Browse through our Interesting Nodes on Religion Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923)
HR-Net - Hellenic Resources Network Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Friday, 8 November 2024
 
News
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  Announcements
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Hosted
  Mirrored
  Interesting Nodes
Documents
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  Constitutions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Other
Services
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts
  Tools
  F.A.Q.
 

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #11, 97-01-21

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>


672

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

January 21, 1997

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

DEPARTMENT
     1  Former Secretary Christopher's Accident/Condition
     1  Status of  Secretary-Designate Albright's Nomination
   1-2  Strobe Talbott, Secretary of State ad-interim, in Moscow
   2-6  Inspector  General's  Office Concludes  Gati Investigation
     2  Public Announcement on Mexico
     3  Extension of Passport Restrictions on Lebanon
     3  Abdul Salam Y. Massarueh Admitted to GW Hospital
   4-5  Christopher to Albright Transition Period
 18-19  Diplomatic Security  Assistance in Locating  Mr. Kani Xulam

CUBA 7,9-11 Canadian Foreign Minister's Visit 8-11 U.S. Policy towards Cuba/Helms-Burton Law

SUDAN 11-12 Fighting/Situation in East

COLOMBIA 13-15 Sentencing of Cali Cartel Drug Kingpins

INDIA 15 U.S. Travel Warning

CYPRUS 15-18 Status of Agreement on Moratorium of Military Flights/ 16-18 Deployment of Anti-Aircraft System

MISCELLANEOUS 19-20 Diplomatic Immunity--Status of Reports on NY & Washington, D.C., Incidents 20 --Report of Systematic Harrassment Against U.S. Diplomats in Moscow

HONG KONG/CHINA 21 Recommendations on Hong Kong's Bill of Rights/ Public Order Ordinances

IRAN 22 U.S.-Iranian Relations

NORTH KOREA 22 Four Party Talks Briefing

PERU 22-23 Hostage Situation in Lima

FORMER YUGOSLAVIA 23 Appeals to Election Commission Rulings/U.S. Condemns Use of Force

SOUTH AFRICA 23-24 Arms Sale to Syria 24 ARMSCOR Case

COUNTER-TERRORISM 24 Report of Arrests of 22 Suspected Terrorists in Paris


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #11

TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1997, 1:14 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BURNS: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department. I have a couple of things for you before we go to questions. First, is to let you know I just spoke to former Secretary of State Warren Christopher who is at his home in Los Angeles. Just to allay any fears that anybody might have about his health, he was literally a couple of minutes away from leaving his house for the airport yesterday. He resigned at 12:01, was leaving at about 3:00 and he slipped in his garage on some grease and broke his wrist. He went to GW - GU Hospital, Georgetown University Hospital; has a cast put on, and he's now going to get some further medical treatment, but it's just his wrist.

I received some press calls - you know how stories go. People thought maybe the injuries were more severe than they were. It's his left wrist, so his tennis-playing days, at least for the next month or so, are going to be put on the back burner. He had great dreams of improving his backhand and forehand. He's going to have to put those off for a little bit. But he's fine. He sends his best wishes to all of you. He already misses you. (Laughter) I don't really expect you believe that, by the way.

He is not studying French, to the best of my - nice try, though, Barry. That was very good. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know about Secretary Christopher.

Now, Secretary-designate Madeleine Albright is not in town. She's in New York. But, as you know, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted positively on her nomination yesterday. Her candidacy, her nomination now goes to the full Senate. The full Senate, we hope, will take action in the next couple of days and then she would be sworn in. I don't have any details. I don't think she's made any final plans about how that would go - the swearing-in - but she doesn't want to presume anything, obviously, until the full Senate acts on her nomination.

Finally, let me tell you that Strobe Talbott, who is Secretary of State ad interim, left this morning with the National Security Advisor to Vice President Gore, Leon Fuerth, for Moscow. They'll be in Moscow from this evening until Thursday. They're there to prepare for the upcoming meeting of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission which will be taking place between the fifth and seventh of February here in Washington, D.C.

This commission, as you know, was created at the Vancouver Summit in April 1993. It's met many, many times. It's been our practice to have meetings at the sub-Cabinet level to prepare these Gore-Chernomyrdin discussions before they take place.

This trip by Secretary of State a.i. Talbott and Leon Fuerth is in that tradition. They're also going to be talking about some of the security issues like NATO enlargement, the Russian-NATO Charter, they're so important in our relationship.

Let me also say, on a different matter, some weeks ago an article appeared in a local paper here in Washington, D.C., one of the two dallies, not the Washington Post - reporting that - and there was an article that was followed by six stories on successive days, reporting in very bold headlines that Toby Gati, who is our Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, was being investigated by the State Department Inspector General for unauthorized disclosure of classified information to foreign nationals and for improperly obtaining a security clearance.

I am very pleased to report, as a colleague of Toby's and a friend of hers, that the State Department Inspector General's Office has concluded its investigation into these allegations and has found that both of these charges are without merit. We consider the matter to be closed.

I should also note for the record that the Inspector General's Office found no credible information in the course of its investigation indicating impropriety on the part of Charles Gati, who is the husband of Toby Gati and a former employee of our Policy Planning staff here in the State Department.

I feel compelled to come forward and make this announcement because both Toby and Charles Gati found themselves the subject of press speculation and some very high profile stories in the papers. I'd like to note that there's a successful and happy ending here. May I just suggest, like Michael Irvin, before me, that perhaps this paper has a responsibility to print in as bold headlines the fact that she's been found innocent of all charges - the same kind of headlines that were put in their paper when they charged her with these improprieties.

QUESTION: There was an investigation?

MR. BURNS: There was an investigation by the Inspector General. Yes, that's right - a formal investigation. It was included in the IG, the Inspector General gave us the results. We looked at them this morning and we decided we should go public. I do think that the "Michael Irvin point" is well made here. I'd like to see some headlines tomorrow about the fact that she has fulfilled all of her responsibilities, as she should have, and that there are no improprieties whatsoever in this case.

Just a couple more things. Just a couple more announcements. We are publishing today a public announcement on Mexico which concerns the increasing frequency and violence of taxi robberies of Mexican citizens, Americans, and other foreigners in Mexico City which is actually quite alarming. We feel a need to alert the American public - Americans living in Mexico, Americans traveling to Mexico - about this. This is being posted. You'll find it in the press office.

