U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #3, 97-01-06

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

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

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

DEPARTMENT/STATEMENTS
        1 Secretary Christopher's Return to D.C. and Trip to New York
          Tomorrow
      1,8 Amb. Albright's Confirmation Hearings on Wednesday
      1-2 Cyprus Signs Contract to Purchase Russian Missiles
        2 Rocket Attack in Belfast
2-3,21-23 Update on Hebron Negotiations
        3 Upcoming Elections in Chechnya
CYPRUS
      3-7 Effect of the Contract to Purchase Russian Missiles on Peace
          Negotiations
      4,6 --Turkish Reaction
      6-7 --U.S. Disapproval of Russian Role
DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
8-9,11,13
    15,17 Auto Accident in D.C Involving Georgian Diplomat
 9-12,14,
    17-18 New York Incident with Russian and Belarussian UN Diplomats
     8-18 History and General Issues of Diplomatic Immunity
INDIA
       18 Fate of U.S. Diplomats in New Delhi
       18 Hostage Situation in Kashmir
PERU
    18-19 Update on the Hostage Situation
       19 Report of Japanese Businesses Offering Ransom
GREECE
       19 Release of Ahmed Rashid
NORTH KOREA
    19-20 U.S. Company Cargill Granted License to Export Grain to North
          Korea
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC
       20 French Military Action Against Rebellion
LIBYA
    20-21 Qadhafi and Religious Groups
       21 Farrakhan Visit to Tripoli
LETTER BOMBS
       21 Update on Investigation
MEXICO
       23 Assassination of State Chief Prosecutor Gutierrez

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #3

MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 1997, 1:10 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BURNS: Welcome to the State Department. This is not a sports briefing - right? This is a foreign policy briefing.

We'll be serious.

Secretary Christopher is back here in Washington. He arrived last night from California. He will be here for roughly two weeks pending the confirmation proceedings with Ambassador Albright, and then he expects to be leaving once she is sworn into office if, in fact, she is confirmed as we hope by the U.S. Senate.

The Secretary has been very busy over the weekend, even when he was in California, with the Middle East peace situation - peace talks situation. In fact, I think the Secretary told me he was in touch with Dennis Ross everyday of the last two weeks during the Secretary's leave. I just spoke with Dennis Ross, and we'll have a little bit for you on Hebron in a minute.

The Secretary is focusing on a lot of different issues for the next two weeks. He'll be going to New York tomorrow to meet with the new Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. He'll have a late afternoon meeting. I expect that there will at least be an opportunity to get some photos of that meeting, and I'll be glad to give you a briefing on it.

The Secretary will be honored as well by the Council of Foreign Relations tomorrow evening at a dinner in his honor in New York City. He also has some media appearances there.

On Wednesday, as you know, Ambassador Albright will have her confirmation hearing so we do not plan to have a formal press briefing on Wednesday. I think most of you will obviously want to watch or be present up on Capitol Hill at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

I do have a couple of statements to give you today, and then I'll be glad to go to your questions. The first statement pertains to Cyprus.

The Government of Cyprus has signed a contract, January 4, to purchase the Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missile system.

This is commonly referred to as the SA-10 in the United States but the Russians call it the S-300 anti-aircraft system.

The United States regrets this step. We have made it clear to the Government of Cyprus and others that we believe that this will complicate efforts to achieve a lasting peace in Cyprus.

The Cypriot decision introduces a new and destabilizing military element on the island and in the region at the very time that the international community is exploring ways to foster political cooperation to significantly advance a settlement.

Cyprus is already one of the most militarized regions in the world. Turkey maintains a very large military force on the island and both sides are already heavily armed. Lasting security and peace for the people of Cyprus can only be achieved at the bargaining table with all sides committed to finding a solution.

The past has shown that importing weapons has brought only arms increases from the other side. This new missile system is even more troubling as it threatens to take the arms buildup on Cyprus to a new and disturbing qualitative level.

The United Nations Security Council only last month warned that the importation of sophisticated weaponry threatens to raise tensions and complicate peace efforts. Regardless of when this system might be deployed, we believe the conclusion of this sales contract makes any mediation effort that much more difficult and it harms the political atmosphere. The action of the Government of Cyprus is a step down the wrong path.

The United States remains committed to pursuing efforts to resolve the Cyprus problem. Working with the international community, President Clinton is determined to move forward for these efforts to succeed. The parties and their partners in the region must also be prepared to make the tough choices necessary in negotiations. All parties bear responsibility to adopt concrete measures to decrease tensions such as reducing defense expenditures, ending provocative military exercises, and improving safety along the cease-fire lines - all of this necessary to advance a political settlement on Cyprus.

Secondly, I want to say something about the very unfortunate rocket attack in Northern Ireland this morning. The United States condemns in the strongest terms the attack on the Belfast Courthouse today. This attack, which we understand has injured a police officer, follows several discoveries in recent days of apparent Irish Republican army bombs which were being prepared for terrorist attacks.

These incidents have shaken the fragile peace in Northern Ireland. The continued violence could complicate the multi-party talks, which, as you know, are scheduled to resume later this month.

The United States shares the hope expressed by the British and Irish Governments that these incidents will not provoke loyalist groups to end their cease-fire. The United States urges all sides to show restraint and give the peace negotiations a chance to succeed.

Third, I want to just tell you about our appreciation of the situation pertaining to the Hebron talks. As you know, Dennis Ross has had very little sleep all weekend. He was able to participate in an early morning meeting with Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu a couple of days ago. Today, Dennis Ross met with Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu separately; and, as Dennis has said, we believe that some progress has been made but we also know that some differences remain. There will be no solution to the Hebron problem until both sides agree that they will cross the finish line together.

Dennis is interested in staying in the region as long as he feels that his presence is useful, but he's going to have to take that on a day-by-day basis to measure whether or not his presence is useful. As I said, I just spoke to him about a half hour ago. He'll be there this evening. He'll be active tomorrow.

We certainly hope that the Israelis and Palestinians will make the decision to get this deal done as soon as possible.

