U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #1, 97-01-02
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
Thursday, January 2, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
MIDDLE EAST
1-2.......Syria--Damascus Bombings
1.........Middle East Peace
2-3....... --1995-6 U.S./Israeli/Syria Discussions on Peace Agreement
3-5,8,12.. --Hebron Negotiations
4......... --Terrorist Incident in Hebron
5-6....... --Prospects for Netanyahu Bilaterals
LIBYA
6-7.......Report of Plan to Execute "Spies"
IRAQ
7.........Report of Kurdish Group Mtg. w/Saddam Hussein
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
7-8.......Demonstrations/OSCE Deadline on Election Results
UNITED NATIONS
9.........Congratulations to Kofi Annan
9-10......U.S. Arrearages
EUROPE
11........Russia/Belarus--Arrests of Russia/Belarusian in New York
INDIA
10........Report of Expulsion of U.S. Diplomats
TAIWAN/CHINA
10........Report of Transit Visa for Taiwanese Vice President
10-11.....NY Times Article re: John Huang/China
ZAIRE
12-13.....Military Efforts of Rebel Alliance
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #1
THURSDAY, JANUARY 2, 1996, 2:03 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the State
Department. Sorry we're briefing a little bit late today. Then again, we're
briefing, which we haven't done in a long time here. Glad to see all of you
back; and, Barry, I don't have any announcements, so I'll be glad to go to
your first or second question.
QUESTION: These are questions about the blast in Syria, but basically
they go to: What does the United States know about it? Has it inquired of
the Syrian Government? Are you depending on the wire services for your
accounts? Can you tell us what the Syrians are telling you, because this
you're telling the world -- anonymously, of course --that the Israelis done
did it.
MR. BURNS: First of all, I can say quite authoritatively that the United
States Government always depends on the wire services for --
QUESTION: It's a (inaudible).
MR. BURNS: Straight information -- particularly the Associated Press and
Reuters, and Agence France Press and -- have I missed any other wires?
QUESTION: They're not here.
MR. BURNS: They're not here. (Laughter)
Secondly, I can say that we've only seen, frankly, the press reports of
this. We've seen the statements made by the Syrian Government. We can not
confirm these reports, and we certainly have no indication and no
information available to us that the Israeli Government had any relationship
to this whatsoever.
QUESTION: Well, that's still puzzling because, first of all, this is
something that's supposed to have happened three days ago; and unlike Iran
and Iraq, Syria is on your scope. In fact, you encourage Israel --
MR. BURNS: They're all on our scope.
QUESTION: Well, yeah, but you encourage Israel to take a risk for peace
and make peace with Syria.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: And, presumably, you have some, you know, contact with the
Syrian Government. So would haven't you asked the Syrian Government what
happened?
MR. BURNS: We do have. We have diplomatic relations with Syria. We have a
United States Embassy in Damascus, headed by a very fine Foreign Service
Officer, Chris Ross. And I would remind you, Barry, there have been , over
many, many months, a series of unexplained bombings and explosions in
Damascus. The United States Government has no information about these
explosions, and we certainly cannot confirm some of the rather wild reports
coming out of Damascus this morning about who may have committed these
bombing attacks.
Carol.
QUESTION: Maybe you know that Syria automatically put the finger on
Israel in this regard. It certainly doesn't --
MR. BURNS: It's a very serious charge.
QUESTION: -- clear the atmosphere for peace-making.
MR. BURNS: No, it does not. It's a very serious charge for one state to
accuse another of actually sponsoring bombings in its capital. And if, in
fact, the Syrian Government is making that charge as opposed to the Syrian
press, then one would think that the Syrian Government would want to come
forth with some substantial evidence to back up that attack.
If that is not the case that the Syrian Government and the Syrian press
cannot back up what they're saying, they ought not to make that charge.
It's a wild and irresponsible charge, if in fact it is not backed up by
evidence.
As I said, the United States Government is not aware of any evidence to
that effect. There have been a series of these explosions; and, frankly, we
haven't seen any convincing explanation for what has caused them.
Yes, Tom.
QUESTION: Speaking of blasts from Damascus, on a related subject I want
to know what's your response to the reported assertion of Foreign Minister
Khaddam that the United States gave Syria guarantees in writing that Israel
would return to the June 4, '67, boundaries for a peace agreement?
MR. BURNS: I'm not familiar with that guarantee by the United States
Government; and, as you know, we did have, throughout l995 and into the
first four or five months of l996, a series of conversations with the
Syrian and Israeli Governments about a comprehensive peace agreement that
would end this decade's long state of belligerency between the two
countries.
