U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #7, 97-01-13
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1164
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
January 13, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
DEPARTMENT
1.......Welcome Back to State Department Correspondent Abdul Salam
Massarueh
1.......Secretary's Luncheon with Conference of Presidents of Major
American Jewish Organizations
1.......Secretary's Address to the Kennedy School at Harvard
1-2.....Secretary to Attend Breakfast Meeting at the Woodrow Wilson Center
for Environmental Change and Security
2,11....Deputy Secretary Talbott's Trip to Europe
3-4....."This Day in Diplomacy" Series: Fourth Anniversary of the Signing
of the Chemical Weapons Convention
CYPRUS
2,4.....Visit of American Diplomat Carey Cavanaugh to Cyprus
2,4-7....--Discussion of Cyprus Government Decision to Acquire Russian
Missiles
2........--Steps to Reduce Risk of Incidents Along the Ceasefire Lines
2........--Moratorium of Greek and Turkish Combat Aircraft over Cyprus
IRAQ
2.......Asst. Secretary Pelletreau's Meeting in Ankara with Kurdish
Factions
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
2,7-9...Dennis Ross Meetings/Hebron Talks
SOUTH AFRICA
9-11....Reports South Africa Considering Selling Weapons Systems to Syria
RUSSIA/BELARUS
11-12...Reported Russia-Belarus Merger
GEORGIA/DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
12......Previous Driving Record of Georgian Diplomat in Republic of Georgia
12-13...State Department's Issuance of Diplomatic Driver's Licenses/Oversight
13-14...Previous Driving Record of Mr. Makharadze in the U.S.
14-15...Record of U.S. Diplomats Driving Records Abroad
NORTH KOREA
15......New York Talks
TERRORISM
15-16...Reported Letter Bomb Delivered to Al-Hayat Offices at United
Nations
SERBIA
16,19...Greek Foreign Minister's Visit to Belgrade/Reiteration of Call on
Milosevic to Accept OSCE Report in Full
16-19...Meeting of Contact Group in Brussels Over Weekend/U.S. Action Plan
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #7
MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 1997, 1:13 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Before we begin, I should say we're honored
to have the presence of Mr. Abdulsalam. Welcome back. We're very,
very glad to have you back with us. We know that you had an illness
but you've obviously overcome it, and you look great. We won't
give you a hard time this week. All right?
MR. ABDULSALAM: Thank you for all of the messages from
my colleagues at the State Department, the Correspondent Association,
and the bouquet of flowers; and the question that you asked and
the statements you made at the briefing about me. I'm very honored
and very delighted that I have such a good company of people throughout
the whole area. It really added to the healing. I enjoyed it very
much.
MR. BURNS: Mabrouk; mabrouk. Welcome back.
Secretary of State Christopher is having a busy day. He is having
lunch in a meeting right now with the Conference of Presidents
of major Jewish organizations. This is at their request. They
wanted to meet with him one more time before he left office and
he agreed to do so.
The remarks that he's making to them, I'll make available to all
of you after the briefing. That's just begun in the last half
hour.
The Secretary, as I told you, on Wednesday will be going up to
Cambridge, Massachusetts, to the Kennedy School at Harvard. He'll
be giving his final speech as Secretary of State. That speech
will be a review of the foreign policy of the Administration over
the last four years. It will also include his concentration for
the future on an issue that he feels very, very deeply about,
and that is, adequate resources for our foreign policy and diplomacy
so that it can be successful -- the concept of diplomatic readiness.
Tomorrow, the Secretary has been invited to a breakfast meeting
on the environment hosted by the Woodrow Wilson Center of Environmental
Change and Security. That's at the Smithsonian Institution. As
you know, the Secretary announced in April, at Stanford, a new
U.S. concentration on international and environmental issues.
The Secretary will discuss with the Woodrow Wilson Center of scholars,
among whom are Tom Lovejoy. I think most of you remember him from
our trip to Latin America. He's one of the experts on rain forests.
He'll discuss with them how we can pursue effectively a U.S. concentration
on international and environmental issues in the future. That's
tomorrow morning.
Deputy Secretary Strobe Talbott left last evening for a trip to
Europe. He is in London today. He'll be going to Brussels, Paris,
and Bonn over the next two days, returning to Washington on Wednesday
night. This is a trip that focuses on U.S.-European relations
on some of the security issues that have been at the forefront
of our relationship.
What else do we have here? I spoke to our American envoy, Carey
Cavanaugh just about an hour and a half ago from Nicosia. He was
leaving there for Athens. Let me just tell you about my appreciation
of his talks over the last 24 hours.
He was able to meet yesterday and today the leaders of the two
sides on Cyprus. He thinks those meetings were very useful and
positive. He made clear the view of the United States that the
recent decision by the Government of Cyprus to acquire Russian
missiles in the future was a mistake and that the United States
will remain opposed to this purchase of the anti-aircraft system.
Similarly, he stressed very firm United States opposition to some
of the aggressive statements made by the Turkish Government --
by the Turkish Foreign Minister and Defense Minister -- late last
week.
He had a meeting with President Clerides and he was able to obtain
concrete assurances that no component of the SA-10 surface-to-air
missile system will be delivered to Cyprus during the next 16
months. This effectively, in the view of the United States, diffuses
this atmosphere of crisis over the missiles in Cyprus. It provides
time to the Government of Cyprus, the Greek Government, and the
Turkish Government to resolve this issue.