Furthermore, I want to let you know, we issued press guidance very late on Friday - I think the end of the afternoon/early evening - about Secretary Christopher's decision to extend the restrictions on the use of American passport for travel to Lebanon. This extension takes place - excuse me - covers the period until July 31, 1997. If you have any questions about that, we can go into it.

Finally, on a sad note. I must tell you that we just talked to your colleague, Abdulsalam, who finds himself again in the hospital. He asked that I simply tell you all that he unfortunately had to go back into George Washington Hospital on Saturday. He asks for your thoughts and prayers for him. He suffered another stroke. I think your notes to him would be most appreciated, and he wanted this to be known to you all in this setting. I didn't want to do this, obviously. I wouldn't have done it without him asking us to do, but he asked that he be remembered to you. I think he would appreciate hearing from you.

Barry.

QUESTION: Well, that's kind of too bad. It's terrible.

MR. BURNS: It sure is.

QUESTION: I don't imagine that you care to, or do you care to tell us what the investigation - that involved Turkey, didn't it? And what was the investigation?

MR. BURNS: You're referring to Toby?

QUESTION: Yes. There was more Charles Gati as far as the reports. I have no information on them myself. Can you provide any details? Would this 60-point headline story you're looking for would have a second paragraph? Anymore information you'd like to -

MR. BURNS: I think the newspaper in question has all the information it needs to write the story. In this case, Barry, as I understand it, I did not read all of the initial - there was obviously a document alleging improprieties and I didn't read that. I haven't read the whole IG's report but I know that there were two basic charges: Unauthorized disclosure of classified information, which, as you know, is against the law for any U.S. Government employee; and for improperly obtaining a security clearance. Both of these charges were found to be without merit. There's no evidence to support these charges whatsoever.

The charges against Charles Gati apparently allege some kind of impropriety in the way that he had contacts. That's right. These were found to be without merit as well.

QUESTION: I'm sorry. I said Turkey. I meant Hungary.

MR. BURNS: Hungary is the country; not Turkey; right.

QUESTION: Is the IG's report available?

MR. BURNS: It's not available. It's not our practice, I think, to release IG's report. This report is being made available to the Congress. We felt it was important to do that just to protect the integrity of one of our employees - a high-level employee, an Assistant Secretary of State. But, Glyn (Davies), the decision has been made not to release this?

If you all hear what he said. Glyn said it's being released to both houses of Congress.

QUESTION: Will she be staying on?

MR. BURNS: First of all, I should say, she has the full faith and support and the backing of our leadership here at the Department of State. She had that. Secretary Christopher said that when these charges were made. I said that as well. She still has that.

Obviously, all of us are in the same position, all of us who work here at the State Department. Secretary-designate Madeleine Albright, if confirmed will decide who stays on and decide who comes on; what new appointees will be made. I don't want to anticipate any decisions that Secretary-designate Albright should properly made.

QUESTION: Nick, can we broaden that just for a second, if you don't mind? The first day of a new Administration, in a general sense, because each Administration proceeds differently, has there been any blanket submissions of resignations? Basically, can you bring up a little bit on the machinery? I'm talking about, of course, major jobs like Assistant Secretaries/Under Secretaries? Have they in some way said, "I'm ready to go if you want someone else? I'm ready to go, period?" Have some gone? Some apparently have. Win Lord has. Can you cover that?

MR. BURNS: Sure. This has been a very friendly transition. You've seen a lot of transitions and so have I. Sometimes they're not so friendly. This one is exceedingly friendly in the sense, Barry, that the Christopher team - Secretary Christopher - former Secretary Christopher - and all of his senior aides and Secretary-designate Madeleine Albright's team have worked together very amicably. There have been lots of meetings; in fact, a regularly series of meetings.

You know that Strobe Talbott has been the formal head of Madeleine Albright's transition team. Lots of meetings about substantive preparations, about personnel issues, about making sure that the transition flows smoothly so that Secretary-designate Albright, if she is confirmed by the Senate, can get off to a good running start and so that we don't miss anything here in the transition substantively; that we're on top of all the issues that we should be on top of. That's point number one.

Shortly after the election, President Clinton's re-election in November, the White House and State Department decided that we would not ask our Ambassadors overseas formally to submit their resignations. That has been the practice. There's no law requiring it. It's been the practice of many Administration - Republican and Democrat. It was not done in this case. I think that also sent a very nice signal to everyone in the field, all of the ships at sea - as we call them - all of our embassies and consulates.

No one has been asked to resign here at the State Department. None of our Under Secretaries or Assistant Secretaries or people below that rank. That's also not been the practice, I believe, with previous transitions, that people here would be asked to resign. I don't think so. Perhaps with some exceptions.

Some of our Assistant Secretaries - Winston Lord is a good example, who has already left - and some of our Under Secretaries have decided on their own accord that they will be leaving office. I believe you know who they are. Some of them have had good-bye parties. Some of them have talked to you already. Secretary-designate Madeleine Albright, if she is confirmed, will be filling those positions and filling any other position that she wishes to fill. I think all of us understand - those of us who occupy current positions - that she has the right to come in and at a senior level decide if she wants to bring in a new person to fill that spot. But she's the only one who make those announcements. I know that she has made some preliminary decisions, but I believe that she'll make the announcements at the proper time.

QUESTION: Nick, if the Ambassadors have not been asked to resign, has there been any notice to the Ambassadorial Corps that when their three-year terms are up that - that their three-year terms are up and that there won't be extensions?

MR. BURNS: That's been the tradition for a long time in the State Department that Ambassadorial tours, American Ambassadorial tours, extend three years. There have been some exceptions to that. You and I can both think of some - Chris Ross, our Ambassador in Damascus is an obvious one. He's been there going on five years. I don't know if there will be further exceptions or whether they'll stick to that. That's a process to be worked out between the White House and Secretary-designate Albright and others.

QUESTION: Do you know that there's been a notice to these Ambassadors, reaffirming that the three-year limit, three-year -

MR. BURNS: Let me take that question, Carol, and get back to you. I think I can definitely answer it. I want to make sure that I'm on the firmest possible ground in answering it.

Sid.

QUESTION: Just to go back to the IG investigation for one bit of clarification. The investigation was launched as a result of the Washington Times story or the Washington Times was subsequent to the beginning of the investigation?

MR. BURNS: I believe it was - well, the Washington Times reported on allegations that had been made. Obviously, somebody leaked it to the Washington Times. The investigation was not stimulated by the Washington Times. It was stimulated by allegations made by certain individuals about impropriety. But, again, I'm glad to say that those allegations have been proven to be without merit.

