron massacre of February 25,
1994, in the negotiations that led to the signature of the Oslo II Treaty
on September 28, '95 -- at each of these critical junctures, where a lot of
people thought the Israelis and Palestinians would not have an agreement,
the United States has been very active substantively behind the scenes. We
have our own ideas. We do suggest those ideas in the course of meetings.
I would think this summit coming up Tuesday and Wednesday would be no
different at all.
But I think there's another important point that we have to bear in mind.
That is, this peace process -- the peace negotiations -- they belong to
Israel and the Palestinians. In the final analysis, the Israeli and
Palestinian leaders are responsible, but they also are the only ones who
can make the decisions to move it forward. It's their negotiations. They
have been in control of these negotiations; and for the most part, they
have met willingly and they've met together and often met alone.
But given the events of last week, and given the problems that those events
produced, it did take the efforts of the United States from Thursday to
Sunday to convince them to meet and to convince them to meet in Washington.
So, therefore, I think this role of intermediary will be an important one
for us to play.
QUESTION: On that point, the reluctance, does the delay in Chairman
Arafat's acceptance suggest any reluctance on his part to come?
MR. BURNS: You saw some hesitation this morning. I think this was perhaps
not unexpected and certainly not unprecedented. We've seen, in prior
situations like this, events like this. We've been in situations like this
where we weren't sure that a meeting would actually be pulled together.
Fortunately, he has decided to come ahead and participate in these
negotiations as he committed to do, and that is a very productive and
positive thing.
QUESTION: Was there reluctance on his part?
MR. BURNS: You'll have to ask Chairman Arafat. I mean, he went to Cairo.
He had discussions with President Mubarak. We always assumed, certainly
from the early morning hours of today, that he would be coming, and we said
so publicly.
QUESTION: I gather the Europeans are sort of angry at being left out of
this gala. What did -- was there any consideration on the U.S. side to
invite them, and why not?
MR. BURNS: First let me say that the United States was in very, very
close contact with the major European countries last week in New York.
Throughout this, Secretary Christopher spent time with Foreign Minister
Primakov and Foreign Minister de Charette and Foreign Minister Kinkel and
Foreign Secretary Rifkind on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday; saw
them many times during each day.
They had several group discussions Thursday evening, Thursday afternoon,
Thursday morning, at a Contact Group meeting about this. So we've fully
informed the Europeans at every step of the process what our thinking was
and what our intentions were.
I think, Carol, it was very important that this meeting be limited, because
that is the way that they have produced progress in the past. The Israelis
and the Palestinians have negotiated generally in a very restricted format.
Sometimes the United States is in the room and sometimes it's not.
Sometimes it's done through the telephone, and sometimes it's done in
person.
This is a very sensitive time, with a lot at stake for both Chairman Arafat
and Prime Minister Netanyahu, and we certainly believe this is the
appropriate way to bring them together in a setting that is most likely to
produce some positive results. I think that there's understanding in Europe
about this.
Europe has a role. The Europeans have often been catalysts in the peace
negotiations. I mean, just take the example of Norway, which has played a
terribly effective role over the last three or four years, and certainly
financially. The contributions that the European Union and member states
make to supporting the peace negotiations is really essential.
I think that we can have this meeting and have continuing contacts with our
European partners and proceed together on this issue with no degree of
rancor.
QUESTION: Nick, do you think that Prime Minister Netanyahu is justified
in a very strict closure, almost barricade, he's put around the Palestinian
autonomous areas, and in his administration statement that if the fighting
doesn't stop, they will forcefully disarm the Palestinian security
forces?
MR. BURNS: On the first question, Sid, I think we'll establish some
ground rules here. They are Dayton-like ground rules. They worked in Dayton,
and I hope they're going to work here.
The United States Government has made a very deliberate decision, and we
did so at the beginning of this crisis last week, and we're going to
maintain it this week. To be an effective intermediary, we need to have the
credibility with both sides. We need to be discreet. We need to resist the
temptation that others have succumbed to, to say in public everything that
we may be thinking in private.
We do have views on all these issues, but we're going to keep them private.
We'll give them to Israel and the Palestinians. But I think radio silence,
TV silence, network silence is going to be -- on specific issues, it's
going to be the order of the day for us.
On the second question, Secretary Christopher was very clear yesterday when
asked about this. The Palestinian police are armed to protect the
Palestinian population. They have responsibilities there, and I don't think
it's in the cards or on the table to initiate a discussion to disarm
them.
QUESTION: Nick, a follow-up on a previous answer. You said a lot is at
stake here. Is the peace process itself at stake here?