He also discussed with President Clerides and Mr. Rauf Denktash,
the Turkish Cypriot leader, additional steps to reduce the risk
of incidents along the cease-fire lines. Both President Clerides
and Mr. Denktash agreed to give their full support to immediate
implementation of the package of measures proposed by the United
Nations. This includes further unmanning of positions along the
cease-fire lines, the unloading of weapons, and the adoption of
a code of conduct which makes clear that force can only be used
in life-threatening situations.
We understand that the U.N. forces in Cyprus representatives will
be engaging both parties on this particular package of issues
during the week.
An additional item raised during Carey Cavanaugh's visit was the
U.S.-sponsored moratorium on the flight of Greek and Turkish military
aircraft over Cyprus. Discussions on this question will continue
when Carey visits Athens tomorrow and Wednesday, and Ankara, I
believe, on Thursday. He'll be seeing Foreign and Defense Ministry
officials in both of those countries.
I think Carey is off to a terrific start. I think he's been able
to articulate what is at the heart of the issue here, and that
is that problems should be resolved peacefully and not through
the threat of force or the use of force.
I should also tell you that Assistant Secretary of State Bob Pelletreau
has arrived in Ankara just a couple of minutes ago. He's going
to be conducting talks among the Kurdish factions beginning tomorrow.
The Turkish and U.K. governments will be presented at those talks.
These follow on the very successful talks we had here at the Department
of State last week. You remember, our goal is to try to promote
a reconciliation among the various factions in northern Iraq and
also to make sure that we do everything we can to reduce the influence
of Saddam Hussein in northern Iraq.
I also just spoke with Dennis Ross about 45 minutes ago. He took
time in between meetings in Jerusalem to tell me the following.
He worked all day today in talks with the Palestinians and the
Israelis. Some of the meetings were separate meetings. Some of
the meetings were combined meetings where he mediated between
the Palestinians and the Israelis. He has just now gone off to
a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
We believe that, thanks to the intervention of His Majesty King
Hussein yesterday, a lot of progress was made on the non-Hebron
issues that are involved in these negotiations. However, despite
the good work by Dennis Ross today, there is no deal yet. There
remains the need for additional movement and additional work by
both the Israelis and Palestinians before there can be a deal.
As you remember, the President and Secretary Christopher had instructed
Dennis, who was originally going to be coming home last evening,
they instructed him to stay because after the intervention of
King Hussein, the Secretary felt very strongly that there was
a possibility of progress today. The Secretary of State -- Secretary
Christopher -- will have to evaluate on a day-by-day basis the
duration of Dennis' stay in the region.
Secretary Christopher, yesterday, called President Mubarak and
King Hussein and Chairman Arafat and was on the phone, I think,
seven or eight times with Dennis Ross. He has also spoken to Dennis
this morning. So we're hopeful for progress but there's no deal
yet. That remains, of course, an abiding concern of both the Secretary
and Dennis Ross.
Finally, I thought after eyeballs were -- after your eyes were
glazing over Friday when I did my last "This Day in Diplomacy,"
I thought I would try to give you one today which is directly
tied to a current policy issue, and that's the Chemical Weapons
Convention. Four years today, Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger
signed, in Paris, the Chemical Weapons Convention. I believe since
then 160 countries have signed the treaty; 67 have ratified it.
You know our position on chemical weapons. They're capable of
causing mass and indiscriminate loss of human life. A drop of
nerve agent the size of a pin head can kill people. A carefully
executed poison gas attack against unprotected troops or civilians
can cause many thousands of casualties.
We reflect upon the fact that this treaty was committed to you
by the United States four years ago, by President Bush and by
Secretary of State Eagleburger. As you know, the ratification
of this treaty is a priority for the Clinton Administration. Ambassador
Albright said in her hearings last week this would be one of the
earliest priorities for her tenure as Secretary of State. That's
certainly true of all of us in the Administration.
We mark the Fourth Anniversary in the hope that the Senate will
see its way forward to ratification so that the United States
can participate in the committees that will run this convention
and, therefore, have a hand in designing the rules and regulations
under which we all must live in the future.
Sid.
QUESTION: Just back to Carey Cavanaugh's mission. You said
that they had accepted in principle the four steps you mentioned?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: A ban on overflights, the code of conduct, unmanning
some positions, and continued talks?
MR. BURNS: They agreed to give their full support to those
initiatives. These initiatives are in a package of measures proposed
by the U.N. forces in Cyprus -- the U.N. representatives in Cyprus.
The U.N. will be pulling them together, the Turkish Cypriots and
the Cypriot Government, this week to see if they can nail both
of them down on full acceptance of them. So full support is the
language that Carey and I talked about.
QUESTION: But it hasn't yet been accepted?
MR. BURNS: I think in diplomatic parlance you're right
to assume that. "Full support" means they've said they're
going to give their full support to it. It doesn't mean they sign
on the dotted line yet.
QUESTION: Also, Mr. Clerides didn't agree to cancel the
missile sale; he just agreed not to deploy the missile purchase?
Not to deploy for 16 months?
MR. BURNS: My understanding is that President Clerides
is standing by his decision to purchase the system but has pledged
to Carey Cavanaugh today that he will not deploy any aspect of
it or introduce any element -- not even import the parts -- into
Cyprus for 16 months. That should do away with some of these very
aggressive statements that we've seen from the Government in Turkey.