QUESTION: Just in all fairness to the Washington Times, I don't see how your tirade against them is justified since the allegations -

MR. BURNS: I wouldn't call it a "tirade."

QUESTION: If these allegations were reported by the Washington Times -

MR. BURNS: I'm simply noting -

QUESTION: -- allegations that were raised by the Department itself.

MR. BURNS: I'll tell you something, Sid. The press - and I respect the role of the press - the press has an absolute right to report on allegations like this if someone - and, as you know, in the way that Washington works, even if they receive the information through leaks, they have a right to do it. No one's disputing that.

I remember reading the article and the follow-up articles and the follow- up to those articles, and I remember reading the way that things are written, and they didn't always consult with the appropriate people, I think, before all the articles are written. I just wanted to note that for the record and hope that we'd get a story tomorrow, letting the readers of that paper know that these charges have been proven to be, found to be without merit. I just think that's fair. I'm not arguing press freedoms here at all.

QUESTION: One more on Gati. Given her sensitive position, was she hindered in carrying out of her professional duties because of the investigation? In other words, was she removed from any classified information?

MR. BURNS: I don't think so. She remains in her position. She carries it out every day, and Secretary Christopher decided early on that she has his full support and full faith, and she still has the full support and full faith of all of us here at the State Department.

QUESTION: Did other agencies, such as the CIA or the Pentagon, hold back information because of these allegations?

MR. BURNS: I don't know that for sure, Jim. I'd be surprised, but I don't know that for sure. Glyn (Davies), do you happen to know?

MR. DAVIES: I don't know the answer. I'd be surprised.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

Henry, yes.

QUESTION: Cuba, if I might. Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy is in that country; arrived this morning. He is the second ranking government official in Canada. This is the first time a man of his stature has been in that country for better than a decade. The purpose of the trip is to increase trade between Canada and the United States. He also has a meeting with Fidel Castro -

MR. BURNS: Canada and Cuba.

QUESTION: Forgive me. Canada and Cuba. My apologies. He also has - although that, too, we could work it out.

MR. BURNS: Just for the historical record.

QUESTION: He will also be meeting with Castro at the same time, and he will most important be touring Canadian facilities and businesses that are there. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on that visit that might be seen by some as being a bit pejorative or audacious in light of the Helms- Burton bill?

MR. BURNS: We have the greatest respect for Foreign Minister Axworthy. We were alerted to this trip by the Canadian Government. You would expect that, given the close allied relationship that we have. We've been pleased to see from press reports that Minister Axworthy has raised the issue of human rights in Cuba. That we think is proper. That's where the increasing international spotlight is. If you look at the Latin Bureau's summit that was held in November. They decided they would do that - they would be concentrating on human rights, in addition to other issues.

The European Union has developed a new policy. That is focused on human rights, and we're glad to see that the Government of Canada is doing that as well. But beyond that I really don't have much comment because, obviously, Minister Axworthy has a right to travel there, if that's what he deems to do. But we would encourage him and encourage the Government of Canada to focus their attention on Cuba on the human rights issue because of a massive violation of human rights by the Cuban Government.

QUESTION: As a supplement to that question, you're quite right, Minister Axworthy and certainly his officials have been much quoted in the newspapers about raising the issue of human rights in Cuba but not to in any way restrain trade while they're down there. I'm wondering if it gives you pause that the American position towards Cuba, which now in 37 years seems to some outsiders to have achieved very little - that perhaps maybe the Canadians have the right idea in their dealings with Cuba, which is indeed to trade; at the same time raise the issues of human rights, which seems to be the nub of the current dispute between Canada and the United States.

MR. BURNS: I think it's a fair question. We would respectfully disagree with the position of the Canadian Government and have disagreed with it for a long time. That's not secret. The Canadians know that, and we regularly discuss this. We just have a basic disagreement on how to treat Cuba. We believe that isolation and containment and economic embargo is the best way to deal with the lone remaining holdout from another era - the communist era - the lone remaining holdout in this hemisphere.

We can't forget the repression a year ago next month of the Concilio Cubano, the widespread repression of anybody who stands up and says, "I'm against Castro," they get thrown in jail; the harsh prison sentences that have been given out, even to some of Castro's former revolutionary partners - people who have turned democratic on him. We can't forget that. We have an obligation to do that.

We're not far from Cuba. We're less than 100 miles from Key West to Cuba, and we know the Cubans fairly well. We have a long history of Cuba - long, long history, going back to the 19th century. I think that President Kennedy and every American President since him have made the correct strategic decision in choosing to isolate Cuba.

QUESTION: But so far as raising human rights, isn't that an effective way to do it on-site?

MR. BURNS: It's one way to do it, Barry, and I think it's also been very effective to isolate Castro to make him an international pariah, which he is in most of the world.

QUESTION: I don't think it's effective. He's been in power. He's outlasted 137 Secretaries of State and several Presidents. (Laughter)

MR. BURNS: Not quite that many, Barry.

QUESTION: Well, I mean add into it - if you include the ad interim. (Laughter)

MR. BURNS: If you include the ad interim, possibly.

QUESTION: You're pursuing exactly the policy you pursue with regard to a much larger country and one that maybe has a worse human rights record - China. How can you say that the U.S. policy has been effective. You've got people in Cuba terribly poor, and that's not the aim, is it?

MR. BURNS: Well, Barry, I think -

QUESTION: Your aim is to bring down Castro. It doesn't work.

MR. BURNS: Our aim is to end authoritarian rule in Cuba, and I think you wouldn't argue that things have gone swimmingly for the Cuban revolution since the early 1960s. They got into some big trouble in the early 1960s. If you look at the living standards of the average Cuban, you wouldn't argue that it's comparable to anybody in the Caribbean, with the possible exception of the Haitians.

QUESTION: But I also wouldn't go -

MR. BURNS: And they've had their own troubles.

QUESTION: -- too far back -

MR. BURNS: And they've had their own troubles. So I would respectfully, Barry, argue with you that we've had the appropriate policy, and it doesn't make sense to reward a dictator in our own hemisphere who's completely behind the times. You reward him by sending your Foreign Minister down to visit, by having visits as usual, by trading, and we think that's wrong.

QUESTION: So you are saying Canada is rewarding Cuba.

MR. BURNS: I've noted to Henry's question that we have a longstanding difference of opinion with the Canadian Government. Of course, we do. That's no secret.

QUESTION: I don't know that you want to say it rewards Castro, because if you approve of their making an issue of human rights, then he doesn't necessarily benefit from the visit. I don't know you can call it a reward, but all right.