MR. BURNS: I think you heard Secretary Christopher say yesterday that the
peace process is in a very difficult state. There's no question about it.
The events of last week were significant and horrible and damaging to both
sides, and that is why the United States felt it necessary and prudent and
wise to convene the summit here this week. It's an extraordinary thing to
do, but we felt an extraordinary step was required.
QUESTION: Nick --
MR. BURNS: Mark has been waiting.
QUESTION: Nick, what reason did President Mubarak give for not coming to
this summit, and as a major aid donor to Egypt, does the United States
Government consider his reason to be adequate?
MR. BURNS: Certainly, I'm going to have to let the Egyptian Government
give its explanation for President Mubarak's decision. I should tell you,
however, that President Mubarak spoke to President Clinton just about an
hour ago, and I think we've got a channel open and very good communications.
We have an excellent relationship with Egypt. We will continue to have an
excellent relationship with Egypt, and I can assure you the United States
Government is not considering any kind of move of the type you suggest. And
the second part of your question. We're going to have normal, good,
productive relations with Egypt.
Egypt will remain one of the most important countries to us in the entire
Middle East, and one of the most important countries for the historic
process of reconciliation that must continue between Israel and the Arab
countries, and Foreign Minister Moussa's presence here will be positive.
Peter.
QUESTION: On the issue of Arafat, he was nervous to some extent about
coming here; that he might end up going away empty. What reassurances were
you able to give him that the trip would be worth his while?
MR. BURNS: First, Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed
that there would be no conditions attached to attending the summit. There
is no preordained outcome for this summit. We have not given them a
checklist of issues that will definitely be settled at the end of the two
days, because that's up to them. That's up to the decisions that they make
and the quality of their own dialogue while they're here. I think that's
the proper way for us to approach this.
They have been -- in Secretary Christopher's conversations with them --
Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat -- very productive in
discussing why this meeting should be held. They want to have this meeting.
It's clear to us that both of them have determined that they've got to get
back to discussions and get away from the violence of last week.
It's in their interests to have this meeting. It was their decision to have
this meeting, and we are satisfied to serve as the intermediary to bring
them together and to provide the location for the meeting.
Bill.
QUESTION: Thanks, Nick. Does the U.S. have a position on the controversial
tunnel -- this flashpoint -- and I understand the Israelis will not discuss
it. Can you explain what the U.S. view is on this controversy? Why is it an
issue?
MR. BURNS: First, Bill, I think that I would expect that each of these
leaders is going to bring issues to the table of concern to them, and the
United States is not going to be in a position of censoring one or the
other and saying, "You can't raise this issue; you can't raise that
issue."
Each of them ought to be free to raise at the negotiating table whatever
issues they choose to raise -- first.
Second, this is obviously one of the major issues that needs to be
discussed. It is a very emotional issue for, I think, both of them, and
it's a very sensitive issue. The United States has been very careful since
the beginning of this crisis not to give a detailed explanation of our own
views in public, for the reasons that I cited, I think, when I spoke to Sid
just a minute ago; and that is we have views, but they'll remain private,
because that's the way to be an effective intermediary.
Diplomacy is often a function of being discreet, maintaining confidentiality,
maintaining radio silence during negotiations and not succumbing to the
desire to just throw everything out in public, and I think that's the way
you'll see us proceed over the next several days.
Howard.
QUESTION: A suggestion has been made, I think by King Hussein, to
establish some sort of commission to look into the problems of the Old City
religious sites. Is that something that the U.S. would contemplate going
along with?
MR. BURNS: We'll just have to see. There have been a number of suggestions
made on that issue and on other issues, and I think we'll just have to wait
until all the summit leaders get here, and I'm sure there will be a full
discussion of a lot of these issues.
Judd.
QUESTION: Nick, you said earlier on that you see the summit as jump-
starting the peace process. Are you referring to the two sides implementing
past agreements in Oslo II, such as the Israeli part of Hebron, or are you
looking forward to final status negotiations or both?
MR. BURNS: I think we have to be somewhat general about this. They need
to move from a state of belligerency and fighting in the streets to a
situation where they get back to discussions. In that sense, one of the
objectives here is to jump-start the peace negotiations.
The peace negotiations are in several forms. There are the talks pertaining
to the completion of the Oslo accords. There are well-known issues under
that subject heading, and there are the final status talks. We'll just have
to see how much progress can be made in each of them, but I would not
encourage you to think that somehow at the end of two days here, they'll
have resolved most of these major issues. In fact, I would predict that
they probably will not be able to resolve all of these issues. They'll have
to agree that this process will continue, and we hope that happens.