Finally, let me just tell you, we'll be posting a formal statement, in addition to the statement on Cyprus, about the elections in Chechnya. The United States welcomes continuing progress in preparing for elections in Chechnya which are scheduled for January 27. We believe the elections are an important part of the process of reconciliation. We hope that they could constitute another step toward establishing some semblance of democratic rule and stability in Chechnya. We welcome recent statements of support for the electoral process by senior Chechen and Russian officials.

The OSCE, we believe, should play a major role in these elections. The United States will be giving some financial support to the OSCE for its participation in helping to monitor these elections.

Barry.

OUESTION: Nick, a few questions on the Cyprus missile situation. The obvious question, was the U.S. advised in advance?

Is there any prospect of rolling back the steel? Have you said anything to the Russians? What motivated them? I suppose money.

Do you have answers to any of those things?

MR. BURNS: The United States was apprised of this sales contract in advance. In fact, our Ambassador Ken Brill met with President Clerides in Nicosia over the weekend to express the very strong disappointment of the United States in this sale.

We have expressed our similar disappointment to the Russian Government.

We've been in touch, as you can imagine, with the Greek and Turkish Governments and others about the ramifications of this sale.

We've issued a very strongly-worded protest today. It is somewhat unusual for us to do this, but I think you should take that as a sign of the displeasure of the United States and for what we think this will do - the negative consequences it will have for the peace negotiations.

OUESTION: Let me ask you, please, about the notion that these are defensive missiles; that by acquiring them, Cyprus can possibly neutralize overriding Turkish air superiority. The

United States, certainly, is very actively in the business as the world's biggest arms merchant.

You speak of the negotiations as if this development will puncture something that's very promising and very active.

I haven't got the notion that there's much going on to resolve the Cyprus problem. I'm sure you guys want to. But are negotiations at some critical point that this will now upset?

MR. BURNS: Barry, I think that technically this system - the S-300 or SA-10 system - can be described as anti-aircraft system. That's what it is, technically. The fact is that no matter what stage the negotiations are at, Cyprus is heavily militarized.

The addition of a sophisticated anti-aircraft system will not help the situation. We don't believe it will improve in any measurable way the security of Cyprus. In fact, we think it could provoke the kind of continued recalcitrance and continued difficulties in the peace talks that have been at the heart of this issue, as you well know, Barry, for more than 20 years.

The United States maintains a very active, diplomatic posture on the peace negotiations. You know that Mr. Beattie is the President's Special Emissary and travels there frequently.

He's frequently in touch with the governments. You know that Ambassador Brill and Ambassador Niles and Ambassador Grossman are all involved with the Cypriot, Turkish, and Greek Governments on this issue.

Carey Cavanaugh, who is our Director for Southeast Europe Affairs, has made repeated trips to the region - trips to New York. He's had people here to Washington. We haven't given up on the negotiations. But we do oppose unilateral attempts by one of the parties to take measures which we believe will destabilize those negotiations.

OUESTION: The Turkish position is unacceptable. They won't let this stick. Have you said anything to Turkey about its reaction, and potential reaction to it?

MR. BURNS: We certainly hope and believe that there will be no military reaction. That would be absolutely beyond the bounds. We're worried about the effect on the negotiations themselves. I would also want to draw some attention to other measures that we think all the parties - all of them - have to be aware of: reducing military expenditures, ending provocative military exercises, and improving safety along the cease- fire lines.

Just in the last six months, we've seen several incidents where people have been killed or injured - innocent civilians - and sometimes Turkish soldiers because of attacks along the cease-fire line. So in addition to our criticism of this particular move, Barry, we are asking all of the parties to take some steps that we hope would improve the climate on Cyprus.

Dimitri.

OUESTION: I have a question. As you know, there is a long-standing proposal by the President of Cyprus for the complete demilitarization of the island. As you can see, the acceptance of this proposal by Turkey will solve all of these problems with the military buildup and the tension. What's the U.S. position on this proposal, and why don't you push Turkey to accept this proposal?

MR. BURNS: The United States would certainly like to see a decrease in the level of military arms on all sides of this conflict. That is a long- held U.S. position. But because one side feels aggrieved, it does not give that side, we believe, the right to up the ante. Measures like this will simply lead, we believe, to counter-measures by the opposing sides which cannot be in the interest of anyone.

OUESTION: Does the U.S. know that Turkey bought a lot of weapons from the same company in Russia?

MR. BURNS: When we see actions by other parties to the conflict with which we disagree, as you know, we've been very quick to say so publicly. Just in this briefing, we've asked for all parties to make some decisions and to take some steps which we hope would lead to an increase in stability.

So, in general, the Cyprus conflict is the responsibility of everybody involved, not just one party.

Jim.

OUESTION: I think you missed Barry's question about the defensive nature of anti-aircraft systems. For example, in the Middle East the United States has supplied defensive anti-aircraft batteries to both Jordan and Israel, for example. The argument then was made that these can, in fact, be stabilizing weapons because they supply a protective layer under which negotiations can take place. Why does not this same argument apply in Cyprus?

MR. BURNS: As you well know, Jim, no two situations around the world in any two regions are similar. In fact, they're dissimilar in this case. We believe that the introduction of this particular system will be destabilizing. We don't believe it's going to add to the predictability of the military posture of the Cypriot Government. We don't believe it's going to add any measure of confidence on either side about the military balance.

In fact, if the past is any indication of what's going to happen in the future, it will just invite the other side to take a reciprocal

move. That can't be in the interest, we believe, of any of the parties.

OUESTION: Is there a military balance now?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me?

OUESTION: Do you think there's a military balance between Turkey and the Greek Cypriots?

MR. BURNS: There's a multi-equation. I wouldn't submit that there is an exact balance among the military forces. Absolutely not. But there's a military equation that has to be considered.

In that sense, the balance or imbalance has to be considered.

We don't believe that this is a productive set.

I think Savas had a question.

OUESTION: President Demirel has - in Turkey, yesterday, he made a statement: This missile is different than the U.S.-made Patriot missile. The range is so far that it's reaching inside the Turkish territory. For that reason, he said that when they put this missile in southern Cyprus, the Turkish national security will be in danger, and Turkey would most probably be attacked and destroyed by these missiles. Did you hear and did you check on this kind of statement? Did you react other than you said before?