MR. BURNS: Barry, we are pleased that finally the European countries have decided to put human rights on the front burner of their issues with Cuba and pleased that the Canadian Foreign Minister is doing the same. But we don't agree with a policy that has open arms to Castro - trade with Cuba - we just don't agree with it.

QUESTION: Should he not be visiting Cuba, Mr. Castro -

MR. BURNS: Minister Axworthy has - first of all, we respect him. He represents our closest NATO ally, and arguably our closest ally in the world. He has a right to travel where he wants to travel. We're not contesting that at all. We have a longstanding difference of opinion with the Canadian Government on Cuba.

QUESTION: Is his visit - and apparently he is there to sign some sort of human rights accord with Mr. Castro - is this visit proof that Helms- Burton has worked? That it's forced Canada to push Castro into signing an accord, or is it proof that Canada's policy of engagement has been more effective in bringing about changes in Cuba?

MR. BURNS: We don't see many changes in Cuba. I mean, point to a change in Cuba on the human rights policy since 1959. Point to anything that resembles a decent human rights policy in the last 37 years. There hasn't been any change. The Helms-Burton law, I think, did stimulate, both in our own hemisphere but also in Europe, a change of focus. You can't travel to Cuba as a foreign leader and not raise human rights anymore. Everyone's got to raise human rights.

QUESTION: But in fairness -

MR. BURNS: So I think that Helms-Burton has had that benefit, and we're pleased that it's had that benefit.

QUESTION: But in fairness, Mr. Burns, you're not suggesting that Canadian Ministers or the senior people visiting in Cuba have never raised the issue of human rights before, are you?

MR. BURNS: No, I'm not. I didn't suggest that. I didn't say that.

QUESTION: Well, you just said that - you gave the implication -

MR. BURNS: But there's an increasing spotlight, Henry, on human rights in Cuba - much more evident now from governments in our own hemisphere and from the European Union and its member governments. There's no question about that. They've never had in Europe before and the European Union the kind of ringing declarations about the human rights violations in Cuba than we just saw over the last two months.

QUESTION: Well, I don't want to nitpick over a transcript we'll all look at afterwards, but I'm quite certain you just said that senior government officials - and we're talking about Mr. Axworthy - are now bringing up human rights, and I think Canadians would take issue there, because as their government has long said that is a continual process of their engagement with Cuba.

MR. BURNS: You know, it's interesting, Henry, a year ago - a year-and- a-half ago Castro was welcomed in Paris. He was welcomed around the world as some kind of romantic figure from a bygone era, and I think now people are more prone to see him as a dictator who violates the human rights of average Cubans. That's an important change in Western sensibilities about him, and I think Helms-Burton and all the attention of this issue is a factor that one can trace to the change in attitude we've seen both here in our hemisphere and in Europe, and it's a welcome change.

QUESTION: If my colleagues will forgive me one final supplemental. In response to Barry, you used the word "rewards." You must surely understand that that's going to be a rather sensitive choice of words in Canada, because they don't believe -

MR. BURNS: I think Barry used the word first, and then I talked about it.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, you -

QUESTION: Take another swing at it if you like. (Laughter)

QUESTION: You clearly indicated rewards, and I doubt very much that the people or the Government of Canada would see this trip as a reward to Castro. Wouldn't you agree?

MR. BURNS: Henry, I think we were talking about the fact that the United States has elected for 37 years to have an embargo on Cuba - a trade embargo on Cuba - and that we think that's the right strategic choice. We don't think in general it makes sense to reward Castro.

I very specifically in answer to both of your questions did not contest and will not contest the right of the Canadian Foreign Minister to travel to Cuba. He has an obvious right to travel to Cuba, and no one's contesting that. We have an obvious difference of opinion that we and the Government in Ottawa are very clear about. We talk about it all the time, and we understand that it's going to remain a difference of opinion.

QUESTION: Is Canada rewarding Castro by having Mr. Axworthy visit Havana?

MR. BURNS: I've characterized Minister Axworthy's trip the way that I wanted to characterize it, and I'm going to keep it at that. I've also spoken plainly about our own views about the Castro Government that one should not forget.

QUESTION: So "rewards" stands then in your view.

MR. BURNS: I'm not going to take back anything I've said, Henry, but I think you're probably trying to make a little bit more of a fight between Washington and Ottawa than there is. The fact of the matter is that we note - we talk about this all the time. There's nothing new in this, there really isn't. There's not much of a story here.

QUESTION: This might even be in the Washington Times.

MR. BURNS: We'll see if it's - it will be interesting to see how they cover it.

QUESTION: Regarding the invasion of Sudan from the territory of Eritrea and Ethiopia, this has been - seems to have been supported by Uganda. Lady Carolyn Cox from Christian Solidarity International, who's a known figure and opponent of the Khartoum regime, has been sighted in the area. I'd like to ask you, is the United States supporting the operations that are ongoing now in eastern Sudan, which have been, I think, correctly characterized as an invasion?

MR. BURNS: The United States is concerned by the recent fighting in the Blue Nile region of Sudan and in the area north of Kassala. This is all south of Khartoum, if you look at the map. We are urging on all - on the Sudanese Government, on the rebels and anyone else involved in this fighting, restraint and a peaceful resolution of any differences here. We've urged the parties directly in our contacts with them to avoid harm to the civilian population, to property, and to treat all prisoners of war according to international conventions.

I can't comment on the role that other countries may or may not be playing, but I can say we've had a longstanding difference of opinion with the Sudanese Government on the way it treats its own population. As you know, we've had a very difficult relationship with the Sudanese Government, in part because of that issue.

There's been a civil war underway, and we hope that this civil war can end, not through violence but through some dialogue and negotiation at a conference table.

QUESTION: The situation seems to have changed now, and that this is no longer a civil war between different factions within Sudan, but that one of these factions is getting what seems to be considerable support from the outside, from countries where the U.S. has also increased its aid, including military aid, recently. So it seems like a different situation now.

MR. BURNS: Again, you're just going to have to address your question about possible outside interference to those countries. I can tell you this. I was asked on Friday, and implicit in your question is this charge that maybe U.S. assistance has furthered the ability of countries beyond Khartoum to be active here, and I can't really speak much to the details of that.

I would just note for the record that we have not extended any lethal military assistance to any of the neighboring countries - to Ethiopia or Uganda or Eritrea. Furthermore, the non-lethal assistance that is in our Fiscal Year 1996 budget, I believe around $15 million, has not even reached these countries. So there's no possibility of American assistance, military assistance, non-lethal, contributing in any way to what's going on in and around Sudan.