QUESTION: To follow up, is this a Bosnia kind of situation, where you get
the leaders together to agree to do what they've already agreed to
do?
MR. BURNS: No. As I said, I think it's very clear to everybody that there
is no preordained outcome for this meeting. The negotiations to produce the
meeting were very difficult, and they extended over four days. But at the
end of the day, Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu are coming
here, understanding that they've got to talk, but there is no predetermined
outcome available to them. They'll have to determine what the outcome
is.
Betsy and then David.
QUESTION: Nick, right before coming out here, there was a wire story that
said that Netanyahu in a refueling stop had said that Israel would offer to
the Palestinians non-stop talks on the issue of Hebron after these meetings
in Washington. Is that the sort of thing that this government is looking
for to move this whole --
MR. BURNS: I understand that Prime Minister Netanyahu did say something
to that effect, Betsy. You're right. I probably saw the same wire report,
when he stopped in Amsterdam. Frankly, we'll just have to see when he gets
here what he has in mind, what the specific proposal is, before I can
really speak to it or any of us can speak to it publicly. But I think when
they get here, there will be obviously suggestions that both of them will
be making and we'll be making to move the process forward.
David.
QUESTION: Nick, you said that you're offering the parties a venue and to
act as intermediary. Is that all the U.S. is going to do? You've said that
the U.S. has ideas that you obviously don't want to make public right now.
Can we assume that the United States has some fairly strong views about
what should happen in the Middle East now, and that you're going to make
those clear and use your clout with the parties to make sure that they are
heard clearly?
MR. BURNS: We're going to continue to work with both of them at this
summit the way we have for many, many years. The Palestinian Authority is a
friend of the United States and a partner of the United States. We have a
very good relationship with Chairman Arafat. We don't make threats in that
relationship. We work with him cooperatively.
Israel is a major ally of the United States, a friend of the United States.
The bonds there are obvious to everyone, and we have a very good working
relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government. This will
not be an occasion of confrontation between the United States and these
parties. This will be a time when the United States can work with two
friends to help resolve some very significant problems between them.
QUESTION: To the extent that you just said -- although you just said it
in relation to Arafat and not Israel -- "We don't make threats in that
relationship."
MR. BURNS: We don't make threats.
QUESTION: Right, right. But you didn't say that in regard to Israel.
MR. BURNS: No, I meant it in regard to both. Let me just step back,
because I think I know why this question is being asked. We're not in a
position here of threatening anyone. They're friends of the United States --
both of them, Israel and the Palestinians -- and we're going to work with
them cooperatively.
QUESTION: A follow-up to that. The United States has been a very generous
donor to both the Palestinians and to the State of Israel. In any of these
conversations about this meeting and what happens heretofore, has there
been any talk about the nature of that aid and how it could be affected?
MR. BURNS: Not that I'm aware of. In fact, I spent nearly all day
Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday with the Secretary. I know what he
said in his phone conversations. He was our principal negotiator for
leading up to this meeting, and I'm not aware of any such discussions in
conversations with either the Palestinians or the Israelis.
Jean.
QUESTION: In light of recent Israeli actions and inactions, are you
convinced that Netanyahu is willing to do more than give lip service to
peace? Do you believe he's willing to act?
MR. BURNS: We believe it's in the self-interest of both Israel and the
Palestinians to move forward. I know that Secretary Christopher feels that
as a result of his conversations, both of them -- both of the leaders --
understand the need to work with the other; the need to get back into the
discussions and draw away from the conflict. So we presume they're coming
here to make progress, and that's our strong expectation.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Any more on the Middle East? Mark?
QUESTION: You said that one of the aims would be to end the violence, and
I just wonder if you believe that Chairman Arafat is in a position to
control his population and to be sure of putting an end to the violence?
MR. BURNS: Obviously, in a situation of the type that we witnessed last
week from afar, it is obviously true that in some cases neither government
or authority can control the actions of all their citizens on the streets,
because emotion fueled and sometimes hatred and sometimes extremism. But
there were a variety of things that fueled the violence.
But for the most part, the Palestinian Authority is responsible for
security in Gaza and in most towns of the West Bank, and the Israeli
Government is responsible for security in Israel. The lines of authority
are fairly clear, and certainly they expect, I think, that they will
exercise that responsibility responsibly, and so do we.
Final question.
QUESTION: Just one more. To follow up Charlie's question, Mr. Ross said
today that there had been such a decline in trust that the environment was
clearly very sour, and many journalists have written that this summit is a
salvage effort. Is it really that bad?
MR. BURNS: I would not minimize, and I think you've seen this in
Secretary Christopher's public statements. I would not minimize the
bitterness and the problems that were produced by last week's fighting. It
has produced an environment that is extremely difficult for both of them
and for all of us who want to work with them towards peace.