There's no need for the Government of Turkey to exaggerate the
importance of the events this week. They have a lot of time to
work with the Cypriot Government to defuse any kind of misunderstandings.
QUESTION: And if he agrees not to bring any, physically,
to the island for 16 months, what does that do to the deployment
schedule?
MR. BURNS: We understand all along, from our discussions
with the Cypriot Government, that deployment would be roughly
16 to 18 months or more from the date of purchase. The date of
purchase, I believe, is sometime a week or so ago. I think it's
certainly a good and reasonable move by the Government of Cyprus
to commit itself, to give us this period of reflection so at least
the Turkish Government can understand that there's no need to
exaggerate at all the import of what has happened here, and that
the Turkish Government might devote itself to a reasonable discussion
of these issues in contrast to some of the statements that were
made by the Foreign and Defense Ministers last week.
QUESTION: Nick, even though you don't like the sale, might
this not turn out to be somewhat of a master stroke or at least
a causative way to put a bookend on -- and put pressure on the
parties to a negotiate a peace agreement?
MR. BURNS: We hope that the current sense of crisis produced
by the purchase decision by the Cypriot Government and the corresponding
remarks by the Turkish Government might lead both of them to reconsider
the avenues in which they were heading. We hope very much that
this will lead to some kind improvement in the political discussions
and more progress than we've seen to date. It's been 22 years
where people have been talking about peace in Cyprus and there
isn't peace yet. We hope very much that 1997 could be that year.
QUESTION: Did Cavanaugh get any sense that, in fact, there
was more interest revived in trust in a negotiated settlement?
MR. BURNS: He's only completed one-third of his trip. He
has to see what he hears and see what they say in both Athens
and Ankara. I don't want to predict any kind of sea change in
the attitudes of the parties out there, except to say that the
United Nations, the United States and a lot of European countries
are committed to doing everything we can to help in these negotiations.
We've got a Special Presidential Emissary, Mr. Beattie. We have
Ambassador Ken Brill. We have a lot of people who can work on
this. What the international community needs is, we need some
willing partners in the parties to the Cyprus problem.
Steve.
QUESTION: I don't understand how the disclosure of what
was already known, in other words, that it would be 16 to 18 months
before these weapons were available to the Greek Cypriots changes
anything. You say it gives time. If that is the case, is the United
States hoping that the Greek Cypriots change their mind and send
these things back, or don't go through with the purchase? Or that
the Turks, indeed, will accept the deployment of these? I don't
understand.
MR. BURNS: I think President Clerides' statement today,
his promise to the United States, is significant in the following
light, Steve. Cyprus could have decided to advance the deployment
of these missile systems, especially given the very hostile response
by the Turkish Government. That could have produced a real crisis
in the eastern Mediterranean. Instead, not only has Cyprus said
it will not deploy in 16 to 18 months, President Clerides has
given concrete assurances that no component of the entire system
will be delivered to the island in the next 16 months. There won't
be a piece of hardware over which the Turkish Government can launch
any objections. That is a reasonable, good faith effort by the
President of Cyprus, we think, to try to help reduce the sense
of crisis.
QUESTION: But how? Eighteen months from how the crisis
resumes.
MR. BURNS: The problem we had last week, Steve, with the
reaction of the Turkish Government was, it was exaggerated; it
was much too reflexive and knee-jerk. The fact is that there are
16 months to talk about the potential deployment of an anti-aircraft
system. It's not going to happen next week or next month, and
so this saber rattling from Ankara really ought to stop, because
it's not consistent with where the diplomacy is. President Clerides'
actions today, I think, are testimony to that.
QUESTION: Nick, could I nail something down on the Middle
East talks.
MR. BURNS: Yes. I think we still have a lot on Cyprus.
We will just stick to that. Yes, Yasmine.
QUESTION: Actually, I'm confused about several things --
I'm sorry -- first of all, on Steve's question, can you say that
the U.S. Government is hoping that in 16, 18 months there will
be a major change in this situation so that Cypriot government
will cancel the deal for good?
MR. BURNS: The United States has not changed its position
enunciated a week ago today. We are opposed to the acquisition
by Cyprus of the surface-to-air system. We are opposed to its
deployment, and we cannot force the Government of Cyprus not to
deploy. That's a decision that only the Government of Cyprus can
make.
On the other hand, we're very much opposed to the hostile and
aggressive statements of last week by two senior officials of
the Turkish Government. We think the situation ought to calm down.
We think that all sides should show restraint. That's what we're
arguing for. President Clerides has given us now a considerable
period of time for that kind of restraint to be imposed.
QUESTION: Also, you talked about several measures for the
immediate implementation of which both sides expressed full support,
you said. These measures -- I might be mistaken about -- but these
measures at this point do not include the moratorium, do they?
MR. BURNS: These are the measures that I talked to. It
does not talk about a moratorium, no.
QUESTION: But my term is still on the table.
MR. BURNS: But it talks about some practical ways to reduce
the potential of conflict along the cease-fire lines. We've seen
two people killed over the last six months -- a Turkish soldier
and an innocent Greek Cypriot civilian both killed over the last
six months. We'd like to work with the parties to try to reduce
that number to zero.
QUESTION: And what about the demilitarization talks? Are
they part of this conversation at all?
MR. BURNS: They're certainly part of the broader conversation
that Carey Cavanaugh is having with all the parties this week.