We thought, in fact, about a year ago today, that we might make some
progress along those lines. It didn't happen.
The negotiating record will remain confidential, but I'm not aware of any
kind of written guarantees to that effect that were made.
QUESTION: Nick, related to that --
MR. BURNS: And I think I would be.
QUESTION: A couple of days ago the Los Angeles Times ran a long Dennis
Ross interview, I guess it was mostly; and it was in a Los Angeles Times
piece, but the fellow's been doing the Middle East for at least 25 years,
as far as I know. And in it he has Ross saying -- Ross is out there; he's
not here -- he has Ross saying that Syria currently is interested in direct
negotiations with Israel. Has the U.S. checked, or are you just referring
to the hopes that were aborning last year? Has the U.S. checked lately
with Damascus? Are they interested at this point in -- you know, forget the
bombings and the allegations, but is Syria currently interested in direct
peace talks with Israel that you know of?
MR. BURNS: We wish that were the case, and we wish it were mutual. I'm
not aware of any imminent action that's going to lead either Israel or
Syria back to peace discussions -- the kind of discussions that we saw on
the eastern shore of Maryland where you had Syria and Israeli diplomats sit
down with one another and trade ideas about the shape of a peace agreement.
I'm not aware of any development that would lead us to that in any
week to come.
Obviously, it remains our objective -- the United States objective -- to
see Syria and Israel forge a peace agreement, but I just don't have any
information for you.
I don't want to cause any kind of a boomlet of optimism about that.
Obviously, I think the Israeli Government has a lot in its plate right now.
You know that Prime Minister Netanyahu has just had a very, very tough
budget battle; and you also know that Dennis Ross is in Israel in the Gaza
Strip trying to convince the Israelis and Palestinians to come to grips
with the Hebron redeployment issue.
I talked to Dennis about a half hour before he went into his latest meeting
with Chairman Arafat. I don't believe he's emerged from that meeting
yet.
Dennis is working very hard on the final steps that would put a Hebron
agreement together. There are some details that need to be worked out. This
agreement is not yet finished; there's no question about that. And it's our
view, having discussed things with Dennis this morning, that it's really up
to the Israelis and Palestinians to finish this deal -- to agree on the
terms of the redeployment of the IDF from Hebron -- and all the associated
problems and questions that come with that.
They have the capacity to make this deal. It's up to them to do it. They're
the only ones who can. They have the support of the United States. Witness -
- evidence, of course -- the President's phone call to Chairman Arafat; the
fact that we have categorically condemned the terrorist incident in Hebron
yesterday, the attack on innocent Palestinians, the fact that we've been an
even-handed broker throughout this process.
So we think that an agreement is there for the taking, but they have got to
make the decision that they're going to do it; and that decision has to be
taken together.
QUESTION: How much of a problem was that attack yesterday? I mean has
that poisoned the atmosphere to the extent that an agreement is now less --
MR. BURNS: No, we hope not. I think if you look at the actions and
statements of the Israeli Government, any statements of the Palestinian
Authority, in the wake of the terrorist attack yesterday, I think both were
quite responsible. Prime Minister Netanyahu -- who was very, very quick to
condemn in the strongest terms the terrorist attack on the Palestinians --
again today met with the soldiers who were able to subdue the young
soldier who went on the shooting spree; and I think Prime Minister
Netanyahu has come down on the right side of the issue.
Chairman Arafat, on the other hand, I think was quite responsible in his
reaction -- admittedly, in a very difficult moment and a very emotional
moment for many Palestinians.
So we hope that this terrorist will not be allowed to subdue the peace
process or impose any kind of blockade in the peace process, and we want to
see the Hebron negotiations finished.
QUESTION: Now that, as you call him, a terrorist has struck in the
uniform of an Israeli soldier, does the U.S. believe that any changes ought
to be made in the so-far agreed outlines of the Hebron redeployment?
MR. BURNS: That agreement is going to be made between the Israelis and
Palestinians, and we are a country that is trying to help them along the
way. We cannot make the fundamental compromises that need to be made to
have this finished. So that, David, I would say, respectfully, is up to the
Palestinians and the Israelis.
QUESTION: But does it raise any issues, in your mind, that need to be
addressed?