That is part of what we saw today, and that is part of what, I'm sure,
we'll have to deal with in the next couple of days, and that's a reality
that we are mindful of. That's another reason why the United States felt it
had an obligation and a self-interest of our own to host this meeting. It
was not tenable to sit by and allow the fighting to continue without the
participation in peace discussions of the United States, using its good
offices, using the fact that in many ways the United States is the
indispensable country, working with Israel and the Palestinians for peace.
We have been historically, and that is a role that we must play.
On to another issue.
QUESTION: Afghanistan.
MR. BURNS: Afghanistan, yes.
QUESTION: Last week, the official response of this government to the
Taliban marching into Kabul seemed to be a wait-and-see attitude, to see
what they would do. They seem to be ruthlessly executing former political
opponents. Is the U.S. rethinking its position?
MR. BURNS: I don't know -- we've not changed our position. You know, the
situation on the ground is quite murky. As we understand it, the Taliban
has had a string of military successes, is pretty much in control of Kabul.
But I think it's also true that the former government forces, including
some significant military forces, are operating in the northern part of
Afghanistan. There have been a lot of discussions with some of the leaders
up there, and it's not at all clear that the Taliban have control over all
of Afghanistan. In fact, it's fairly clear that they do not.
It's not at all clear to us that they have established a functioning
government in Kabul or in the areas that they control. Let me just say a
few things about our relationship to these events. We have maintained a
relationship with Afghanistan. We have not broken diplomatic relations with
Afghanistan, but we've not had an Embassy there since 1989 because of the
civil war and the fighting.
We will have to decide at some point in the future when to re-establish an
Embassy, but I don't believe there's any serious thought about doing that
this week. We've not had an American Ambassador there, I think, since 1979,
when, tragically, Ambassador Spike Dubs was assassinated, and we haven't
forgotten that.
We have maintained contact over the years with all the major factions --
people who used to be in charge in Kabul; some of the military faction
leaders throughout the country -- and Assistant Secretary Robin Raphel has
met with Taliban representatives in both Washington and Afghanistan this
year.
It remains to be seen what kind of government is going to be formed there,
and we'll have to watch the situation very closely. We have consistently
raised with all authorities in Afghanistan -- and this includes the Taliban
-- issues of great concern to the United States: terrorism, narcotics,
human rights including due process, and the treatment of women, which is a
major issue for the United States, and we'll continue to raise those
issues.
I can also tell you that the United States, of course, joins in the
condemnation by the United Nations of the summary execution of Mr.
Najibullah and his associates. We condemn those summary executions, and
we've been very clear about that.
QUESTION: Your statements are certainly a lot harder than they were last
week when on the specific case of Najibullah it was said to be regrettable,
and now you're condemning it. And you seem to be a lot more suspicious
about the Taliban than the public statements from this podium last
week.
What contacts have there been with the Taliban since they entered Kabul,
and are you still looking at them as a source for national reconciliation?
MR. BURNS: We have had contact, as I said, with the Taliban infrequently.
We've had them at the level of Assistant Secretary Robin Raphel, which is
significant. We obviously want to maintain those contacts. It's in our
interests to continue talking to the Taliban, and we will do so.
I don't believe that we have any American diplomats in Kabul right now. I
think we'd like to have some diplomats travel there to make contact with
the Taliban. We'll have to assess when and how to do that, because
obviously we're going to be concerned for the safety of those individuals.
We're going to have to assess, I think, over the short term exactly what
the state of affairs is in Afghanistan, of the nature of the government
that is formed, and the policies of that government, obviously, will be
very important factors. We'll also have to continue to review events in the
north where there's a great deal of instability and some continued
fighting.
QUESTION: But what has made you toughen up your statements since last
week?
MR. BURNS: Oh, I don't know if we've toughened it up. I mean, I haven't
looked line by line what was said last week, but I think our thinking has
been fairly consistent all along. I know that the Secretary has followed
these events closely. He's had a lot on his plate, but he has followed
these events closely.
There's a great interest in what happens in Afghanistan, because it is a
pivotal country in terms of where it is situated in that part of the world,
and I've just listed some of the issues that are of concern to us. So,
we're going to maintain a close view of the events. We'll have contact with
the Taliban and others, and we'll just have to proceed on a step-by-step
basis to see if we can establish better and closer contacts.
QUESTION: Nick, you just mentioned the status of women.
MR. BURNS: The treatment of women, yes.
QUESTION: Or the treatment of women, and the Taliban says that women will
be expected not to work in offices and so forth. Does the U.S. have a
position on such rules regarding women?
