Read the Treaty of Sevres (10 August 1920) 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
Tuesday, 26 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 #12, 97-01-22

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>


1204

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

January 22, 1997

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

ANNOUNCEMENTS and STATEMENTS
1          Welcome to Visitors
1          A/S John Kornblum Meeting with Serbian Students
2          Update on Serbian Demonstrations/Elections
2          Signing of Czech-German Declaration
2-3        A/S Raphel Travel Itinerary and Meetings
3          Consular Information Sheet on Israel

CUBA 3-4,6-7 Canadian Foreign Minister Axworthy's Visit 4-5,8 U.S. Policy towards Cuba 6,7-8 Joint Canadian/Cuban Statement 8-9 Pope's proposed visit to Cuba

UN 9-10 Meetings of Kofi Annan in Washington

DEPARTMENT 10-11 Secretary-Designate Albright timetable on announcement of appointments 13-14 Response to Written Questions by Secretary -Designate Albright

GERMANY 11 Czech-German Agreement

AFRICA 11 Activities of Executive Outcomes Organization

ISRAEL 11-13 Consular Information Sheet on Rabbinical Court

SOUTH AFRICA 14 Vote on Sale of Arms to Syria

SERBIA 14-15 Requests for Aid by Serbian Students visiting Washington 15 Update on US reactions to Serbian Gov't actions

TURKEY 15 NATO Enlargement 15-16 Cavanaugh comments of flights over Aegean 16 Sale of arms to Cyprus 16-17 Cavanaugh recommendation of two territorial

NORTH KOREA 17 Venue for Four Party Talks Briefing

NATO 17-18 US policy on NATO Enlargement and the EU

SUDAN 18-19 Fighting in Area

RUSSIA 19-20 Harassment of Foreigners


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #12

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1997, 1:21 P. M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BURNS: Good afternoon and welcome to the State Department. I have a couple of announcements to make.

First I want to introduce some guests. Ms. Annemieke Ruigrok, who is the First Secretary of the Dutch Embassy, and I hope I pronounced your name correctly. Was that pretty good in Dutch? And Mr. Floris Van Hoevell of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who are accompanied by Oscar DeSoto, who's our Desk Officer for The Netherlands. They've been observing the press guidance process this morning, which I hope has been helpful to you, and we want to welcome you here today.

We also have a Norwegian journalist, Ingeborg Eliassen, here from Norway. I want to welcome this journalist as well.

A couple of things for you. First, John Kornblum met this morning with four leaders of the student protest movement from Belgrade. As you probably heard, they're visiting here - visiting Washington at the invitation of a Serbian-American businessman, Milan Panic, and they've attended the inauguration of President Clinton.

Assistant Secretary Kornblum expressed to the students when he met with them this morning his admiration for their courage and their determination, and in the way that the Serbian students have conducted themselves over the past two months. He assured them of United States' support for democracy in Serbia. The students explained their protest activities, which are now, as you know, beginning a third month, and they briefed Assistant Secretary Kornblum on the situation in Belgrade. They emphasized the broad support their movement has received from all sectors of Serbian society.

Assistant Secretary Kornblum commended them on the peaceful and creative nature of the demonstrations. He said he was deeply concerned by the press reports over the last two days as the Serbian police have begun to use violence and force against student demonstrators and other demonstrators on the streets of Belgrade. He emphasized that the only solution for the current crisis in Serbia is for the Serbian Government to respect the recommendations of the OSCE. He was very impressed by them.

In general, I can tell you we continue to be unimpressed by the reaction of the Belgrade Government to the demonstrations in the streets of Belgrade. We would offer the following public advice to Mr. Milosevic. Election results cannot be negotiated in the back rooms - the smoke-filled back rooms. Election results are not bargaining chips to enhance the political stature or the political survivability or the political advantage of the Government in Belgrade. The Gonzalez report is very clear, and all Western countries are united on it - election results must be respected.

Yesterday - and we discovered this after our briefing yesterday - the Serbian Government claimed that they've now won - they actually did win the elections, they say, in eight of the 15 constituencies. This is a repudiation of the OSCE of former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez, and it digs the Serbian Government more deeply into the hole that they've been digging for themselves over the last two months.

It is unacceptable to the international community to see the Serbian Government now claim that they won the elections, when they clearly did not win the elections. In the long run, these kinds of legal maneuvers, familiar from the days of communism, and these stalling tactics are not going to work. So we reiterate our call today on the Serbian Government to respect the elections.