But I referred in a specific way to the ideas of these cease-fire
line ideas, because they're important; and it's important to make
a start, to get some progress between the parties in order to
encourage them to make additional progress on other issues.
Yes, Dimitris.
QUESTION: Nick, is there any possibility for the U.S. to
use the missile deployment as a negotiating tool in the future
initiative by the United States on Cyprus?
MR. BURNS: I think you know the United States will be active
diplomatically in 1997 on Cyprus. We're going to have to deal
with all the issues as an intermediary -- a good-faith intermediary,
an objective partner to everyone. I can't anticipate specifically
what the components of any American program will be, except to
say that we are willing to put a considerable amount of diplomatic
resources into resolving this misunderstanding, and in fact trying
to make progress on the broader question of peace in Cyprus.
QUESTION: You don't exclude the possibility to use this
as a -- the missile deployment as a negotiating tool on the table?
MR. BURNS: I don't want to commit Mr. Beattie or any of
our other negotiators to any specific options.
Jim.
QUESTION: I wanted to nail a couple of things down on the
Middle East talks. You used a phrase I hadn't heard before, "non-Hebron
issues." Just to nail this down, are you now saying that
all of the Hebron issues are nailed down and are settled, and
they've now moved on to ancillary issues?
MR. BURNS: I think it's very clear that the great majority
of those issues concerning the redeployment of the IDF from Hebron
have been resolved. There were some other issues that were not
directly associated with that that were part of the overall negotiations,
and we now need to see agreement on the full package. That's the
remaining link. I can't be very specific, because we have not
been specific by choice up till now.
QUESTION: You are suggesting that the Hebron issues have
been put aside, and now they've moved on to these other things.
Is my perception correct?
MR. BURNS: There have been various components of this agreement
-- you're correct in that, but as in all agreements, nothing is
agreed until everything is agreed, and so we have to wait and
see what the final package looks like, if in fact there is to
be a final package.
QUESTION: And that is the next question. I thought one
of the basic ground rules of the mediation attempt was that there
would be no renegotiation of existing agreements. What happened
to that rule?
MR. BURNS: I'm not saying there have been any renegotiations
of existing agreements. I can't talk about the final outlines
of an agreement that has not yet been finished by the parties.
If there is going to be an agreement, it will be announced, obviously,
by the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority. I suppose
they'll announce the major outlines of that agreement. If you
think that there are some errors that have been renegotiated,
then we can talk about it, but we don't have an agreement yet.
QUESTION: But as far as the U.S. Government is concerned,
does that rule still stand?
MR. BURNS: The basic guidelines that all parties should
respect the Oslo Agreements, of course, is a fundamental basis
of the negotiations.
Still on Israel, on the Middle East?
QUESTION: My understanding that holding the agreement on
Hebron and not coming to an agreement as early as possibly in
the next 48 hours stems from the fact that the Palestinians wanted
to know the continuation of the deployment of Israeli forces from
the rest of the West Bank. I think this has been accomplished
through the talks between His Majesty King Hussein and Yasser
Arafat and Mr. Netanyahu. Now I think there -- if you bear with
me about this -- was the whole thing that the structure of what
King Hussein did in the last 24 hours was to get the Israelis
to agree to the things that the Palestinians were asking for with
a difference of time instead of doing it this year, doing it next
year. Am I right about this?
MR. BURNS: Again, Mr. Abdulsalam, you know that we have
not been at all specific since the authorities' talks three or
four months ago about the specific issues, and I don't want to
start today. Suffice it to say that King Hussein's intervention
was absolutely critical and in large part successful yesterday,
but the deal is not yet completely tied up, and so we can't predict
victory, and we should not predict victory until that time comes.
QUESTION: And the second point: My understanding is that
the President invited Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Arafat to come to
Washington in the near future. Is this sort of contingent -- I
know I'm not addressing the White House, I'm addressing the State
Department -- to coming to an agreement over this to try to nail
it down here in Washington?
MR. BURNS: Both are very welcome in Washington. I don't
believe that dates have been set or at least nailed down for either
visit, and they both have their hands full right now with the
Hebron talks. We think that's probably the first order of business.
QUESTION: New subject?
MR. BURNS: I think we should -- still have a couple.
QUESTION: There were reports that the South African cabinet
has approved, in principle, a large sale of electronic tank equipment
to Syria. Do you think that this could have an influence on the
Middle East peace process at all? What are your views on that?
Are you against that? Would you try to persuade them not to do
that, and could this have any influence as far as you are concerned
on the negotiations on the ARMSCOR case that is still in the process.
MR. BURNS: Thank you. The United States is aware of the
reports that South Africa is considering selling various weapons
systems to Syria. We are deeply concerned about these reports.
It would be extremely serious if these sales actually occurred.
The United States hopes that the South African Government will
not consummate arms sales to a country that supports terrorism.
I think you know that both the Foreign Operations and the Foreign
Assistance Act, the law of the United States, prohibits certain
forms of U.S. assistance to governments which supply lethal equipment
to Syria or to any of the other countries listed by the United
States as a state sponsor of terrorism.
We would certainly analyze any potential sales in the context
of our own laws. We would have to analyze any such sales and try
to understand if in fact any violations of U.S. law took place.
So it's a matter of very serious concern. We are now in touch
with the South African Government. We'll remain in touch with
them to try to ascertain if in fact these sales will go forward
to Syria.