QUESTION: Can you tell me -- a follow-up, Nick - why the United States voted against an attempt to take this whole matter up at the Security Council.

MR. BURNS: That's a very good question. We do believe it's important for the United Nations to be involved in all the questions surrounding the attempted assassination of President Mubarak and the support that the Sudanese Government has given to international terrorism. That question is at the United Nations and should stay there.

This particular question - of the situation in Eastern Sudan and the problems that Sudan has had with some of its neighboring countries - we believe can be best resolved through the actions of the Organization of African Unity. That's the advice that we've given, but, of course, the United States is not in a position to dictate the decision as to which international body looks at this question. But our advice would be the Organization of African Unity is the best institution to try to resolve this conflict.

QUESTION: On that same subject, some Egyptian opposition parties today accused Israel of having a role in Sudan, in the conflict. Are you aware of any Israeli role?

MR. BURNS: It's always easy to accuse Israel of doing this or that, and we've seen some other governments in the region, in the Middle East, do that just in the last couple of weeks. I'm not aware of any Israeli involvement. Ask the Israeli Government. I'm not aware of any. I've not heard that story.

Still on this issue?

QUESTION: On Colombia. A judge on Friday sentenced the Cali cartel's drug kingpins to nine and ten years respectively. This has been termed as very low sentences. Ambassador Frechette said it was really, really regrettable that these were the kinds of sentences. Can you comment on this?

MR. BURNS: We fully support Ambassador Frechette's comments. We're extremely disappointed at the inadequate sentences that have been given to these two narco-traffickers, because the Rodriquez or Orejuela brothers are notorious, major kingpins. These are the people who have controlled a multibillion dollar drug trafficking ring. They aren't the servants of that ring. They aren't the foot soldiers. They're the people who run the financial and drug empire.

Nobody knows how much cocaine they are responsible for shipping around the world, but in the span of only one year in the early 1990s, U.S. and international law enforcement authorities seized over 27 tons of cocaine belonging to the Rodriquez or Orejuela organization. That gives you some idea of the of the magnitude of their business operation - their narcotics operation.

Sentences of nine years and ten-and-a-half years for crimes of that magnitude are woefully insufficient, and we've been very pleased to see even the Colombian President - President Samper - question the Colombian judicial system - the system that offers these light sentences. You know what happens. They live in these jails. They're called jails, but they're more like penthouses. They have phone contact with their lieutenants in the narco-trafficking organization. They don't have a cement bed. They have all of the trappings of a multimillionaire drug kingpin life. They live the high life in jail.

Obviously, the sentencing structure needs to be looked at, but also the conditions of incarceration need to be looked at. Why should they have these kinds of cushy conditions when an average Colombian criminal - somebody without money and influence - would have a normal prison existence. There's a lot that's got to be looked through here by the Colombian judicial system.

QUESTION: How does it affect the certification process that will come out March 1st?

MR. BURNS: If you look at our narcotics report of 1996, you will note that this issue is an issue worldwide - not just for Colombia but for a lot of other countries. It's a factor in the decision that we have to make about certification.

Still on Colombia? Yes, Judd and then -

QUESTION: A couple of prominent Colombians today called for Colombia to rethink its policy on extradition. Do you think that these kinds of sentences might in the end have that effect?

MR. BURNS: Colombia is going to have to make its own decision. As you know, we've had a longstanding position of interest in that. People who traffic in the United States, people who violate our own laws in certain cases we think ought to be eligible for extradition. But that's an issue that we continue to discuss with the Colombian Government

Still on Colombia?

QUESTION: Yes, Colombia. The President, as you just mentioned, he's going to interfere with - or he's not agreeing with this sentencing. Do you believe that - is this a way of showing the United States that Colombia as a whole is trying to work hard on meeting what the U.S. is expecting from them - not just the decision from one judge?

MR. BURNS: We certainly hope the Colombian Government will act on President Samper's initial public statements and make an issue of this inside the Colombian Government, as the Executive part of the Colombian Government affects the judicial authorities. It's up to them to make sure that the laws are being respected and the laws make sense and are consistent with international standards. These lenient sentences are not consistent with what most countries in the world do.

QUESTION: Follow-up. We just received on Saturday the new Ambassador from Colombia, who as a Minister of Defense was very well respected by the United States Government. Are you expecting that his presence in Washington is going to be a good way to reestablish this certification for Colombia?

MR. BURNS: The Ambassador-designate Juan Carlos Esguerra arrived in Washington, I believe, on Saturday. He was met by officials of the State Department. We're looking forward to working with him. We have had a good relationship with him in the past. Obviously, whatever he can do to strengthen the policies and actions of the Colombia Government on narcotics issues will be very helpful in this question of certification, but also more broadly in just meeting Colombia's own obligations to its citizens and to its neighbors in this hemisphere.

There are many factors that will go into the certification decision. Actions are much more important than words, and we'll want to have the closest possibly cooperation of the Ambassador-designate as we proceed on this certification decision.

Still on Colombia?

QUESTION: Yes. In his first press conference, Ambassador Esguerra just talked like an hour ago and mentioned a little bit of a disappointment about the way the United States does not seem to recognize the difference among the different branches - the judicial and the executive branches, for example - when it comes to judging the results, when it has to do with the sentencing, for example. So what is your response? I mean, do you think that you are judging unjustly the executive branch for a decision that was made in the judicial branch?

MR. BURNS: We have to judge the Colombian President and his senior cabinet officials based on their actions, and we'll continue to do that. We're of course sensitive to the constitutional framework of Colombia, as we are to other countries, and even in our own country sometimes you need to make that separation. That's why it's good to see positive public statements from the President of Colombia about these sentencings and the leniency of these sentences.

QUESTION: Nick -

MR. BURNS: Still on Colombia? Any more? On India, yes.

QUESTION: You have issued as statement about that Mr. Singh was extradited by the U.S. on the charges of bombing in Delhi which killed nine people. Also you have warned the U.S. Embassies and Consulates abroad. Is there a reason why you have warned Embassies? Also, what sort of (inaudible) played -

MR. BURNS: Because we know that sometimes when decisions like this - extradition decisions are announced, it sometimes is accompanied by a reaction - not by a government but by people or various groups, and we wanted to make sure that American citizens are cognizant of that - understand that as they travel in these areas.

QUESTION: And do you have any idea how they got in the U.S., on what kind of visa, husband and wife?