MR. BURNS: I have not seen President Demirel's statement, so I don't wish to react to it specifically, except to say I want to repeat something I said earlier. No party to the Cyprus conflict should conclude from this particular action that they have a right to take corresponding military action. That is simply out of the question. This issue has got to be dealt with peacefully without resort to the use of military force by any of the parties, and that includes the Government of Turkey.

OUESTION: When you see this kind of deal and trade, they're after this kind of deal, the Russian is very effective to enroll the Cyprus issue, and is there some kind of - giving of something to put Russia the Cyprus negotiation? Did you see it this way?

MR. BURNS: We have expressed our disappointment to the Russian Government with its action in the sale of this particular anti-aircraft missile system. However, we will continue to work with the Russian Government, as we do with the British Government and the United Nations and others, toward a resolution of the Cyprus problem.

Still on Cyprus? Dimitri.

OUESTION: I want to come back on my question of the demilitarization proposal. Can you give me the specific position of the U.S., because this proposal, as you know, won a lot of support to the U.S. Congress - from the U.S. Congress.

MR. BURNS: Let me take that question, Dimitri, and give you a specific response on that proposal. But I gave you a general response, which I do think I know represents U.S. policy, but we'll get a specific written response, should you like that.

OUESTION: Can we go back to - are we on another subject?

MR. BURNS: We're still on this subject.

OUESTION: (Inaudible)

MR. BURNS: Sir, are you on this subject or another one?

Another one. Okay.

Yes, Ugur.

OUESTION: (Inaudible), Nick, also our building a naval and air base in Cyprus, do you think this also contributes to increasing instability on the island concerns? Were they expressed to the Greek Cypriots?

MR. BURNS: My statements today are limited to the anti-aircraft missile system.

OUESTION: What do you think about this new base? Is it something that would contribute to the instability?

MR. BURNS: I'd be glad to take that question for you.

OUESTION: What is your (inaudible) on the Russian responsibility on this? They have been party to the U.N. Security Council resolutions about the reduction of arms in the island for so many years.

MR. BURNS: As I said, we're disappointed in the Russian action. We've expressed that directly to the Russian Government.

We would hope in the future, Russian Government actions would be consistent with the international principle that all of us must do everything we can to minimize and decrease military tensions and the level of armaments on Cyprus, so that we might be successful politically in the talks.

OUESTION: The protest -

MR. BURNS: On this issue? Yes.

OUESTION: The protest that you mentioned, was that to the Russians as well?

MR. BURNS: Ambassador Brill - Ken Brill, our Ambassador to Cyprus - met with President Clerides over the weekend. We have been in touch with the Russian Government.

OUESTION: Was that a protest?

MR. BURNS: We certainly expressed our displeasure. You know, a protest is a loaded word, because it sometimes has a connotation of something in written form. I believe our officials in Moscow as well as our officials here have expressed to the Russian Government our great disappointment.

OUESTION: Nick, do you have any information that the Cyprus side or Cypriot side approached any other company or country with respect to buying a similar system, say any U.S. company?

MR. BURNS: I don't know the answer to that question.

You'll have to ask the Cypriot Government.

OUESTION: Are we still on this or -

MR. BURNS: I think we've finished.

OUESTION: Could we go back to the Secretary's activities?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

OUESTION: He's back. The wheels are turning. The nomination hearings are Wednesday. Have they talked about substance on the phone or otherwise? Will they this week? Will they next week?

Can you give us a general idea of how the torch -

MR. BURNS: You're referring to the Secretary and Ambassador Albright.

OUESTION: Right. How the torch will be passed.

MR. BURNS: The Secretary and Ambassador Albright, as you know, are close friends and have worked very well together over the last four years. They've talked many, many times since Ambassador Albright was nominated by President Clinton to become the next Secretary of State many, many times. As you know, Secretary Christopher's Deputy, Strobe Talbott, is heading Ambassador Albright's transition team, and Deputy Secretary Talbott has been actively involved, obviously, in every phase of the transition, and that will continue. The Secretary looks forward to many, many conversations with Ambassador Albright in the next several weeks before the formal vote in the Senate on her nomination.

OUESTION: I'm (inaudible) Pendleton with News Channel 8. This is a question on a story that happened locally with international implications. The 16-year-old Kensington, Maryland, young girl who was killed in the car accident involving a Georgian diplomat - are you aware of this, and what's your reaction to this - the State Department's reaction to this?

MR. BURNS: I have a lot of information, actually, and let me just go through it, if I could, because I think people are interested in the incident in New York as well. There are two incidents that involve the issue of diplomatic immunity. Let me go through them, and then I'll be glad to respond to your questions.

Let me talk first about the incident here in Washington on Friday evening. This is a terrible tragedy that a young 16-year-old woman was killed in such a manner and killed in such a crime.

We have great sympathy for the family of the young woman, and we extend our condolences to her family and to her friends.

We have been in touch with the Georgian Government. In fact, we contacted the Georgian Ambassador on Saturday - the State Department contacted the Ambassador, and we let the Ambassador know of our very, very serious concerns about this case and about this particular accident, and our strong concern about it.

The procedures are as follows. We understand that the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia has undertaken a comprehensive investigation into this case; the police will present the results of their investigation to the U.S. Attorney's office where the decision will be made whether to bring criminal charges against Mr. Makharadze, who is the number two ranking diplomat in the Georgian Embassy here in Washington.

We've been informed by the Metropolitan Police Department that the State Department will be given a copy of the report, and we hope that will be forthcoming as of tomorrow. Until then, the State Department must wait for the police report. As you know, it has been the practice of the State Department, in serious criminal cases like this, to request the government in question - in this case it would be the Georgian Government - to lift diplomatic immunity so that the individual could face prosecution in local courts, should there be a decision by the U.S. Attorney's office to bring a criminal charge against that person.