MR. BURNS: Certainly, it just points to the fact that we think the Hebron
deal is long overdue -- that it is within sight, and that the accomplishment
of an agreement on Hebron redeployment we think will have a positive impact
on the general atmosphere in Hebron -- Hebron, which is admittedly quite
charged and quite emotional now on both sides. And we're hoping very much
that upon the conclusion of an agreement we'll see passions subside on
both Palestinian and Israeli and a return to civility in Hebron, if
that can be arranged.
That is, obviously, one of the by-products that we're all looking for upon
the successful conclusion of these negotiations.
QUESTION: The Palestinians and the settlers are saying that regardless to
the fact that papers will be signed, Hebron will continue to be a point of
friction, continuously producing incidents that may poison the area. Do you
think that there is a danger that this paper that will be signed eventually
will not actually solve the problem in Hebron, and would you advocate
a speeding up process from the Oslo II implementation into the real
issues of the permanent settlement in order to cut the twilight time, as
Prime Minister Netanyahu defined it, and create a frame that will enable
the two sides to overcome incidents like the one that took place the other
day?
MR. BURNS: Admittedly, Hebron is a very special place, uniquely special
from a religious point of view as well as political, and so there are
emotions on both sides of this issue as well as political positions. But I
think if you look at what the Israelis and Palestinians have been able to
accomplish in the last three years, there were naysayers -- I'm not saying
you're associated with them -- but there were naysayers three and four
years ago who predicted doom and gloom, should there be an Israeli
redeployment from Gaza and from the other major West Bank towns -- from
Nablus and Janen and Tulkarm and Ramallah and Bethlehem and Beit Sohur
and others, and we've seen by and large, with the exception of some
sporadic bits of very intense violence -- the events of September of this
past year -- we've seen by and large that the Israelis and Palestinians can
live together and work together and that the police and military and
security officials of the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government
can work together productively, and that's what we're hoping will occur, of
course, when this Hebron deal is finished.
QUESTION: Is there any indication yet that Arafat and Netanyahu might get
together for a bilateral meeting? There's been some talk in the past couple
of days about it.
MR. BURNS: We just don't know. As I said, I think the current action is
Dennis Ross meeting at the moment, at this hour, with Chairman Arafat in
Gaza. Following that, I'm sure that Dennis will continue his shuttle
diplomacy, going back to the Israelis and going back to Prime Minister
Netanyahu. There will have to be some sort of conversation or meeting
between the two of them to wrap up the agreement, but I can't anticipate
exactly when that will be. We certainly hope there will be such an
encounter.
QUESTION: When is Netanyahu coming to Washington?
MR. BURNS: As you know, the President has invited him to come to
Washington. I don't believe we've set a specific date. If we've set a
specific date, we haven't announced it yet, and that would be the White
House that would announce it. But for some time now the President and
Secretary Christopher have had it in mind that it would be a good idea to
have Prime Minister Netanyahu here to discuss all of the issues that are on
the table, including this issue of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations,
but more broadly the very good relationship between the United States
and Israel in all of its aspects.
Yes, Howard.
QUESTION: Libya, if we can move a little further, has sentenced to death
a group of people who it's accused of spying for the CIA. Do you have any
reaction to that?
MR. BURNS: We faced this situation a couple of weeks back in Iraq when
there was a similar show trial. Dictatorial regimes specialize in these
show trials that don't have any kind of trappings of democracy, of course,
or of fair play or of due process. It's also quite frequent, I think, in a
dictatorship like the Libyan dictatorship that when they have problems at
home they search for scapegoats abroad. So it is not surprising to us,
although it's very disappointing, to see these kind of wild charges
made by the Libyan Government, which resemble those of the Iraqi Government
of just a couple of weeks ago.
QUESTION: On the same subject. But they have (inaudible) to some
materials which the CIA supplied them -- this spy ring.
MR. BURNS: I've never believed everything -- in fact, I believe very
little of what the Libyan Government has said publicly since Mr. Qadhafi
came to power a long time ago. They've lied consistently to all of us about
Pan Am 103 and about the involvement of the Libyan Government's security
services in the terrorist attack on Pan Am 103, so why should we believe
them now.
We frankly have been surprised by these show trials in Iraq and Libya. We
had no forewarning of them. We have no knowledge about these charges that
are being made -- certainly not here at the State Department -- but I would
just caution you not to take hook, line and sinker everything that the
Libyan Government is saying in public, because they are well known to be --
it is well known to be a government that does not shoot straight publicly,
and it certainly has tripped itself up before on the facts in the
past.
QUESTION: Another subject in the area is that Iraq --
QUESTION: Same subject. Are you in a position to deny that the accused
people are or ever were spies for the United States?