MR. BURNS: I don't have that information, no, but we can check on it for you.

QUESTION: Can you look into this?

MR. BURNS: We can do that, yes.

Mr. Lambros, welcome back.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. BURNS: It's been a long time. We've missed you. We've had a lot of action on Cyprus since you were gone, and I was probably not able to do it without you.

QUESTION: I followed very carefully. I was in Greece.

MR. BURNS: Did you follow --

QUESTION: Yes, definitely. Regarding moratorium over Cyprus, the Cypriot President, Mr. Glafcos Clerides, stated that the moratorium is dead. Mr. Carey Cavanaugh however, stated that the moratorium is alive. Could you please clarify your position?

MR. BURNS: I'd be glad to, Mr. Lambros. About a week ago, when Mr. Cavanaugh met with President Clerides, he received signals from the Cypriots, as well as the Greeks, as well as the Turks, that they would all work very hard last week on this proposal to limit - for a moratorium - excuse me - on military flights over the Aegean.

Unfortunately, we've been -

QUESTION: The Aegean?

MR. BURNS: On Cyprus, excuse me. I'm sorry. Mr. Lambros, I've got to be on my toes with you back. I know you're looking at every word that I say and parsing it.

We were very disappointed that the parties were not able to conclude the measure which has been on the table in different forms since July 1996. We had been encouraged, as I said, by some positive statements that we had heard out of Nicosia, Ankara and Athens last week. But unfortunately when the Cypriot and Greek leadership met in Athens on Friday, they were unable to reach a final agreement on this arrangement.

We believe that this approach of a moratorium offers a diplomatic alternative to the deployment of an anti-aircraft system, and there is a link between them, and that the agreement on the moratorium perhaps makes it unnecessary to deploy the anti-aircraft system in 1998, about a year-and- a-half from now.

Nonetheless, we'll continue to work with all the parties, including the Turkish Government, on this proposal and also on the other measures along the green line - along the boundary line, excuse me - and the other issues involved in the Greek and Turkish relationships, so that all these problems can be resolved peacefully and without resort to threats. That's what, unfortunately, we've seen over the last couple of weeks - unnecessary rhetoric from all sides.

QUESTION: Would you please confirm information that Mr. Carey Cavanaugh, during his last trip in Athens, discussed also with the Greek Foreign Minister, Theodhoros Pangalos, that the proposed moratorium as you mention over Cyprus should be extended over the Aegean Sea, as it was proposed, by Professor Khristos Rozakis?

MR. BURNS: When Carey gets back, I'll talk to him and ask him that question, and we'll see what we can get you on that. That wasn't part of what we said publicly last week. I know he did have a good conversation about other issues, and I'll just have to get back to you on that, Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: Would you take this question?

MR. BURNS: Be glad to, yes. Any follow-up to this?

QUESTION: Yes.

QUESTION: About Turkey.

MR. BURNS: I think there might be follow-up to this question.

QUESTION: Yes. What do you think is the problem? I mean, why did the parties and specifically the Cypriots say one thing and then reject it?

MR. BURNS: We did not have ironclad assurances that this agreement would be reached last week. But we had positive signals that they could accept it. You'll have to ask the Greek Government and the Cypriot Government why they did not conclude this agreement on Friday. We're disappointed. We're very disappointed, and we'll continue working with them on it.

QUESTION: Any plans for Cavanaugh or somebody else to go out there any time soon?

MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any new missions that we can announce, but I can say that we'll be keeping close track of these issues, and we'll be heavily involved. Ambassador Ken Brill met with President Clerides today in Nicosia. Ambassador Brill expressed our disappointment to the press there, and he will remain on top of this issue.

Yes, Savas. Savas had a question, I think, and then Ugur.

QUESTION: A different - I have Cyprus question.

QUESTION: Ankara, the Turkish Government, and the Turkish Cypriot Government issued a joint declaration yesterday. It is a mirror image of the joint defense agreement between Greece and the Greek Cypriot Government, basically saying any attack, threat on Turkish Cypriots would be perceived as a direct attack on Turkey; and if Greek Cypriots go ahead with their plans to have these naval and air bases in Cyprus, there will be similar mirror image bases in north. Could you comment on this new development?

MR. BURNS: I think that we've said many times in the past that there is no reason for the Turkish Government or the Turkish Cypriots to overreact to the events of the last ten days. We are calling upon all parties for restraint, and I would note for the Turkish Government and the Turkish Cypriot leadership that President Clerides has promised that this antiaircraft system will not be deployed for up to 16 months. That's a very significant promise, and none of the parts of this system will actually even be imported into Cyprus during that time. This should allow all the parties to work out their differences amicably without resort to the kind of dramatic statements and threats that have been made.

QUESTION: To go back to (inaudible) question, is it fair to say, Nick, that Ambassador Ken Brill heard from President Clerides a definite no this morning?

MR. BURNS: I don't know if it was a definite "no." I think it was a statement that they were not able to reach an agreement on Friday. I don't know if this agreement will be impossible to reach in the future. We're not going to stop our efforts to suggest that this is the best way forward: A moratorium that would increase the level of confidence on the part of all the actors in the region and give some diplomatic space, some quiet space, for the negotiators to work on these problems without resort to threats.

QUESTION: How would you characterize the Turkish approach to the proposal? Are they accepting it?

MR. BURNS: I have characterized - oh, you mean to the specific proposal.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BURNS: I'd let the Turkish Government do that.

QUESTION: Nick -

MR. BURNS: Savas.

QUESTION: Head of the PKK front organization, Mr. Kani Xulam, in Washington, D.C., accused the State Department, because it's harassing him. Do you have any comment on the subject?

MR. BURNS: I do. I looked into this this morning, and, as soon as I can find it, I'm going to begin talking about it, but I'll filibuster in the meantime. It's some place here.

We looked into this this morning, and the charge that somehow the State Department is harassing this guy is just baseless. Let me tell you the facts.

On the afternoon of January 16th, last Thursday, the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security received a call from the District Attorney's office in Santa Barbara, California. The District Attorney's office informed us that they had issued a nine-count felony arrest warrant for Mr. Xulam. They requested our assistance in locating him. We agreed to provide that assistance.

On Friday, January 17th, Mr. Xulam was located by Diplomatic Security agents of the Department of State and arrangements were made with the Metropolitan Police of Washington, D.C., to arrest him, and he was arrested in the presence of two of our Diplomatic Security agents.