It's also been the practice of the Clinton Administration since 1993 that if the lifting of diplomatic immunity in any case, in a serious criminal case, is not forthcoming -- is not given by the affected government -- then generally the Clinton Administration has asked for that individual to leave the country. There are several options available to the State Department, but we cannot begin to act on those options until we receive the police report from the District police.

Let me just go to the New York case for a minute. Then I want to talk a minute about diplomatic immunity in general. In New York, as you know, the Department has received a preliminary police report, dated December 29, 1996, from the New York Police Department concerning the incident that involved a Belarusian diplomat and a Russian diplomat, both accredited to the United Nations - not to the United States.

We have also received here from Mayor Giuliani - the Secretary of State has received a letter from him which contains a copy of that report, copies of a letter that the Mayor sent to the Belarusian and Russian missions to the United Nations. Again, the Department of State is awaiting the formal police report from the New York City Police Department on this incident before we can agree on what action, if any, is appropriate for us to take.

But the same basic options available in the case concerning the Georgian diplomat are available to the United States and the United Nations, actually, in the case concerning the Russian and Belarusian diplomats.

Let's talk a minute about diplomatic immunity. All diplomats living and serving in the United States, whether they're accredited to the United Nations in New York or the United States Government in Washington, all have a legal obligation to respect local laws, to respect city laws, and this obligation stems from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations - the Vienna Convention of 1961.

Diplomats do not have the option of deciding whether they will comply with local laws. For instance, Mayor Giuliani, of course, has objected to the fact that in this case in New York the individuals apparently parked beside a fire hydrant. Diplomats do not have license to violate local fire laws, to park next to fire hydrants at will, and the New York City authorities obviously have the responsibility to make sure those laws are not broken.

In general, let me just tell you the concept and practice of diplomatic immunity has existed for literally thousands of years. In the case of the United States, in 1790 the United has recognized and practiced diplomatic immunity. It is as important today as it was back in the 18th century for the United States to practice diplomatic immunity, because it means for the several thousands of American diplomats stationed overseas, sometimes in authoritarian countries, sometimes in countries that are subject to war or civil strife, that our diplomats are not subject to the sometimes capricious nature of foreign legal systems; that they are not put in a position where they have to stand trial in countries that are not accustomed to the rule of law or to fairness under their own laws.

It makes sense, and I think Mayor Giuliani recognized this in his press conference yesterday when he said this, it makes sense for us to maintain the practice in law of diplomatic immunity, because it protects Americans overseas. But it also stands to reason that diplomats serving in the United States obey our laws; that they do not willfully violate laws, and I think we've seen examples that have caused us great concern, and we are eagerly awaiting the police reports of the District of Columbia and of the New York City Police Department.

OUESTION: Nick, there was a report in The New York Times -

OUESTION: What is your assessment, though, of asking, let's say, the country of Georgia to lift this immunity? What does that -

MR. BURNS: In less serious criminal cases, less serious than the terrible tragedy that occurred Friday evening, there are a number of examples just in recent years where foreign governments - because the governments grant the lifting of diplomatic immunity, not the individuals - foreign governments have granted a lifting of the diplomatic immunity that allows local prosecutors to charge diplomats or their dependents in U.S. courts.

In more serious criminal cases, such as the one that we saw Friday evening, I don't believe there's any instance where a government has lifted that diplomatic immunity. In those cases, it has been the practice of the Clinton Administration in those cases, in most cases, to request the departure of the offending diplomat.

OUESTION: Nick, The New York Times is reporting today that the United States Government intends to request a waiver of diplomatic immunity in the case in Washington. Is that correct?

MR. BURNS: David, I can't think of a case in the last several years where the United States Government has not requested a lifting of diplomatic immunity. It is our practice to request a lifting of diplomatic immunity when a serious criminal offense we believe has taken place, and where local prosecutors have asked to try the person.

The case of both the Georgian diplomat, Mr. Makharadze, and the two diplomats in New York - the Russian and Belarusian - are cases where the State Department must have, before we can consider any kind of action, the police reports. We are awaiting both.

OUESTION: Could you say -

OUESTION: You've already said - stated this is a great crime, but still the State Department awaits the police reports on how great the crime was.

MR. BURNS: I'm referring to the fact that a 16-year-old woman was killed in a car crash. Somebody was responsible for that. It's not for the Department of State to judge guilt or innocence. It's for courts to decide that, if that is possible.

What we need to see first is a police report. That's what we're awaiting.

OUESTION: Nick, could we follow that?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

OUESTION: Sorry. When is the last time a country honored a State Department request to lift immunity, and what kind of crimes are we talking about here?

MR. BURNS: There were instances in 1996, 1995, '94, '93 where foreign governments agreed to a lifting of diplomatic immunity -- but I want to be clear about this - in less serious cases; cases having to do with shoplifting, with soliciting prostitution, with theft, other violations of U.S. law which are serious but obviously not as serious as what happened on Friday evening where a young woman's life was taken - an innocent person's life was taken.

OUESTION: Have you heard from President Shevardnadze?

He is quoted as saying he will have this person held responsible.

Have you had any official word from Shevardnadze?

MR. BURNS: I don't know if any American official has had a direct conversation with President Shevardnadze. We have seen from the Government of Georgia in Tbilisi a statement of profound regret and apology to the family of the victim. We've also seen from the Georgian Embassy in Washington - and you've seen it, too - a similar statement of regret, and the Georgian Government has informed us that it will cooperate with the investigation. We hope that continues to be the case. This is a very serious case, but it is in the hands of the D.C. police, and at some point it will get into the hands of the U.S. Attorney.

OUESTION: Nick, do you have any way of quantifying or describing what the track record is of foreign diplomats in Washington and New York? I've seen reports over the years of many thousands of dollars of parking tickets and other kinds of moving violations committed by diplomats in both cities. How good are they at obeying the law?

MR. BURNS: This is a very complex subject, and it's obviously one that's quite broad. I was told by our experts this morning that in general foreign diplomats stationed in both New York and in Washington have by and large not been involved in the serious kinds of criminal cases that may be the case here associated with the death of the young woman on Friday evening in Washington.