MR. BURNS: I think we should separate two things. First, in general, as
you know, the United States has consistently taken at all international
gatherings and certainly in the United Nations a position that women should
be accorded equal rights around the world. That's an important issue in the
United States, and it's certainly an important expression of our own
foreign policy, and we're not bashful about that.
I want to be very careful, when it comes to the Taliban, to say that we've
seen some public statements by some people speaking for the Taliban. We
will need to assess exactly what happens in Kabul, and that's one of the
reasons why we'd like to send diplomats to Kabul to look at all of these
issues and to begin contacts with the Taliban.
QUESTION: On terrorism -- you mentioned terrorism as one of the issues.
Are you -- do you think that if Taliban were to exert full control over
Afghanistan, that it might be a supporter of international terrorism? Is
that a concern?
MR. BURNS: We'll just have to wait and see, Judd. Obviously, terrorism is
a concern globally for us. It's a particular concern in that region. It has
been for many years. We'll judge the Taliban and others in the region based
on their actions, and I think we need to assess those actions first before
we speak publicly about them.
Yes, Betsy.
QUESTION: Different subject?
MR. BURNS: Yes. Actually, terrorism or Afghanistan.
QUESTION: You are talking about the terrorism and the concern about the
terrorism, right? As the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Erbakan -- they are
planning to (inaudible) another terrorism supporting country, Libya, which
he was it before Iran, and he planning to (inaudible) Sudan -- President of
Sudan, Mr.(inaudible), which is in your list also. Do you have any concern
on this subject?
MR. BURNS: We certainly have concern about any country normalizing
relations. I don't know if that's the case, but we certainly would have
concern about any country normalizing relations with Sudan and Libya. Sudan
is a state sponsor of terrorism. Libya is responsible for the murder of
hundreds of Americans on Pan Am Flight 103, December 1989, and we haven't
forgotten that. We know that the Libyans are harboring two individuals who
are responsible for that bombing.
We have a ransom out for them -- a $4 million reward out for the information
leading to their arrest and prosecution in the United States. So when other
countries, especially friends of the United States like Turkey consider
normalizing or treating on an equal basis countries like Libya, of course
we have some concerns, because those two countries -- I mean, Libya is a
pariah state and ought to be treated like a pariah state. There are
international sanctions in place on Libya.
QUESTION: How about Sudan?
MR. BURNS: We've had a lot of concerns about Sudan. We do have a
relationship with the Sudanese. We have an Ambassador, Ambassador Carney,
who is resident in Nairobi. He does visit Khartoum regularly. We have
relations. It doesn't mean our relations are good. The relations are
difficult, and they center around the issue of terrorism. We have a lot of
concerns about the Sudanese Government's responsibility for participation
and support of terrorist acts.
So our advice would be to be quite careful for any respected international
leader to travel to those two countries to meet with their leadership -- be
quite careful of these regimes and understand who they are and what they
have done to violate basic international norms.
QUESTION: Have you communicated this official concern to Turkish
Government officially?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if there's been an official communication, but I
simply am taking the opportunity now, I think, to suggest what is
commonsensical from an American Government point of view.
I think Betsy was next.
QUESTION: You have said, and the OSCE has said, that the elections have
been certified in Bosnia.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Sort of free and fair. What happens now for the lifting of the
sanctions?
MR. BURNS: Let's just take this one at a time. Ambassador Frowick did
certify yesterday -- formally certify that the Bosnian elections of
September 14 met the criteria established by the Dayton accords. Because he
has done that after a laborious and painstaking process since the 14th of
September, the United Nations Security Council is now meeting today and
will consider, I think, very quickly the question of UN Resolution 1022,
and that is the lifting of the sanctions that were suspended -- you
remember -- in the months following the completion of the Dayton accords.
So the international sanctions in place on Serbia and on the Bosnian Serbs
will be formally lifted, I think, just in a matter of days. The United
States will support this, because this meets the criteria that we helped to
negotiate at Dayton. I think if you put the OSCE certification together
with the positive event this morning, which was the meeting at the Hotel
Saraj in Sarajevo, of President Izetbegovic, Mr. Zubak and Mr. Krajisnik --
I think we can see that they are moving forward. They have a very difficult
route ahead of them, but they're at least moving in a positive direction.
QUESTION: Nick, on that (inaudible), are you supporting Mr. Frowick's
certification of the election results that have apparently had more voters
than on the rolls?
MR. BURNS: First of all, it's not at all clear -- it's not at all clear --
that the second point you've made is true. It's not at all clear. There was
a re-tabulation -- a very careful re-tabulation of all the votes from all
the precincts, and Ambassador Frowick went through this for two weeks --
and his staff -- went through a re-tabulation.