MR. BURNS: We face one difficulty here, David. We don't know these
people. We don't have all the facts. We don't know if in fact the Libyan
Government has given them real names; if the charges are real. We know very
little about this. I just think it stands to reason, given the past record
of the Libyan Government of lying and deception and conceit, it stands to
reason that we would not believe everything that they're saying in public.
Again, these kind of show trials are meant to take the gaze of their
own population off what's happening in the country and direct it to a
convenient scapegoat. The United States, for dictatorial regimes, is a
scapegoat, because we stand for something quite different, which is due
process, fair play and democracy.
QUESTION: Nick, a Kurdish group -- they went to Baghdad and did they talk
with Saddam Hussein, and I believe they have a --
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
QUESTION: Excuse me? They have some kind of agreement, I believe, with
the Baghdad Government. Do you have any reaction on this subject?
MR. BURNS: No, I'm not familiar with any kind of meeting with Saddam
Hussein. I'll have to look into that. I'm just not familiar with it.
Bill.
QUESTION: Serbia. Thank you, Nick. It was reported today by NPR and
perhaps others that Milosevic will not tolerate any further demonstrations
or that is his announcement. Can you shed any light on that? And, secondly,
the Serbian Orthodox Church has come down very hard on Milosevic,
especially with regard to the elections and the flagrantly trampled will of
the people. Are there any other religious leaders that are coming out
against Milosevic?
MR. BURNS: Bill, I'm not sure that Mr. Milosevic has a choice in the
matter about whether or not there are going to be demonstrations. He's had
demonstrations on the streets of Belgrade every day now for more than a
month. There were 250,000 people in the streets of Belgrade in frigid
weather on New Year's eve. I think the Serbian people are voting with their
voices in this case.
Mr. Milosevic has got to be concerned about something else. The OSCE
delegation, led by the former Spanish Prime Minister, Felipe Gonzalez, has
effectively fired a shot across his bow and said he has got to give the
international community a response by Friday -- by tomorrow -- and that is,
will he respect the November 17th elections. Will he choose to abide by
fair play by the votes of the Serbian people.
Certainly, what we hear coming out of Belgrade is most inadequate. The
Belgrade Government is saying that they're not sure they can say anything
by tomorrow. They're not sure they can meet the request of the OSCE, and
they're not sure that they're going to look at the November 17th elections.
We believe again that the Serbian Government should respect the will of the
Serbian people and respect the results of the November 17th elections. The
Permanent Council of the OSCE is meeting tomorrow, on Friday, to review the
situation, and we certainly hope that the focus of the meeting in
Vienna tomorrow -- the OSCE meeting -- will be a very quick and decisive
condemnation of the Serbian Government, should it not take the action of
respecting these elections. That is the action that has been formally
requested by the OSCE.
QUESTION: I take it the U.S. Government welcomes the Serbian Orthodox
Church's statements and would also welcome others from other church
leaders?
MR. BURNS: Bill, I have not seen the statements. I've heard about them,
but I have not seen them, so I'm a little bit reluctant to comment upon
them in detail except to say that people ought to have the right to speak
their minds and people ought to have the right to say what they wish in a
normal country. Serbia's not a normal country, but perhaps it's on the road
to becoming one because of some of the positive things that we've seen
in the streets of Belgrade. The demonstrations have been peaceful
for a month. The demonstrators have abided by civilized rules of behavior,
and they're calling upon the Serbian Government to give them what is their
due, and that is their votes.
Yes, Aziz.
QUESTION: I'd like to go back to the President talking to Mr. Arafat. The
President here is quoted as saying -- asking Arafat to "bear down," and Mr.
Christopher in the end of the year basically said that the United States
blamed the Palestinian side for lack of agreement on Hebron. You said today
that there are still details to be ironed. The Israelis are saying the
agreement is ready to be signed. The Palestinians are saying they are
not. Can you explain where is the problem?
MR. BURNS: First of all, let me just correct the record from my point of
view. Secretary Christopher did not blame the Palestinian Authority for the
lack of progress on Hebron. The day the Secretary gave his press conference
up on the 8th floor, he simply noted that at that time, the third week of
December, the Israeli Government had put forward some interesting
concepts and proposals in the negotiations, which we felt deserved a
response from Chairman Arafat. But you should not deduce from that
comment that somehow the United States blames the Palestinian Authority.
We don't.