Now, these charges are very serious - nine counts of felony. They were brought by the District Attorney in Santa Barbara. They're not State Department charges. That's not how the American judicial system works, as you know very well, but perhaps he doesn't know or chooses not to believe. He's got to submit to the legal authority of the State of California here. These are serious charges. He'll have to face them.

The State Department simply provided assistance at the request of our own judicial authorities and was able to help find him and help in his arrest. That's what we're responsible for doing under our own law. He now faces a charge - a trial in the United States, and I refer you to the District Attorney in Santa Barbara, California, for an elucidation of the charges brought against him.

QUESTION: One of those charges is larceny, if I'm correct. I wasn't at the hearing this Saturday. He claimed that this is old charges. It's connected with his passport fraud. Do you have any knowledge about this subject?

MR. BURNS: I can't discuss the charges. Our system at the State Department, now being a law enforcement agency, would never discuss charges like this. That's up to the State of California.

Bill.

QUESTION: Nick, at the other end of the - near the terminus of the cocaine pipeline from Colombia through Mexico, there's an article today by Mr. Dettmer -

MR. BURNS: Mr. -

QUESTION: Mr. Dettmer -- Jamie Dettmer, published by the Washington Times today. Mr. Dettmer's article alleges that U.S. law enforcement agencies - the DEA, FBI, and Customs - are not presently being allowed to carry their firearms into Mexico on their official business. It further alleges that there are four vetted Task Forces that have been trained by DEA, including 20, I believe, Mexican officers in each Task Force, that are not just sitting, not being deployed, not being allowed to be deployed by Mexico.

My question is, do you have any particular comment on this article and these allegations in lieu of the fact that robberies are up in Mexico City, and a 100 percent increase per year in the use of cocaine in Mexico City may be a factor?

MR. BURNS: No. No, I don't have any particular comment. I would refer you to General McCaffrey's office. He's the coordinator of America's drug war against the narco-traffickers. He is in close touch with the Mexican Government authorities on this. I'd refer you to his office.

QUESTION: You can't say whether you think this is accurate or not?

MR. BURNS: No, I cannot. No. Betsy has been waiting.

QUESTION: Nick, on diplomatic immunity. Have you heard from - have you gotten a report either from New York on the New York incident or from the U.S. Attorney's office on the Washington, D.C. Makharadze incident?

MR. BURNS: No, on both counts. We have not received the police report from the New York City Police Department. We've not heard of any major change by the U.S. Attorney in his proceedings. He's still investigating these charges - allegations - against Mr. Makharadze.

QUESTION: Have you heard at all from New York when this report might be forthcoming? This has been a good three weeks.

MR. BURNS: I believe it's not unusual in cases like this to have a report take so long to write. I'm not saying anything pejorative there, because the New York City police has got to be - they want to, of course, interview all the bystanders, make sure they've done all of their investigation before they release an official, comprehensive, final police report which will then stand as evidence, perhaps, in any kind of future proceedings.

So we haven't been surprised by that. I just can't speculate on when this report will arrive. I'd refer you to Mayor Giuliani and the City of New York.

QUESTION: On the same subject, Nick. Have you been aware - have you been made aware of a Russian police campaign to harass foreigners, particularly Americans in Moscow, apparently in retaliation for the New York case?

MR. BURNS: I heard a very interesting report on NPR on Friday morning about this. I was intrigued by it. I can't believe the Russians would do anything like this. We expect - I'm shocked. We expect that the Russian Government authorities, officials in New York and in Washington, diplomats, will observe our laws just as we expect all diplomats to observe our laws. When they don't, they usually hear about it, from a police department in New York or Washington, or sometimes from the State Department.

QUESTION: Is there a campaign of systematic arrest against American diplomats in Moscow?

MR. BURNS: I'll have to check with John Tefft, who is our very, very fine Charge d'Affaires in Moscow and ask him that question. I think it's a good, legitimate question. I'll get back to you.

QUESTION: You mean you haven't heard from him that he was busted twice?

MR. BURNS: I have not heard that. I heard NPR say that. I have not talked to John. I've not heard from our experts on Russian Affairs if this is the case. But it's a serious question and I'll give you a serious answer at the briefing tomorrow.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) beyond diplomats -

MR. BURNS: That's really important, if we have journalists being busted. Look, I think it's a good question. I think it's a legitimate question. I'll try to get a good answer. But the point is that we are the host here of the greatest collection of diplomats anywhere in the world. Our laws ought to be respected. That's our constant refrain to other governments.

George.

QUESTION: Do you have anything about the Chinese threat to strip the people of Hong Kong of some of their civil liberties?

MR. BURNS: I certainly do. I certainly do have something about that. We have been very concerned about those reports. We understand that a sub- group of China's preparatory committee on Hong Kong has recommended that portions of Hong Kong's Bill of Rights be repealed and that certain colonial-era public order ordinances, including some of those amended in 1991, be reinstated. Protection of civil liberties is an important guarantee of the 1984 Joint Declaration between China and the United Kingdom. It's an important part of China's own 1990 Basic Law for Hong Kong. This is a critical component of Hong Kong's way of life. It is vital to continuing confidence in Hong Kong.

We're deeply concerned over any attempts to weaken civil liberties and basic freedoms in Hong Kong. We believe this recommendation should be re- examined - re-examined carefully against China's commitment to preserve human rights, freedom of the press, and individual freedoms in Hong Kong. Statements and recommendations of this kind do not help foster stability or confidence in Hong Kong. We hope that China and the future Hong Kong Government will consider seriously the damage that erosion of Hong Kong's civil liberties and basic freedoms could do to its way of life and its high degree of autonomy.

QUESTION: Nick, do you then think that this is a violation of the Joint Declaration?

MR. BURNS: I think it's important to note what this is and what it isn't. These are recommendations made by the preparatory committee. A final decision has not yet been made. So in the intervening time, before that decision is made, we will be raising this issue with the Chinese authorities in Beijing. You can be assured of that. Our Consulate General in Hong Kong will be doing its utmost to follow this issue and to confer with the current Hong Kong Government. You've already seen some statements on this issue by Chris Patten.

It's a very important issue. The Hong Kong Bill of Rights ordinance, as you know, was enacted in June 1991 to codify the rights that are elaborated in the international covenant on civil and political rights and the international covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights. These are important foundations for human rights all around the world. Hong Kong should not be an exception. We should expect that when the Chinese Government - when reversion does take place that all of these rights will be respected. That's our strong hope.

QUESTION: What if they do go ahead with it? Would it be a violation of the Joint Declaration?