However, on the other hand, there are literally tens of thousands of violations by foreign diplomats of U.S. laws on an annual basis. I think the New York City Police Department is obviously a better source than the State Department, but I know from some of the correspondence sent to us by Mayor Giuliani, in the case of some Embassies there are literally tens of thousands of parking violations issued to those Embassies' vehicles on an annual basis.

I want to repeat what I said at the beginning. The United States expects that foreign diplomats in the United States will obey our laws - parking laws, fire hydrant laws, laws concerning people who drive while intoxicated - these are all offenses in the United States. All of them ought to be taken seriously by foreign diplomats, just as the State Department expects that every American diplomat and their family members will obey foreign laws when we reside overseas - when people work at our Embassies and Consulates. That stands to reason. It bears repeating today.

OUESTION: Nick, could you provide a list of the worst diplomatic scofflaws, with respect to parking, for example?

MR. BURNS: Let me see what I can do. As I told David, I was surprised to see some of the information this morning - the extent in terms of more minor violations like traffic offenses, summonses issued for parking violations and other traffic offenses - I was absolutely amazed by how many there were. One particular Embassy seems to be the leader, but I won't identify that Embassy, at least on camera.

OUESTION: On the subject of U.S. diplomats obeying laws in foreign countries where they're posted, have you had any reports recently or could you check if there was an incident in Moscow recently involving a U.S. diplomat injuring people?

MR. BURNS: I will certainly check on that. I'm not aware of it myself, but we have several thousand American diplomats overseas, and I'm sure there have been instances where there has been intentional or unintentional violations of foreign government law. We take all such cases seriously, as we should.

OUESTION: While we're on that subject, in remarks you made earlier, what is the U.S. practice regarding diplomatic immunity when a U.S. diplomat is involved in a serious case overseas? Can you give us any numbers of the times you've asked -

MR. BURNS: American diplomats overseas are protected by the Vienna Convention of 1961 and by the practice of diplomatic immunity - the law of diplomatic immunity. The United States, as I said, encourages our diplomats to obey the law, and I think on a case-by-case basis when our own diplomats are involved with incidents, we have to judge what the proper response is, our own responsibility.

OUESTION: Has this included asking for the immunity and getting them back and not -

MR. BURNS: It just depends. I mean, to give you the other side of diplomatic immunity, the side that argues for a continuation of diplomatic immunity - and understanding the obvious concerns that a family would have, the family of a victim like this, it means that our own diplomats often in authoritarian countries are not subject to criminal prosecution in a system of government that is blatantly unfair.

Let me give you a very good example - the example of our young diplomat, Robin Meyer, in Cuba, who was kicked out of Cuba by the Cuban Government a couple of months ago. They say that she violated Cuban law. We say that she was unfortunately living, fortunately for her, in an authoritarian police state and was subject to capricious and unfair laws.

Fortunately for her, she did not have to face the Cuban judicial system. Can you imagine - could anyone even assume that there would be a fair trial in Cuba, and fortunately for us she was allowed to return to the United States unharmed. That's why we have diplomatic immunity and why we believe in it and why we practice it and have practiced it since 1790. It protects our people.

But we certainly understand the families here in the United States of a victim like this - their concerns - and our response to that would be we're going to make a renewed effort to make sure that diplomats here understand that we expect them to obey our laws.

OUESTION: (Inaudible) Georgia, we're in a position to need certain things from the United States, that would be used in terms of that would give them or make them more likely to lift immunity in this case if prosecutors wanted to go after this guy.

MR. BURNS: Again, this is somewhat hypothetical at this point, because there's no police report available to us, and the U.S. Attorney, as far as we know, has not brought charges against Mr. Makharadze. So we're going to have to wait to see what develops in this case, but in a hypothetical sense, it's up to the government involved to decide whether or not it will agree to a request to lift diplomatic immunity.

The State Department practice has been very consistent. We haven't missed a beat on this in four years. We've also asked for a lifting of diplomatic immunity in serious criminal cases and would hope very much that any government involved in a situation like this would grant such a lifting of the immunity.

OUESTION: Somewhat related to that, there were reports this particular diplomats was involved in pipeline discussions, rather sensitive issues. Can you comment on that?

MR. BURNS: No, I don't wish to comment on that. That is an extraneous issue.

Yes, David.

OUESTION: Is there any feeling that the diplomatic immunity might be overly broad, or does the U.S. support it? Right now it covers all crimes. It has been suggested by some lawyers involved in these cases that it should not cover manslaughter and murder.

MR. BURNS: We certainly understand again the motivation of a family of a victim who has lost her life, but we would respectfully say that this practice of diplomatic immunity has served the United States well for two centuries and will continue to serve us well.

No American wants to see an American diplomatic subject to these unfair laws in many authoritarian countries around the world.

We couldn't in good conscience send our diplomats to places - police states - where we know they wouldn't receive a fair trial if a government wanted to bring trumped-up charges against them. There's a logic to this diplomatic immunity and a self-interest, which we believe the American people will understand once it's explained to them and understanding that most people don't have a concept of what this is. We've tried to explain it here today. We'll continue that.

OUESTION: Picking up on that, then, there is a broader issue than just the families concerned. There are American voters who look at this as "these diplomats appear to be above the law," and what may eventually happen is that someone could commit murder, and they would just be expelled and Americans would be outraged at the thought that there are people here that are above the law and have had all these thousands of instances. What would you say to them?

MR. BURNS: We can certainly understand the sentiment, but we would say that this practice benefits the United States -- several thousand Americans who find themselves living overseas. Again, no one is above the law in the United States. Our own elected officials are not above the law. Those of us serving in government are not. Foreign diplomats are bound by international law to respect the laws of the United States. The fact that they are not doing so is a cause of great concern to us.

OUESTION: Nick, you spoke of diplomats' immunity. If I'm wrong or if I'm correct, it also involves such a notion as personal safety. How would the State Department characterize the New York police behavior with the incident where the Russian and Belarusian diplomats? Whether they were right or wrong parking their car in front of the fire hydrant, a broken arm - is that capriciousness or brutality? And a second question, if I may.