In fact, I think from my phone conversation with Dennis Ross this morning,
it's very clear it takes two to tango. Both of them have to work together
to produce this agreement. It's not a question of the Palestinians alone
acting appropriately to finish the agreement. They've got to have a willing
partner in the Israelis and vice versa. Both of them are responsible, and
we certainly hold both of them responsible to finish this agreement, and
President Clinton's comments, which were given to you by Mary Ellen Glynn,
are certainly consistent in that spirit. In fact, the President's call was
really a call of sympathy, because several Palestinian civilians were
wounded in that shooting attack.
QUESTION: But does it mean indirectly that he's urging Arafat to make a
serious compromise or a compromise to make it happen?
MR. BURNS: No one's calling for unilateral compromises. We are asking the
Israelis and Palestinians to work together to produce an agreement. Both of
them are responsible. It's their mission, and it's a dual mission. So we're
not trying to single out one party versus the other.
Yes, Judd.
QUESTION: Now that there's a new Secretary General in New York, how is
the Administration going to try to persuade Congress to appropriate the
money to cover the past debt, and what is the Administration's take on what
that debt is? How much is it?
MR. BURNS: First of all, this gives me an opportunity to congratulate
Secretary General Kofi Annan on assuming his responsibilities. As you know,
the United States thinks very highly of him. We have had a long and
positive association with him, particularly in the last couple of years.
He's been one of the most impressive senior officials of the United
Nations.
You know that the United States Government -- the Clinton Administration,
wants to pay off our debt to the United Nations. None of us feel that it's
appropriate for a power like the United States to be in effect a deadbeat
donor at the United Nations. President Clinton has made that clear quite
recently in his own press conferences. You've seen Secretary Christopher
speak to that many, many times over the past couple of months. This does
get to the issue of resources, giving the Clinton Administration the tools
that we need to act responsibly in the world. We want to pay off that
debt, and we have every reason so, and certainly we expect from Secretary
General Kofi Annan's leadership a resurgent effort and a vigorous effort to
slim down the United Nations, to make it more focused and more effective
and less bloated.
Under Secretary General Joe Connor has put in some preliminary reforms
which we hope that Kofi Annan can now build on, and he'll have the support
of the United States in that process. As long as that continues, there's
every reason for the Congress and the Executive Branch here in our
Government to agree that the necessary money should be appropriated to pay
off that debt.
As you know, Secretary-designate Albright will obviously have a lot to say
about this when and if she is confirmed by the United States Senate, and I
can't be detailed or prescriptive in the way that we would go about having
that debt paid off, except to say that that is a goal of our President and
our Administration.
The general size of the debt -- since you asked me the question, there must
be some controversy about whether it's $1.3 billion or $1.5 billion. Why
don't I do this. Why don't I take that question and see if our Bureau of
International Organization Affairs can give us a specific answer.
QUESTION: There is a discrepancy.
MR. BURNS: I understand that.
QUESTION: The Administration says it's less than the U.N. says.
MR. BURNS: Yes, I understand, so I want to be able to give you the exact
dollar amount. It may even be on one side or another of 1.3. So let me try
to do that. By the end of the day maybe we can post something in the Press
Office that would give you a specific figure that you can then debate with
us tomorrow at the briefing.
QUESTION: Nick, there's a report from New Delhi that two American
diplomats have been asked to leave quietly. Do you have any comment on
that?
MR. BURNS: Oh, I really don't have much to say. I really have not much to
give you on that, except to say that from what I understand, this is an
internal decision, internal affair of the Indian Government, and you'll
have to ask the Indian Government about this; not us.
QUESTION: Nick, if American diplomats are being kicked out or forced to
leave, it's more than just an internal affair of the Indian Government.
MR. BURNS: As you know, there was a two-part answer that I gave to that
question. The first is I have nothing for you, not much to say today on
this particular question. That's code word for "we may have some information,
but we're not willing to share it." And the second part of the two-part
answer is that this is obviously a matter for the Indian Government.
That makes sense. That does make sense. (Laughter)
Yes, Tom. Tom's intrigued. He's going to follow up.
QUESTION: Nick, there's a time-honored tradition by which we respond to
expulsions with expulsions. Should any of the Indian diplomats be packing
their bags?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware that anybody has been expelled from any country.
We certainly hope that will not be the case.
QUESTION: Anybody else what to try this? (Laughter)
QUESTION: Two diplomats have not been asked to leave?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware that anyone's been asked to leave any place, so
I have nothing more I can say on this.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Bill, no, the statute of limitations have run out on that
question. (Laughter)
QUESTION: On Taiwan, the U.S. Government, the State Department, has
issued a transition visa -- a transit visa to Taiwanese Vice President.