QUESTION: Do you have independent confirmation of what's
going on? You eluded to reports. Are they press reports? Is that
all?
MR. BURNS: Right. Among them. We have a variety of reports
available to us and, as I said, we're trying on a first order
of business to ascertain the plans of the South African Government.
If in fact the sales go through, that would be a very serious
matter indeed, and we'd then have to reflect upon the association
of any acts or the relevance to our own laws, and I think you
know the consequences of that, which are quite severe.
QUESTION: How much aid could it affect, potentially?
MR. BURNS: South Africa is one of our largest aid recipients.
QUESTION: Do you have a number, though?
MR. BURNS: Since I don't know what the outlines of any
potential sale or actual sale would be, I think I want to demur
there and say I can't anticipate what the effect would be, but
in principle, any country that does sell military arms to a state
sponsor of terrorism does expose itself to United States' law.
QUESTION: When did you find out about this?
MR. BURNS: I don't know when we found out about it. We
have a lot of people in this government. When did the first person
in the U.S. Government, either in our Embassy in Cape Town or
Pretoria or in Bureau of Intelligence and Research find out about
this, I don't know, but we've been aware of it for a little while,
and we are in contact with the South Africans.
QUESTION: Can you say anything about the nature of the
contacts -- how high they've gone?
MR. BURNS: They've certainly gone to a fairly high level
in the South African Government, as represented by our Embassy.
QUESTION: Have you talked with Mbeki?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if Mr. Mbeki has been contacted
personally.
QUESTION: Is it something that the Secretary talked to
them about when he was out in Africa several months ago.
MR. BURNS: I'd have to check that. I don't know.
QUESTION: Could you get back? I'd be interested in that.
MR. BURNS: I'd be glad to take that question.
Yes, on this same subject?
QUESTION: Yes. Is Vice President Gore likely to raise this
at the meeting of the Binational Commission?
MR. BURNS: That's an important meeting. All important issues
will be raised. I don't want to commit the Vice President to raising
any specific issue. Suffice it to say, this is on the top of our
agenda with South Africa now.
QUESTION: These items have been described as tanks' firing
systems. Are they actually weapons, or are they just components?
And, if they're just components, would they violate --
MR. BURNS: That's a good a question. That's the kind of
information that we need from the South African Government. I
think, first, does the South African Government contemplate sales
of military equipment to Syria. If that is so, what type of equipment.
Are they components to the assembly of a larger product. Is it
a product itself. Would any such potential sales then violate
U.S. law -- the Foreign Assistance Act, for instance. Those are
the kinds of questions that we've got to answer before we can
decide on a course of action for the United States.
But in general, we believe that terrorism is a global battle.
All countries are victims of terrorism. All of us have to bind
together and act together to prevent terrorism, and we certainly
ought not to put into the hands of state sponsors of terrorism
-- in this case the Syrian Government -- lethal weaponry, and
that's the core of the American concern as we look at this question.
QUESTION: So you know what these tank electronic systems
would violate? For example, the Counter-Terrorism Act.
MR. BURNS: No, I don't know what systems specifically we're
talking about. That's the line of inquiry here, so therefore I
cannot answer that question.
QUESTION: Another question. Could we go back to Strobe
Talbott's trip. What specifically is being -- you sort of talked
generally about security issues. What specifically is on his agenda
this time, and is he preparing the way for a trip by the next
Secretary of State?
MR. BURNS: He is on, I would describe it as a routine diplomatic
mission of the sort that he undertakes several times a year. Strobe
Talbott travels to Europe several times a year. He's the point
person for our policy towards Russia. He is centrally involved
in the question of NATO enlargement, as you know, and he'll be
in the four capitals to discuss with our allies, including with
NATO officials, a variety of issues -- a broad variety of issues
-- related to the Madrid Summit, related to -- some of them are
multilateral, some of them are bilateral. The conversations, I
think, will be mainly with Foreign Ministry and Defense officials.
So when he comes back, I'll be glad to see if we can get a readout
on his trip for you.
QUESTION: Apropos of this whole NATO discussion, though,
today there are reports that Russia apparently is discussing publicly
a merger with Belarus, and this is being seen as some sort of
signal by Moscow of its feeling about NATO enlargement opposition.
What's your reaction?
MR. BURNS: I have not seen those reports. We often hear
unofficially some sentiment that such a union should take place,
mainly from the Belarusians as opposed to the Russians.
QUESTION: What about the Russians?
MR. BURNS: I've not seen anything, and I'm not aware of
any kind of official conversation in which either the Russians
or the Belarusians have indicated to us that they're interested
in a merger.
QUESTION: Would you take look at that?
MR. BURNS: I'd be glad to take a look at that.
Yes, Ben.
QUESTION: We've seen a report that the diplomat from Georgia,
who was involved in the accident that killed the teenager, was
three times arrested or was involved in drunk driving incidents
back in his homeland before he came here. The question is, do
you have this sort of information, and is there any way to screen
such people out before the State Department, gives these people
driver's licenses and allows them to drive in this country?
MR. BURNS: Good question, Ben. All I can say on that is
I know that President Shevardnadze made a statement over the weekend,
on Saturday, I believe, about this incident, where he talked about
the ethical concern he had that the Georgian Government meet its
responsibilities to the family of the young woman who was killed
in the car crash.