MR. BURNS: Yes. On this first question - let's take them one at a time - on this first question, what we have here, we have a protest from the Russian Government and the Belarusian Government to the United States and to the city of New York, and that protest concerns the behavior of the New York Police Department.

On the other hand, to be fair about this, we have a preliminary police report from the city of New York, a letter from the Mayor of New York, which we take very seriously - we have great respect for the Mayor of New York - and they have a different side of the story. They have a different story.

We need to see the full, comprehensive New York City Police Department report before we can possibly comment on who was right and who was wrong, and then determine the appropriate action that may or may not be necessary for the United States to take, along with the United Nations, in this particular case.

But I am not in a position here to question the New York Police Department. I'm not going to criticize the New York Police Department until we have seen that report.

I must say, I think Mayor Giuliani gave a very effective press conference yesterday. I think he is raising the right issues. There is obviously a systematic violation of New York City laws underway, regardless of this particular case, and foreign diplomats ought to obey New York City laws - regardless of this case and putting aside this case - and Mayor Giuliani actually made a defense of diplomatic immunity yesterday, saying he understood why diplomatic immunity was important for the United States and for our diplomats overseas. I think the Mayor has handled this obviously pursuant to his own duties and his concerns.

OUESTION: Nick, in the event that the U.S. Attorney's office here sends you a report that suggests that there ought to be felony charges brought against this man if he were not to have diplomatic immunity - if those charges would be brought - and in the event that the Georgian Government declines to allow those charges to be brought, will that hurt U.S.-Georgian relations in any way at all?

MR. BURNS: This is a tragic event. We need to see it as such. There is a possibility that charges may be brought.

We'll have to wait and see what the U.S. Attorney says. The Georgian Government has expressed from the President of Georgia on down to the Ambassador here in Washington profound regret over what happened on Friday evening.

We hope that the Georgian Government will continue to cooperate with the relevant police authorities, and we'll just have to see where this goes. We have an important relationship with Georgia, and we need to continue that. We have an important case here in Washington, which has left a young woman dead, and that's the responsibility of the police authorities.

OUESTION: You said earlier, when you started talking about this case, that the U.S. Attorney would recommend to the State Department whether or not it thought - that it would make the decision as to whether or not in the event diplomatic immunity were lifted, there should be prosecution. Did you not say that?

MR. BURNS: No, I'm sorry, if I inferred that, I didn't mean to, no.

OUESTION: The State Department makes the decision, does it not?

MR. BURNS: Here's the procedure. The U.S. Attorney and local prosecutors will determine whether or not there is a criminal case and whether or not criminal charges will be brought.

That's not the domain of the State Department. The State Department then has to decide whether or not we asked the relevant government, the pertinent foreign government, to lift the diplomatic immunity of the concerned diplomat. That's our responsibility.

Then if you go one step further, it's also our responsibility in the event that diplomatic immunity is not lifted by the foreign government, it then would be our decision as to whether or not to ask for the removal of that diplomat. But at this point it is hypothetical since we have not received the police department report, and we have not seen any charges brought. We'll have to wait to see what happens in coming days on this issue.

OUESTION: I have yet another minor question, but it's important, I think. In these kinds of cases, if that scenario plays out the way you just described, are these diplomats forbidden from ever entering the United States again on any basis, or are they simply losing that one-time visa?

MR. BURNS: That is a decision for the State Department whether or not we would put an individual hypothetically on what we call our "lookout list, " people who are not to be given visas to enter the United States, and it's a decision that we would have to make on a case-by-case basis.

OUESTION: In the past, have you done that?

MR. BURNS: In the past, certain people have been told they will not be given visas to come to the United States in the future - absolutely. But I can't say - I don't know, frankly - if in the entire history of the country, our country, there are instances where people have been let in after a certain period of time. I just don't know the answer to that question.

Lee and then Judd.

OUESTION: Could you give us a little clearer definition of what diplomatic immunity covers? Does it cover in a blanket sense dependents of diplomats, and does it cover, of course, any act, including murder, and are there any countries in the world, as best you know, who don't subscribe to that? I can't think of any offhand, but perhaps -

MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any countries in the world that do not recognize the Vienna Convention of 1961 or do not practice it. That's a technical question, Lee. We can seek a better response.

Second, diplomatic immunity essentially means that a diplomat and his or her family - spouse and children and other dependents - are not subject to criminal prosecution if such prosecution is brought is against them. They have immunity from such prosecution.

OUESTION: Nick, I also wanted to ask you: As a career diplomat, do you find it at all repugnant that a member of the diplomatic community is linked to such an offense as driving while intoxicated in something that resulted in the death of a young girl? Without judging guilt or innocence, do you find -

MR. BURNS: As a career diplomat of the United States Foreign Service, I think it's the responsibility of every diplomat, American and foreign, to obey the laws of the country in which you are residing, and that's all the laws - not just some of the laws, all the laws - criminal, civil and others; laws that pertain to minor offenses and serious criminal offenses. That's our responsibility as diplomats, and you must take that responsibility seriously.

OUESTION: Nick -

MR. BURNS: I'm sorry. It was Judd and then Betsy.

OUESTION: I don't mean this to be terribly cynical, but does the State Department make its decision on whether to ask a country to waive diplomatic immunity solely on the nature of the crime and not the nature of the government?

MR. BURNS: Solely on the nature of the crime. I don't believe it would be proper for the State Department to consider any other factor. If we have a good relationship or bad relationship with an effective government, this decision should be based on the law, and it should be based on what is fair, certainly given the sensitivities that are present in a tragedy of the kind that we saw on Friday evening. I would very much expect - I know that's what our senior leadership - the approach our senior leadership would take.

Betsy.

OUESTION: Nick, two questions. You said earlier that the U.S. was going to reiterate to diplomats that they need to follow the laws of this country. Is there any program that you're thinking about? Any notice going to be sent to embassies to try and -

MR. BURNS: We're doing it through your good offices in this medium, and we'll take the opportunity in other media to do it, and that is, to send a public message that should be understood. It stands to reason that diplomats who are based here in the United States must obey our laws.