MR. BURNS: We have in the past. He often flies to inaugurations in the
Western Hemisphere, and, when he does, he transits the United States, and
we have given transit visas in the past. But I'm not aware of any current
application or issuance of a transit visa, but I can check that for you.
I'm not up to speed on a day-to-day basis about his travel schedule.
Yes, Judd.
QUESTION: On another U.N.-related question. Two Russian diplomats, as you
may know -- actually, a Russian and a Belarusian -- diplomats were arrested
briefly on Sunday night in New York for drunkenness and other actions and
released because they have diplomatic immunity. The Russian Government has
asked for an apology. Is one in the offing?
MR. BURNS: First of all, let me just tell you we're aware of this
incident, and we're certainly looking into it. The process in something
like this is we certainly are relying upon the New York Police Department
to complete and then send to the State Department a report on this
incident. The reason for that is that it took place allegedly with two
individuals who do have diplomatic immunity from two countries that are
member states of the United Nations. The normal procedure is that if
there's some kind of controversy or if one government has asked for an
apology, certainly the State Department must be involved. The only way we
can be involved at this point is to look at a police report.
I understand that that police report is being prepared, and that it will be
arriving here at the State Department shortly, and then we'll take the
appropriate action. What appropriate action is I can't say right now,
because we haven't seen the report. At this point, of course, I have no
reason to question the New York Police Department, but we'll have to look
at the report more closely and see what we can do.
We have heard from the Russians on this, as has the United Nations, and I
suspect as has Mayor Giuliani from his comments today. But I generally
don't comment on New York City's foreign policy, except when it comes to
the baseball team in the Bronx, and then I do feel free to comment.
QUESTION: As you did once before. (Laughter)
MR. BURNS: We have to get the facts here before we can comment further.
Laura.
QUESTION: Nick, in today's New York Times there's a column by William
Safire, and in this particular column he raises -- or he highlights some
connections -- some interesting connections between a former Clinton
Administration official, John Huang, and Chinese intelligence. He also
raises some questions about other individuals with links to the Clinton
Administration and connections to undesirables in China.
First of all, do you have any comment about this particular column and the
question that it raises? And, secondly, is there an investigation into
whether or not there has been -- there are connections to Chinese
intelligence?
MR. BURNS: First, Laura, I have no particular comment to make on William
Safire's column today in The New York Times. Second, I think the White
House has a person in the Counsel's Office who normally responds to
questions of this nature, on this particular issue, and so I would refer
you to the White House on that.
QUESTION: You mentioned that Dennis Ross said there were some last-minute
details that needed to be worked out. Can you tell us anything about their
details, even their nature?
MR. BURNS: No. And I don't mean to be disrespectful, but we have agreed-
upon ground rules here. I never give you guys anything interesting on the
Middle East peace process. I never speak in detail about it. Dennis Ross is
a confidential intermediary, and there are some details that need to be
worked out -- this agreement is not yet finished -- but I'm not able to
tell you what those are.
QUESTION: Can you say whether Arafat is getting cold feet, or is he
getting a bit more reticent?
MR. BURNS: I'm not in a position to comment on that. I'm not in the
meeting. I was not in the meeting with Chairman Arafat. But again I would
encourage you to think of this as a process where both Israel and the
Palestinians have to make the basic arrangement. It's not proper to focus
on one individual or one side of the negotiation.
QUESTION: The battle for Bunia. Unfortunately, over Christmas it cost up
to 400 lives of those combatants. The rebels -- Zairian rebels are asking
to control Bunia -- that's Zaire.
MR. BURNS: Thank you.
QUESTION: They're asking basically for control of the gold mining
district -- the mines themselves -- and the tremendous economic assets that
they would have behind them. What is the reaction of this government to
that land grab?
MR. BURNS: Our general reaction all along has been that we don't approve
of a violent military offensive by a rebel group inside a country with
which we have diplomatic relations and whose borders ought to be respected.
There's been too much violence in Eastern Zaire.
QUESTION: And with regard to the mining assets, they're saying, "Ante up,
mining companies, or we'll take your assets."
MR. BURNS: It doesn't seem to be a good deal, does it, for the mining
companies. (Laughter)
QUESTION: No, not at all.
MR. BURNS: In general, we've not been supportive of the military efforts
of the rebel alliance in Eastern Zaire for a variety reasons, and we do
certainly support and stand by the territorial integrity of Zaire, which,
of course, is threatened basically by this rebel alliance.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BURNS: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:34 p.m.)
(###)
|