He also made some reference to this question. Those are his words.
I haven't seen a transcript of his statement. Perhaps we can try
to get a transcript, if we have one available. I just haven't
seen one, but, in any case, I would encourage you to pursue that
line of questioning with the Georgian Government about his driving
record in Georgia.
I can tell you -- I've got just a little bit of information --
that the State Department does follow very carefully the activities
of foreign diplomats in the United States from this perspective.
The Vienna Convention insists that all diplomats based in another
country observe and abide by the laws of that country. Diplomatic
immunity does not confer on an individual the right to act contrary
to the law; in fact, demands that the diplomat follow the law.
Because of that, we do receive regularly reports from the D.C.
police, Virginia police and Maryland police on misdemeanors and
felonies in which diplomats are involved. A great number of these
are vehicle incidents --- either traffic tickets or drunk driving
incidents or accidents. When we see a pattern develop where a
particular diplomat has racked up a number of speeding charges
or DWI charges, we do take action.
I believe in 1993 -- and I think we can probably get you better
figures than this -- we took away the driver's license of -- let's
see, in 1996, excuse me, we suspended the driver's license of
ten diplomats; in 1995, 11 diplomats; in 1994, eight diplomats;
in 1993, eight diplomats. So we do take action.
When we see a pattern develop, especially of drunk driving, we
take our responsibility very seriously. This is not an exact science.
We're not sure that we do receive reports of traffic accidents,
DWI incidents in all respects. We may only be getting a sampling
of what is happening out there, especially in the greater Washington
area, because we're dealing not with one police department but
with county police departments in Maryland and Virginia. But it
is representative of a problem, and we do have a very tough policy
on this.
QUESTION: (Multiple questions)
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Nick, do you have a list of the countries suspended
license?
MR. BURNS: A list of the countries? I don't know if we
have that kind of information. I can take that question and see
if we can give you any more specific information on that issue.
QUESTION: Could I follow on Ben's question, Nick. Have
you any negative indications on the record of Mr. Makharadze and,
secondly, does the United States expect Georgia to lift its diplomatic
immunity of this Mr. Makharadze -- do you have anything on that?
-- and where is he? Do you know? Is he in the country?
MR. BURNS: I think that if you check with local police
departments, Mr. Makharadze had received traffic violations --
not just from the District but I believe in Virginia -- over the
last year or two. I do not have a specific number. I'm not sure
again if the State Department received copies of all the police
reports or if we were aware of all the incidents in which he may
or may not have been involved. But that is a question not so much
for us right now as it is for the U.S. Attorney.
On your second question, President Shevardnadze spoke very clearly
about the responsibilities that the Government of Georgia has
undertaken, and I think you've seen a very courageous and responsible
attitude by President Shevardnadze, and that is that there should
be accountability. He said in his statement that Georgia was prepared
to lift diplomatic immunity at some point. If charges are to be
brought by the U.S. Attorney, then the Government of Georgia will
have to face that question.
QUESTION: I have a third question. Where is he?
MR. BURNS: He's in Washington, D.C., as far as I know.
QUESTION: The driving violations for Mr. Makharadze --
were those drunken driving violations?
MR. BURNS: I do not know the answer to those questions.
QUESTION: Nick, you said you do lift license of some diplomats
when you see a pattern develop. You did not or did lift his license?
I mean, was he driving --
MR. BURNS: Oh, I don't believe his license had been lifted.
Again, I'm not aware of the nature of the traffic violations that
he had incurred or the number, but in other cases where it's been
particularly egregious -- where a clear pattern has developed
of irresponsible actions -- then we do act to take them away.
Again, I would bring you back to the point that we're never sure
that we're receiving all the information from the local police
departments.
I know Secretary of State Christopher is very concerned that we
redouble our efforts to make that the local police departments
are giving us timely and full reports on any serious violations
of the law incurred by foreign diplomats here in the Washington
area.
Charlie.
QUESTION: Nick, I know you said you weren't sure you knew
of all the cases in terms of Mr. Makharadze. Was he on any of
your lists? Was the State Department aware of any information
--
MR. BURNS: Maybe what I should do is go back to our Bureau
of Diplomatic Security and ask what information they have and
what we can share with you publicly on this. I'll be glad to do
that as soon as tomorrow, if I can pull it together.
QUESTION: Conversely, do you keep records about U.S. diplomats
abroad who have violations that you would put in an excessive
form, that may not be involved in accidents, may not kill anybody,
but what is the policy, and do you recall people? What do you
do in that case?
MR. BURNS: Our policy is that American diplomats serving
abroad must abide by the local and national rules, and any American
Ambassador or Consul General has to supervise his or her own staff
and make sure that if anyone is violating the law on a consistent
basis there be a penalty, and that has to be done on a case-by-case
basis by our Ambassadors and Consul Generals.
QUESTION: Why do you think that during the years -- you
mentioned the numbers from eight, eight, ten and 11 that their
driver's license was suspended by some diplomats. Is this due
to the increase of the number of diplomats in Washington?
MR. BURNS: It's a very slight increase. It's only an increase
of two or three a year, so I wouldn't draw any major lessons from
that.
QUESTION: Why the trend is being increased in confiscating
the driver's license of diplomats instead of reducing it? They
know what are the results of coming out of it.