OUESTION: Has the Secretary been involved in this at all? Has he spoken to Shevardnadze?

MR. BURNS: The Secretary has been very closely monitoring this case. In fact, he called in on Saturday and asked us specifically about what happened on Friday evening concerning the death of the young woman. He's very familiar with the case in New York and the protest brought, on the one hand, by the Russian and Belarusian Governments; on the other, by New York City, by Mayor Giuliani.

The Secretary is quite interested in this. Obviously, all of us believe this is a major responsibility we have to decide on our own involvement once that becomes necessary, once these police reports are forthcoming.

OUESTION: Might the Secretary meet with Giuliani tomorrow while he's in New York?

MR. BURNS: There are no plans to do so at this point.

We received a letter from Mayor Giuliani with voluminous correspondence behind it.

OUESTION: If the U.S. Attorney's office decide to bring charges - criminal charges - against this diplomat, he will be prosecuted? Or only he will be asked to leave the country?

MR. BURNS: It would not be fair for me to get ahead of the judicial process here and to speculate on what might happen.

This is up to the legal and police authorities.

OUESTION: After the Russian diplomat was beaten in New York and his hand was broken - arm - the Moscow traffic police also issued a report concerning the behavior, or traffic behavior, of American diplomats in Moscow. Is the State Department aware of that report?

MR. BURNS: I think I've answered that question. I believe it was asked by Charlie a couple of minutes ago. I'm not aware of it but I'll look into it for you.

OUESTION: (Inaudible) on diplomats, what's the fate of the American diplomats in New Delhi?

MR. BURNS: I have nothing for you on that issue. We can dispense with that one quite easily. On to the next issue.

Nothing for you. That's diplo-speak for "I'm not going to talk about this issue".

OUESTION: How about the hostages in Kashmir?

MR. BURNS: That is a very serious issue. Mr. Donald Hutchings is on our mind as are his three colleagues who were abducted on July 4, 1995. We are working closely with the Indian authorities and have been for a very long time.

Ambassador Frank Wisner has been centrally involved in this in Delhi. We are hoping and praying for the release of all the hostages, including our American, Donald Hutchings.

OUESTION: Nick, in Peru there have been no releases for several days now.

MR. BURNS: Right.

OUESTION: Do you have any reflections on that? I don't want to say negotiations. Is the situation entering a new stage.

In fact, is it approaching a negotiating stage now?

MR. BURNS: The Government of Peru has maintained his opposition to making any concessions to the terrorists. These people are terrorists who are holding the hostages.

The United States reaffirms it condemnation of the hostage-taking and our strong belief that the terrorists should release the hostages immediately and unharmed. Beyond that, the United States has made a general offer of assistance to the Peruvian Government.

I don't believe the Peruvian Government has acted on the offer of assistance. I believe the Peruvian Government has chosen to act on its own here. It has our support, obviously, to discuss the release of these hostage. We hope they're released unharmed and very soon.

OUESTION: Do you have any - is there any credence into recurring reports that Japanese corporations are offering - indeed, a scaled-down amount, but still offering ransom for the hostages?

MR. BURNS: I have no information on that.

Judd.

OUESTION: North Korea?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

OUESTION: Any comments on -

OUESTION: On terrorism, I have one question.

MR. BURNS: On terrorism: Peru?

OUESTION: Not Peru. The Ambassador of Greece, today, sent a letter to the Washington Post, as "Letters to the Editor." He defends their government's release for Ahmed Rashid. Do you agree? Did you see this letter?

MR. BURNS: I saw the letter.

OUESTION: Do you agree with his statement on the subject?

MR. BURNS: I did make a gray study of the letter itself.

I don't want to comment on the letter. But on the general issue, the United States has made it very clear that we were extremely unhappy over the actions of the magistrate in the Greek judicial system who allowed a convicted terrorist, who killed a Japanese boy, a convicted terrorist released. That was wrong. We made our displease known to the Greek Government and to the Greek authorities - judicial authorities.

MR BURNS. OK, yes.

OUESTION: Cargill has apparently been granted license to ship grain to North Korea. Is this part of the whole apology?

MR. BURNS: I understand the Treasury Department has issued a license for Cargill to export food to North Korea. I believe this is the first time an American company has been granted a license by the Treasury Department to export anything to North Korea since the September 28 submarine incident. But prior to that incident, there are many, many examples of American companies having been given licenses to export a variety of products to North Korea.

As you know, Judd, we're working on this. As Winston Lord told you last week, we hope very much that we can schedule a date and venue for a briefing on the Four Party Talks. The North Koreans have agreed to that. We just need to schedule it.

You know that KEDO and North Korea will sign protocols in New York this week on the construction of a light-water nuclear reactors that are part of the Agreed Framework. We're working very closely with the South Korean Government on all these issues.

We hope very much that the statement made by the North Koreans eight/nine days ago will lead to progress on the Agreed Framework, on KEDO issues, on the Four Party Proposal that was offered by President Clinton back in April.

OUESTION: Was that statement satisfactory to the South Koreans, or the South Korean Republic?

MR. BURNS: I think the South Korean Government has spoken for itself on that issue.

OUESTION: Nick, do you have any comment on the French action in the Central African Republic?

MR. BURNS: Just to say that we follow this very closely because we do have an American Embassy in Bangui - in the Central African Republic. We understand that the French Government acted as it should have acted in its own defense and in defense of the duly constituted government of the Central African Republic over the weekend.

The United States fully supports the response of the French military because its soldiers were attacked. Two French soldiers were killed on Friday. We fully support what the French have done, and we hope for a speedy resolution of this rebellion, and we hope for a return to civility and the rule of law as it exists in the Central African Republic.

I can report to you that there are some press reports that the United States Embassy had been overrun. That is absolutely false. We have 34 American citizens in the Central African Republic, 16 of whom are in Bangui. All are safe and accounted for. The United States Embassy has advised American citizens to stay where they are, stay in their homes, not to leave their homes while the civil disturbances continue.

Our American Ambassador, Mosina H. Jordan who is a career Foreign Service Officer, has acted responsibly to alert American citizens to these problems over the last couple of days.