They also instituted two 72-hour periods where complaints could be heard,
and they considered all complaints. This was an honest, open, aboveboard
process led by a very well respected diplomat, Bob Frowick, and led by an
independent international organization, the OSCE.
We respect the decision and support the decision of the OSCE. The process
now moves forward as the Dayton accords stipulate, and it's a very positive
development. They've met this morning.
I'd just like to suggest we've had a lot of naysayers say that they'd never
get this far. They've gotten this far, and they are moving forward. They
may move forward with great difficulty in the future, but they are moving
forward, and that is positive, and we ought to applaud them.
QUESTION: Nick, you said that these guys would have to meet regularly.
What do you mean by "regularly"? I mean, once a year or once a month?
MR. BURNS: No, I think it's definitely not once a year. (Laughter)
There's a collective presidency of three people. President Izetbegovic, of
course, is the single person, who will lead the country, but he has two
partners -- a Serb and a Croat -- and "regular" means regular, Carol, it
means regular. It means that they get together on an agreed upon basis to
discuss all of the daily issues that confront any government. Their issues
are going to be harder, and their challenges are going to be higher because
they fought each other for five years.
They now have to create a new state, new institutions, new common
institutions, and that's going to be challenging. "Regular" will be defined
by them. I would think it would be absolutely more than once a year and
probably more than once a month, but let's let them decide what "regular"
means, but I think you and I can agree on what "regular" means, right?
QUESTION: Probably more easily than they can.
MR. BURNS: I think it will be regularly. Because they'll have to deal
with very practical problems -- transport, public services, basic
governmental policies, personnel appointments. They're not going to be able
to do that alone. They're not going to do that separately. They'll have to
meet and their advisors will have to meet regularly to decide all those
things.
This is going to be a fully functioning government. This government is
going to make policy and it's going to be in charge of finance. It's going
to be creating a judicial system, of working with a functioning parliament.
It's going to be a functioning government. Now, how well it functions is
going to be a function of how well they work together when they meet. We
encourage them to meet as often as they can, but let them decide exactly
how often that is.
Mr. Lambros, do you want to talk about Bosnia or Greece?
MR. BURNS: About Greece.
MR. BURNS: Can we just hold off, because we have a couple of people over
here who want to talk about Bosnia, and then we'll talk about Greece.
QUESTION: Do you know if the Foreign Minister from Belgrade, Milan
Milutinovic, is in Washington? They say that he had a meeting with Mr.
Talbott. Do you know anything about that?
MR. BURNS: Foreign Minister Milutinovic met with Secretary Christopher
last Thursday in New York. He's now in Washington. He is having meetings
with American Government officials. I know he was meeting with Assistant
Secretary of State John Kornblum.
I'll check with you on the type of meeting that he had with Deputy
Secretary Talbott.
QUESTION: I'm asking because of the precondition for relations between
Belgrade and Washington. As far as I understood, it was a big disagreement
among the Contact Group in New York about a resolution, about lifting these
sanctions. Could you tell us more detail about your position now?
MR. BURNS: That's a question in the past now that we've gotten to the
OSCE certification, but, basically, the United States position was, as one
of the drafters of the Dayton Accords, that we had to wait until Ambassador
Frowick certified, before the United Nations could take up the questions of
a lifting of the sanctions. That has now happened. Therefore, the United
States will certainly work towards a lifting of the sanctions this week,
with the other members of the Security Council.
QUESTION: Does that mean that you are not ready to put something in your
resolution like how to reimpose sanctions for someone who is not going to
comply?
MR. BURNS: It's hard for me to anticipate exactly what all the language
will be in the lifting resolution. Be assured that we're going to work
towards a lifting of the sanctions because we are bound to do that by the
Dayton Accords.
QUESTION: You don't think that Milutinovic in Washington -- does it mean
that you are closer to Belgrade than before?
MR. BURNS: We have a constructive relationship with the Serbian
Government. We have a lot of issues that we need to work on with the Serbs.
We also have a lot of issues upon which we disagree with the Serbian
Government.
We have concerns about the situation in Kosovo. You know we have concerns
about the issue of war crimes and the failure of the Serbian Government, as
well as the Bosnian Serbs, to comply with the UN War Crimes Tribunal.
That is why, despite the fact that the sanctions will be lifted this week,
the United States will maintain the so-called "outer wall" of sanctions,
which limits Belgrade from participating in the United Nations as the
successor state to Yugoslavia, which limits Belgrade's ability to work with
the international financial institutions or to take part in certain
international events.