MR. BURNS: Again, the State Department has a basic obligation
to American citizens to make sure that people who are guests in
our country are law abiding.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) want to see some changes in the immunity
rules and regulations. What kinds of rules do you think he is
seeking to change?
MR. BURNS: I read the reports of that, but I'm just not
aware of any specific proposals that he has put down. We believe
in the system and the law of diplomatic immunity. It works for
the most part around the world. There are some cases of egregious
behavior where justice must be served, and perhaps this is one
of them.
QUESTION: Nick, can you confirm what South Korea is saying,
that there will be a briefing on the Four-Party Talks on the 29th
of January in New York?
MR. BURNS: No, I cannot. In fact, I know that there was
a meeting Saturday in New York between State Department diplomats
and North Korean officials from the North Korean mission to the
United Nations. They did talk about the briefing on the Four-Party
Talks, but they have not yet arrived at an agreement on the date
or the venue for that meeting, and we're hopeful that we'll be
able to work that out very soon. When we do have an agreement,
I'll be glad to announce it.
QUESTION: Do you have any information whatsoever on the
United Nations' bomb scare or any reaction to that latest --
MR. BURNS: I spoke to a member of our staff in the U.S.
Mission to the United Nations. As you know, another letter bomb
arrived today, I understand, addressed to Al-Hayat. They have
offices at the United Nations in the press area. A couple of floors
of the U.N. building have been evacuated. As I understand it,
the New York Police is acting in this incident and are responsible
for trying to assure that there's no harm done to anyone. I don't
believe at this point that the FBI or other federal agencies have
become involved, but it wouldn't surprise me, given the FBI's
involvement in the letter bomb deliveries of two weeks ago.
So very sketchy information. We don't believe that anyone has
been harmed. It did not explode. The letter bomb is in the possession
of the New York police bomb squad.
QUESTION: What is your reaction to their being yet another
bomb scare?
MR. BURNS: It's disturbing. Obviously, the Federal Government
here in Washington is deeply concerned that we do everything possible
to interdict these letter bombs and to find the source of them.
So I believe that the FBI and others will obviously be making
their services available to the New York City Police. In this
instance, if there are any larger patterns to be drawn, I'm sure
the FBI will do that. The State Department is willing to assist
the FBI in any way, and we are still relying on the cooperation
of the Government of Egypt from which, at least, the first batch
of bombs, we believe, were postmarked.
QUESTION: You've gotten good cooperation from Egypt so
far?
MR. BURNS: I know that the Government of Egypt has pledged
full cooperation. I know that the FBI and the State Department
are both working with the Government of Egypt. I'm sure that will
continue -- that work will continue.
QUESTION: I read a report, or rather I heard a story from,
I think it was, one of the radio stations that there was a letter
bomb which exploded in al-Hayat offices in London and it hurt
two people. I don't know if you have that.
MR. BURNS: I saw a press report. I cannot confirm that
for you.
QUESTION: Nick, I have a question on Serbia. Yesterday,
the Greek Foreign Minister, during a visit to Belgrade, called
on Mr. Milosevic to respect the results and the outcome of Mr.
Gonzalez regarding municipal elections. Do you have a reaction
on that?
MR. BURNS: We're very grateful for Minister Pangalos' actions
over the weekend which we think were very helpful and consistent
with the will of the OSCE and the rest of the international community.
We think that perhaps the protests that have been underway since
November 18-19 are perhaps taking their toll on the Serbian leadership.
That might be a good thing. Some in the ruling party appear to
be reconsidering the illegitimate actions of the Serbian Government
which are stifling the voice and the votes of the Serbian people.
But we do not have any confirmation of some of the rumors over
the weekend that Mr. Milosevic might be considering a fundamental
compromise that would, in effect, have his government honor the
elections and overturn the illegitimacies that were clearly brought
about by his own government.
We need to see reliable, concrete evidence that the Serbian Government
is willing to respect the November 17th elections.
Over the past several weeks, we've seen repeated offers by the
Serbian Government to compromise, to engage in fair play. All
of these have turned out to be illusory. So we're looking for
good faith efforts, concrete actions by the Serbian Government.
Minister Pangalos' efforts were fully consistent, we believe,
with what the United States has been trying to do.
There is a unity of purpose in the international community which
is quite impressive. We'll maintain our focus on this. As you
know, there was a Contact Group meeting in Brussels on Saturday.
John Kornblum attended for the United States. Again, there was
unanimity there.
I think you know that the United States has talked about some
actions that we might be able to take together with others in
the international community. This would be an action plan that
would be designed to support democratization in Serbia.
First, the United States has been cutting back for several weeks
our political and economic ties with Belgrade. We're not interested
in carrying out any high-level visits to Belgrade. We won't be
doing that. We'd like to make sure there is the minimal amount
of trade between the United States and Serbia. You won't see the
U.S. Government pushing for trade between the two countries.
We want to ensure a continued spotlight by the OSCE and by all
of the rest of us in the West on some of the illegalities brought
about by the Serbian Government. We are seriously considering
increasing, in the short term, our assistance to those groups
in Serbia that stand for democracy; that this money will come
from our SEED program, which is the pot of money that funds development
projects and democratization programs in Central Europe. We certainly
would like to help non-profit organizations, non-governmental
organizations, to try to identify the obstacles to democratization
in Syria -- in Serbia. Thank you very much. Glad you're listening.
-- particularly in freedom of the press and other areas like that.