OUESTION: Did you read the Washington Times report that the Libyan leader, Muammar Qadhafi, is isolated from the power by some extreme religious group? This group, according to the Times, aim to all North African side - (inaudible) extreme religious groups. Do you share this view, and do you have any other -

MR. BURNS: I don't have any particular comment to make about Mr. Qadhafi's religious views. But we do have a lot that we can say - I won't go into all the detail - about his political actions.

I understand Mr. Farrakhan is visiting Libya as a guest of Qadhafi. I just would hope that Louis Farrakhan would choose to raise the issue of Pan Am 103 with Mr. Qadhafi. The Libyan Government is harboring two terrorists who placed the bomb that caused the explosion on the aircraft and caused the deaths of 269 people, many of whom were American citizens, including four of our colleagues here from the Department of State.

I think Mr. Farrakhan has a responsibility as an American - as a patriotic American - to raise that issue with Mr. Qadhafi.

OUESTION: Anything new on mail bombs from Egypt?

MR. BURNS: Just to say that the State Department is continuing to cooperate very closely with the FBI in the investigation to the letter bombs.

There was a statement made by the Egyptian Government in Tunis over the weekend by an Egyptian Government official which took issue with this investigation. But I can tell you, I can reconfirm that the Egyptian Government in Cairo has told us that the Egyptian Government will cooperate with the United States in all respects to uncover the source of these letter bombs.

In fact, as you know, the FBI has sent officials to both Alexandria and Cairo - in Egypt - to work with the Egyptian Government.

We fully expect that the Egyptian Government will meet its commitments to us.

OUESTION: What do you make about the statement by Egyptian General (Inaudible) that such implications affront the whole Egyptian people?

MR. BURNS: I can only conclude that this is inconsistent with the repeated expressions of cooperation to us privately from the Egyptian Government. We have a major concern here. Someone or some group is sending letter bombs to an Arab newspaper and to U.S. Government facilities. We need to get to the bottom of it and stop those people. That is what the FBI is trying to do.

We need the cooperation of the Egyptian Government.

OUESTION: Nick, on Dennis' mission, is there an implied deadline in what you described earlier that if by Wednesday, for example, they will still not cross the finish line that he will finally pack and come back to Washington? On that matter, would you care to comment on the Palestinian accusations that Dennis recently is tilting towards the Israeli side? And what is your position on the Palestinian demand to have specific dates built into this agreement on the second and third redeployment stages?

MR. BURNS: Three questions. First, Dennis Ross is there on a day-by- day basis. He has to determine everyday whether his continued presence is useful. He has not made any long-term commitments to these negotiations to his physical presence there.

The second question: It is absolutely ludicrous to think that Dennis Ross is biased. Anybody who knows him, anybody who knows his track record and the way he's operated knows that he is objective; that we are friends with both the Palestinians and the Israelis; that we want to see, on an objective basis, these negotiations succeed. We are evenhanded.

I think the very fact that both the Palestinians and Israelis want Dennis Ross in those meetings is testimony to the fact that he has been evenhanded.

Third, I'm not going to discuss the specifics of the negotiations.

OUESTION: A follow-up. Is the U.S. prepared to offer some sort of guarantee on the stages of an Israeli pullout?

MR. BURNS: I'm just not going to discuss in any way the substance of the negotiations. But by not replying to your question, don't take that as a positive. You know what I mean by that? I'm just simply saying, it hasn't been - it's not wise for us to start commenting on any aspect of the negotiations.

We haven't done that in the last four months.

OUESTION: The U.S. has a position, doesn't it, on whether Israel should pull back from most of Hebron?

MR. BURNS: The United States has a position, and that is that the Oslo Accords ought to be respected. Obviously, what we've got here is we've got some difference of opinion maybe on what the Oslo Accords say and back and forth. We'll let the Israelis and Palestinians figure that out, Barry.

OUESTION: That was a sneaky lead question.

MR. BURNS: It was.

OUESTION: And the next question was going to be, does the U.S. have a position on whether a pullback in Hebron must, in this implementation accord, be tied to pullbacks in other areas in the West Back? Or does it stand on its own?

MR. BURNS: We have positions on many issues. We keep most of those positions private on these specific negotiating issues.

OUESTION: Will you keep it private even if it seems to be the hang-up - preventing an agreement that has been imminent for about six and a half years?

MR. BURNS: We have been pretty good at keeping our views private on many of the most prominent issues in these negotiations.

We'll continue that practice because we want to preserve our effectiveness as the intermediary.

OUESTION: Is anybody else helping besides the U.S.?

MR. BURNS: I think it's pretty much the United States that is pulling these discussions together. Dennis Ross arranged the meeting the other night at Erez between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat.

OUESTION: Is Egypt playing a role in it?

MR. BURNS: I think the Egyptian Government has been very active, as you know. President Mubarak has made some public comments. The Egyptian Government talks to us a lot and talks to the Israelis and Palestinians. We welcome the involvement of Egypt in here, in these negotiations.

OUESTION: Nick, there's been an atrocity in Mexico over the weekend. The Chief Prosecutor for the State of Tijuana. Mr. Odin Gutierrez has been assassinated. I would ask you, sir, it's been several months now since the Mexican Government, in cooperation with U.S. law enforcement authorities, have sought to capture the Felix Arellano family. Is the Felix Arellano family winning this battle?

MR. BURNS: The United States condemns the killing over the weekend of Mr. Gutierrez. It's a great tragedy, obviously, for his family but also for the Mexican Government. He was the leading official in the fight against narcotics trafficking. We will continue our efforts to work with the Government of Mexico against the scourge of narcotics trafficking, as you know. General McCaffrey has been in the forefront of those efforts on behalf of the United States.

OUESTION: But why no major arrests after all this time?

MR. BURNS: Bill, that's a question for the Mexican police department, not for the State Department.

OUESTION: But we're involved, are we not?

MR. BURNS: Mexico has sovereignty in its own country.

We're not involved in the investigation.

Thank you very much.

(Press briefing concluded at 2:11 p.m.)

(###)

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article