Those are important sanctions that the United States will maintain because
of the problems in Kosovo and because of the problem of war crimes and
other issues.
QUESTION: A quick one. According to Dayton, Sarajevo and Belgrade, they
have to have real diplomatic relations, but Belgrade's Minister on Thursday,
I was asking him, they're not ready to make diplomatic relations with
Sarajevo and they're not ready to comply with obligations regarding The
Hague Tribunal. Do you have any comment on that?
MR. BURNS: The United States strongly encourages Serbia, and Bosnia-
Herzegovina to establish full and normal relations. We think it's important
--
QUESTION: This Thursday is going to be really important to Izetbegovic
and Milosevic. But they're not ready to --
MR. BURNS: There will be a meeting on Thursday in Paris with President
Izetbegovic and President Milosevic. We want to support the process of
their meeting as frequently as they can, regularly, in a full normalization
of relations with the new state, and Serbia; terribly important that
proceed as well.
QUESTION: Nick, may I ask you a question about the Secretary's trip to
Africa?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: First of all, I assume it won't be delayed by the Middle East
summit?
MR. BURNS: There's been no change in the Secretary's planning for his
trip to Africa.
QUESTION: Why has he waited until this point in the Administration to go
to Africa? And what do you expect him to accomplish there?
MR. BURNS: I think the Secretary of State is going to set the all-time
distance record for any American Secretary of State on this trip. He has
been busy over the last three years, circumnavigating the globe on a
variety of issues.
I don't want to leave in anyone's mind an impression of a Secretary of
State, who has sat at home. In fact, he is the most traveled Secretary of
State in history.
Secondly, he has had a strong interest in African affairs. This Administration
has actually, I think, brought more focus to U.S. relations with Africa
than previous Administrations.
The Vice President has visited Africa. National Security Advisor Tony Lake
has visited on several occasions. Deputy Secretary Talbott has visited on
several occasions. Assistant Secretary George Moose and Susan Rice of the
NSC are currently on a trip to Africa visiting a variety of African
countries.
I think there's been no lack of American involvement there. The Secretary
feel it is very important for him to go there so that he can work with
these leaders directly on their turf and visit some important countries.
Tanzania is playing the central role on the problems in Burundi and Rwanda.
He'll be meeting with the Tanzanian Government as well as the former
President, Julius Nyerere.
Ethiopia has played a major role as has the OAU. He'll meeting with the OAU
head and other officials of the OAU on mediation of disputes in central
Africa.
This issue that you refer to -- yes -- that issue is definitely going to
come up. I just want to mention, Angola, where we have a major interest in
playing a role and trying to resolve some of the problems between President
dos Santos and Mr. Savimbi.
Mali, where we want to support the process of democracy and representative
government, and it is happening in Mali which has been historically, in the
Sahel, a very poor country in West Africa but has made great strides. We
wanted to recognize that.
And, finally, South Africa, where some of the greatest advances of the last
decade have taken place.
So there are a lot of reasons to go. The Secretary is looking forward to
the trip.
QUESTION: How would you respond to some critics, who have told me in
interviews that this comes so close to the Presidential election that what
it amounts to is an effort to show the African voter, yes, we care?
MR. BURNS: I can assure you that in the planning for this trip, the
Secretary of State made it for good, substantive policy reasons. A lot of
people have questioned everything we've done or everything we've said.
Somehow this is an implication that if you speak or you meet with anybody,
it's for the elections.
You know I'm not a political person. I'm a career diplomat -- right? Carol
knows that. We talk about it all the time. She always tries to get me to be
political and I refuse.
If you look at our relations with Africa versus prior Administrations, that
I worked in, I think we've given more attention to Africa. His trip is
consistent with the Vice President's, Tony Lake's and Strobe Talbott's
trips. It's not like we ignored the continent for four years and decided to
go there in October 1996. That's not the record of the Clinton Administration.
Frankly, you ought to give us a little bit of leeway to allow us to
implement American foreign policy without questioning that everything we do
is related to the elections because I can tell you that almost everything
we do is not related to the elections. There are very clear barriers set up
by U.S. law which talk about what you can do and what you can't do
pertaining to American national elections.
The Secretary, of all people, is quite conscious of that and has made a lot
of decisions. He made a decision not to send anybody from the Department of
State at a senior level to the Democratic National Convention. That was a
very good decision. He didn't have to make that decision, but he made it
because he wants to separate American foreign policy from our electoral
process here. He's been a stickler about that. I would encourage you to
think of this in different ways.
QUESTION: I'm merely relaying the sentiments of your critics.
MR. BURNS: You're convinced now.