MR. BURNS: Sid, I've said what I wanted to say about this issue. If, in fact, the decision is made, then we'll have something else to say about it at that time. You can be assured of that.

Savas.

QUESTION: Any officials - Iranian-English newspaper, Tehran Times, report that the Iranian Government is ready to establish diplomatic relations with the United States. They are asking some countries for mediation.

Lately, the Turkish Minister of State, Mr. Adak, was here. I know when the Iranian President was in Ankara, he asked the Turkish Government. Did you get this kind of mediation from Minister Adak's visit -

MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of it. The establishment of diplomatic relations is a mutual exercise. It cannot be done unilaterally. The other side has to agree. I've seen nothing in the behavior of the Iranian Government that would lead us to do that.

QUESTION: You are not ready for the consultation with the Tehran government?

MR. BURNS: I'm unaware that it's been given any serious consideration here in Washington, which is where decisions are made.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on (Inaudible) briefing on the Four- Party talks?

MR. BURNS: I don't. I have asked that as soon as a decision is made about the site for those talks, that we give that to you. The talks will be held - the Four-Party talks briefing - on January 29. That would be a week from Wednesday.

We still are trying to work out with the North Koreans and the Republic of Korea where those talks would be held, and we don't have the final decision on that.

QUESTION: About this on-going hostage situation in Lima, Peru. What is your basic position about the Peruvian Government's idea of letting the terrorists out of the country - to a third country? Do you support or are you critical of that?

MR. BURNS: The United States continues to condemn the hostage-taking in Lima. We continue to be in contact with the Peruvian Government. Our belief is that the terrorists - and that's who they are; they're terrorists - they should release all of the hostages, all 73 of the hostages, quickly, safely, and unharmed.

The Peruvian Government proposed forming a special commission. That is in the hopes of advancing efforts to find a solution to the hostage problem. But the Peruvian Government, as we understand it, said this commission will be composed of representatives from the Catholic Church and the Red Cross and that Canada be allowed to send a representative.

We support Peru's efforts to resolve the crisis peacefully. Although, as you know, we strongly oppose any concessions to terrorists, we believe it's important for the Peruvian Government to have open lines of communication as a means of resolving the problem. That's a big distinction, of course; one that's readily understood. We're not in a position and will not put ourselves in a position of trying to second-guess the Peruvian Government.

President Fujimori has been admirable in the way he's handled this problem. He's got a very, very difficult situation. We're not going to second-guess him at all.

We've got a couple more questions. I want to say something on Serbia to make sure that we do that before we leave.

The United States continues to be extremely disturbed by the actions of the Serbian Government. They are now tying up this question of respect for elections in a judicial process that cannot be considered to be democratic by any means. We had been hopeful last week when the electoral commission made its decision that the results should stand; that the Serbian Government should back down. We were hopeful that the opposition could actually take its seat in the Belgrade City Assembly and elsewhere.

But now the Serbian Government - Mr. Milosevic's party - has formally protested - has formally protested the electoral commission's positive step forward. They have tied this up in judicial knots and they've begun to use physical force against demonstrators in the streets of Belgrade. This is not a positive turn in these developments. We continue to be very clear, along with our European allies, along with Canada, that the Gonzalez Commission recommendations ought to be respected, and that is that the November 17th elections should stand.

The opposition should be able to take its seat in the corridors of power. We continue to remind the Serbian Government that the international community will not react positively in any way to the use of violence and the threat of the use of violence against protesters who have been exercising their rights peacefully on the streets of Belgrade for more than two months, and very admirably so. We condemn the use of force against protesters in the streets of Belgrade.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) South Africa and Syria quickly, as a last question. What is your reaction to the comments from the ANC Secretary General's comments. She described America's Middle Eastern policy as "bullying and hypocritical," and says South Africa -

MR. BURNS: What was the first word?

QUESTION: Bullying and hypocritical. It said South Africa might be frog-marched into a foreign policy not of its own choosing.

MR. BURNS: That's quite a statement.

QUESTION: Quite a statement. What's your reaction?

MR. BURNS: I would just say, let's look at the facts here. I don't think the Palestinians or the Israelis or Jordanians or Egyptians or Tunisians or Moroccans or the Saudis or the people in the Emirates or in Kuwait would ever describe the United States in those terms. I won't even repeat the words.

I think if you look at reality in the Middle East, the United States is widely seen, except in Baghdad perhaps, as the indispensable intermediary and sometimes mediator. We have played a historically positive role. Just look at the events of last week in the Hebron negotiations.

Now, on the issue that South Africa is concerned about, the same issue we're concerned about. Our view is that all of us, internationally, have a responsibility to our own countries to the global fight against terrorism.

Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism. It is inadmissible for countries, and unwise, to sell arms to Syria. That does not further the fight against global terrorism, nor will it bring stability to the Middle East. That's what we've all got to be interested in - peace and stability in the Middle East.

We have a difference of view here. We know that the South African Government has not made a decision, and we hope to continue an amicable, reasonable, and rational discussion of the issues in private. That's what friendly countries do, much in the way that we discuss our differences on Cuba with the Canadian Government. We discuss them respectfully and rationally and in a peaceful way.

So we would respectfully submit, it's better to have a useful, private discussion rather than this war of words which is not going to help South Africa or the United States. We won't engage in this war of words. We're not interested in doing that.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you about -- Senator Helms has reportedly written to the President asking that the ARMSCOR situation be linked to this controversy. In the eyes of the State Department, are the two issues entirely separate?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me -

QUESTION: The ARMSCOR situation.

MR. BURNS: ARMSCOR? They're entirely separate. Entirely separate.

QUESTION: According to the Associated Press today, the French police, on information from German authorities, arrested 22 persons in Paris in connection with a suspected terrorist network. Seven of them were linked to an investigation of an Islamic network in Germany. Do you have anything on that?

MR. BURNS: I don't have any information on that. I don't know any of the facts. But certainly we support the efforts of the French Government, in general, to fight terrorism, which has been a big problem in France. We are in close touch with the Germans and French on a variety of general issues, not on this one specifically. But we've all got to fight the terrorism problem worldwide.

Thank you, Mr. Lambros, for bringing that up.

(Press briefing concluded at 2:15 p.m.)

(###)


U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
Back to Top
Copyright © 1995-2023 HR-Net (Hellenic Resources Network). An HRI Project.
All Rights Reserved.

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.01 run on Tuesday, 21 January 1997 - 23:49:25 UTC