So these are issues that John Kornblum talked to the other Contact
Group countries about on Saturday. They're important issues. It
turns up the pressure on Mr. Milosevic, and the pressure ought
to be turned up on him.
QUESTION: Nick, you talked about increasing assistance
to pro-democracy groups. Do you have a figure that you can provide
us with?
MR. BURNS: We haven't identified a figure yet, but we are
determined to do this. We're working on -- Jim Holmes, our coordinator
for economic assistance to the Central European countries, is
in charge of this effort. I think you'll be seeing some concrete
actions by us shortly.
QUESTION: Do you have an idea of what type of activities
are supported by this assistance?
MR. BURNS: Yes. Basically, what we call "democratization"
activities -- support for groups that within Serbian society argue
and stand for the rule of law, constitutional government, freedom
of the press; groups that perhaps want to give the government
some assistance on how to hold referendums and how to hold elections
in a legal way that will meet international standards. This is
representative of the work we've done in most of the central European
countries as well as the former Soviet countries since the fall
of communism five/six years ago.
Sid.
QUESTION: These were the steps -- at least some of them
-- Mr. Kornblum announced yesterday. In fact, the U.S. will not
be sending anymore envoys to Serbia? Or are these things you all
--
MR. BURNS: At the present time, we have no plans to send
any high-level envoys to Serbia. John Kornblum is in Zagreb today.
He's going to be going to Sarajevo. He'll not be going to Serbia
-- to Belgrade.
QUESTION: He planned to go and now he's not going?
MR. BURNS: He will not be going.
QUESTION: Okay, that stands. Nobody, at least at that level,
will be going soon?
MR. BURNS: That's right.
QUESTION: You had mentioned an action plan for these things.
Are these things that are now in place or things you'll be working
on with the Contact Group?
MR. BURNS: Certainly, on the political side, as of now,
we're not undertaking high-level visits to Serbia. On the economic
side, we will take no steps to encourage trade in any way nor
give U.S. Government support to trade between Serbia and the United
States.
On the development side, as I told George, we are trying to identify
now some projects that will, in effect, support the people who
stand for the rule of law and democracy in Serbia.
QUESTION: So on the trade side, what you're saying is the
U.S. will vote against any international lending for Serbia; is
that correct?
MR. BURNS: You know, we are already doing that. The so-called
"outer wall" of sanctions means that Serbia can't be
a member of the IMF and the World Bank. We actively use our influence
in both of those institutions to counter any type of assistance
to Serbia, in part, because of the problems with democratization
or lack thereof; in part, because of the failure of the Serbian
Government to meet its human rights commitments under the War
Crimes Tribunal and in part because of the treatment of the Kosovar's
population.
QUESTION: Can you quantify what you mean by you "won't
be encouraging trade with Serbia?"
MR. BURNS: I can't tell you how much money is at stake.
I guess I can get that figure for you. In most parts of the world,
the United States Government has agencies that actively encourage
trade -- OPIC and Ex-Im, and even AID and the State Department
get involved in commercial promotions. We're not doing that in
the case of Serbia.
QUESTION: But you won't be blocking -- will you be blocking
deals that are underway with Serbia?
MR. BURNS: I think we'll have to see how things work out
on a case-by-case basis. We're trying to tighten the pressure
on Mr. Milosevic and to demonstrate to him that there is a penalty
to the type of behavior that he has shown.
QUESTION: Did the other members of the Contact Group go
along with this action plan?
MR. BURNS: These are steps taken by the United States.
But I know that John Kornblum discussed these actions with this
Contact Group partners. There wasn't any kind of uniform statement
by all the countries. Sometimes countries have to step out and
play a leadership role. We've done that in this crisis since the
word "go;" since the 18th of November.
Still on Serbia?
QUESTION: Was there any coordination or contact before
or after the Greek Foreign Minister's visit?
MR. BURNS: We were aware of the visit of Foreign Minister
Pangalos, and I think we received a briefing on his activities.
We're very grateful to him for representing all of us in such
an effective way.
David.
QUESTION: Can you tell us anything about what foreign delegations
-- quantity or quality or level -- are coming to the inauguration?
Specifically, have any Serbian opposition figures been invited?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe Mr. Milosevic will be coming
to the President's inauguration. Actually, the tradition of the
United States, at least in recent times, has not been for us to
invite kings and queens and prime ministers and presidents. I
believe that most governments will be represented by their ambassadors.
I can check with the White House on that and the Inaugural Committee,
but that's been our tradition. I know it's the plan for next Monday's
inauguration.
QUESTION: Do you know of any special foreign delegations
that are coming?
MR. BURNS: I just have to refer you to the Inaugural Committee
and the White House. I'm not aware of any. Again, the United States
Government is not inviting world leaders. Some countries have
a tradition of doing that, as you know. Others do not. We're one
of those countries that do not have that tradition.
QUESTION: Another subject? Thank you. Taiwan: Last week,
it was reported, Nick, that the Taiwanese had deployed six batteries
of Skyboat-2 missiles and a number of Hsuing-Seng missiles offshore,
on their offshore islands. It's been very difficult to get anybody
to say anything about this. Are these stabilizing to the relations
with the PRC?
MR. BURNS: It's going to be difficult to get me to say
anything because I'm not aware of the reports. I'll be glad to
take the question.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BURNS: Thanks.
(Press briefing concluded at 2:02 p.m.)
(###)
|