QUESTION: Don't kill the messenger. (Laughter)
MR. BURNS: I'm just taking advantage of the messenger, to send my own
message.
Greece first, Bill, and then we're going to finish the briefing.
QUESTION: Less than a week, the Greek Foreign Minister, Theodhoros
Pangalos, in New York City denied your statement for U.S. help for a new
effort to restore some of the Aegean problems on a three-way basis between
Greece and Turkey, and United States involvement.
Mr. Pangalos denied also statements by Anthony Lake and George Stephanopoulos
for a package-deal process to find a solution in the Greek-Turkish
differences over the Aegean.
Mr. Pangalos actually, with unusual bravado, rejected the U.S. involvement.
Could you please comment again on the issue in order to clarify the
confusion which has been created by Mr. Pangalos, in the Athens News Agency,
of the Simitis government which dispatched totally different stories
created a real mess all over Greece?
MR. BURNS: I've got it. I know what my task is.
QUESTION: You discussed it --
MR. BURNS: We've talked about this privately, and I'm glad you asked the
question. Minister Pangalos and Secretary Christopher had an excellent
meeting last week in New York, at the Waldorf-Astoria. I was there at the
meeting. I can tell you, there was agreement between them on two issues.
First of all, now that Prime Minister Simitis has won a very clear
electoral victory and is forming his new government in Athens, we ought to
get back to an emphasis on trying to work out the Cyprus problem. That
involves the Greek Government and Turkish Government and the two communities
-- the Greek and Turkish communities -- on Cyprus as well as the Cypriot
Government. We are going to do that.
Secretary Christopher had lunch on Friday in New York with Ambassador
Beattie, who is the President's Special Emissary for the Cyprus negotiations.
They talked about efforts that the United States can undertake to try to
play a positive role.
On the question of the Aegean, differences between the Greek and Turkish
Governments over Aegean issues, we are a friend and partner -- an ally --
of both Greece and Turkey. We are going to try to initiate some positive
discussions and positive work between both of those governments. It was
agreed to in the meeting. I'm sure this is some kind of misunderstanding.
Because Secretary Christopher and Minister Pangalos had an excellent
meeting. They have a good relationship, and they agreed on everything that
they discussed last week.
QUESTION: I was told today that 16 Greek and Turkish "intellectual dust
agents" in a closed-door session at the (inaudible) international
discussing today and tomorrow -- for the partition of the Aegean on a
conflict resolution basis under the auspices of the former U.S. Ambassador,
Abramowitz. From the Greek participants, one is a member of the well known
Turkish-penetrated Greek Institute in Athens which advised also the Greek
Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defense. And another is a Greek reporter
from Athens, and the last one was Greek Minister George Papandreou who
decided in the last moment not to attend.
However, I was told today that 80 U.S. officials from the State Department
and other respected agencies are participants, too. I'm wondering why the
U.S. -- the State Department, actually -- is taking place in such a session
against the territorial integrity of Aegean? That's correct. I would like
to know if you release the names of those officials?
MR. BURNS: Okay, I get the drift of your question. I'm not aware of any
such meetings.
Maybe there are meetings taking place and I don't know about them. I'll
check into it for you.
Ambassador Abramowitz is a very good friend of a lot of people in this
Administration. I'm just not aware of any official role he has undertaken
on these issues. Perhaps he has and I'm not aware of it. We'll check into
it for you. I understand what you're asking, and we'll look into it. Thank
you very much.
QUESTION: A follow-up on Cyprus. Just a quick question. I'm very curious.
Today, you haven't mentioned this gentleman in your New York City press
conference, too. I'm talking about Ambassador Jim Williams. Is he still the
State Department Special Coordinator for Cyprus?
MR. BURNS: We have a variety of officials. We have Ambassador Beattie,
Ambassador Williams, Ambassador Ken Brill, our every effective U.S.
Ambassador in Nicosia -- all of them working very hard on the question of
Cyprus.
QUESTION: My impression is as though the White House is taking the lead
on this issue since Mr. Williams is not mentioned?
MR. BURNS: The White House and State Department work together on this.
Ambassador Beattie, the President's emissary, met with Secretary Christopher
last week for lunch. We always work together with the White House --
always.
Bill. Last question.
QUESTION: Finally. Following up your answer on terrorism. Has the Libyan
terrorist effort to put Pan Am out of business now failed? Pan Am is back
in business.
MR. BURNS: The Libyans are not going to succeed long-term, because we're
going to apprehend the two Libyans, who killed the Americans and the others
in that flight. We're going to bring them to justice. They will pay for
that crime. Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 2:18 p.m.)
(###)
|