A couple of other items for you. We're issuing a statement today on the signing of the Czech-German declaration in Prague. The United States warmly welcomes the signing in Prague on Tuesday of the Czech-German joint declaration by Prime Minister Klaus and Chancellor Kohl. We believe that this will strengthen further the strong ties between these two close friends of the United States. This is an important step forward in overcoming the sometimes difficult legacy of the second World War and of its aftermath, and we commend the commitment of the Czech and German Governments, as well as the people of both countries, not to burden their relations with political and legal questions arising from the past. We look forward to the parliaments of both countries endorsing the declaration expeditiously.

For ourselves, the United States is confident that this declaration will lead to greater understanding between the people of the Czech Republic and Germany, and we look forward to continuing to work with both of them as partners in a secure and unified transatlantic community.

I also wanted to tell you that Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphel is in South Asia. She has been traveling in the region. She's currently in Islamabad and Pakistan. She will also be visiting Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and India. She will not be visiting Afghanistan. She will be meeting with in each country senior political leaders of each of the countries involved, as well as our Embassy staffs.

As part of her regular responsibilities, she's taking time in these countries, particularly in Pakistan, to talk about Afghanistan. You may have seen some press reports that she did have a meeting today with a Taliban representative - Mullah Wakil Ahmed. This is part of our long-standing series of contacts and meetings that we have had not only with the Taliban but with all of the factions in Afghanistan, and those meetings have occurred inside Afghanistan as well as outside Afghanistan, as this meeting did.

We use our meetings to convey our concerns about the situation in Afghanistan. As you know, we don't recognize any of the factions as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. We have ongoing concerns regionally about neighbors of Afghanistan not funneling arms to the factions. We'd like to see them resolve their severe problems peacefully, and we do take the opportunity in these meetings, as Assistant Secretary Raphel did today in Islamabad, especially with representatives of the Taliban, to note our very strong concerns about the human rights deficiencies of the Taliban regime, particularly concerning women and girls.

So I've got a little bit more information on her trip, and I'll be glad to go into that, should you wish.

Finally, I want to just let you know about another Consular information sheet that we're issuing today on Israel, and this concerns the Rabinnical Court detention of American citizens who are Jewish-Americans in Israel. It's a rather complicated issue. If you're interested, we can go into this.

George.

QUESTION: The Canadian Foreign Minister opened his visit to Cuba last night, and apparently the visit includes some sort of human rights agreement between the two countries. Do you have anything to say about the visit?

MR. BURNS: Well, we have -- as you would expect -- we've talked to the Canadian Government about the visit. They alerted us to the visit before it occurred, as I mentioned yesterday, and we do expect at some point later this afternoon the Canadian and Cuban Governments will have a joint statement to make. We are not aware of the contents of that joint statement, but we'll look at it very closely and, if appropriate, have something to say perhaps tomorrow, if that's appropriate.

Since you had a lot of fun with this issue yesterday and you tried to get me to make some news - and you may have succeeded in that - I wanted to repeat -- especially for the benefit of our colleagues from Canada, two of whom at least are here today -- I wanted to repeat in very clear simple terms how we look at this visit.

First of all, and this bears repeating, we have the highest personal respect for Minister Axworthy, and we have the closest possible relationship with the Canadian Government.

Secondly, as I said yesterday in my opening remarks, and I repeated it several times, the United States Government is not questioning the wisdom of this trip. We're not even commenting on whether or not Minister Axworthy should have undertaken it. That's a decision for him and for the Canadian Government.

We do have policy disagreements with the Canadian Government on Cuba of about 37 years standing, and I expect those disagreements, if they continue, will be discussed privately, as has been our practice. We are heartened by the recent public attention given to the issue of human rights in Cuba not just by Canada but by almost all of our Western allies in Europe, in this hemisphere, and that includes governments in Central and South America.

Minister Axworthy said again yesterday that he was raising human rights issues in Cuba during his visit, and that is a very good thing. Frankly, the United States remains skeptical that the Cuban Government is in fact prepared to take systematic and meaningful steps that would lead to a transition to democratic rule in Cuba, or that would reflect a change in the position of the Cuban Government on human rights.

Let me give you an example. Just in the last two weeks, several prominent Cuban democracy activists - people living in Cuba - have been arrested by the Cuban authorities, and this is reminiscent of the severe crackdown in February 1996 against the democracy movement and specifically against the Concilio Cubano. This reflects a continuing pattern of repression in Cuba by the Castro Government which concerns us deeply, and we've brought this issue of the arrest of these prominent democracy activists to the attention of the Cuban Government through our Interests Section in Cuba.

QUESTION: Nick, yesterday -

MR. BURNS: George, I just wanted to know if you had a follow-up. Carol.

QUESTION: Yesterday you suggested that this trip was a reward - would reward Castro, and I wondered if you still felt that way.

MR. BURNS: Carol, obviously I stand by everything I said yesterday. I also wanted to just reiterate the fundamental points that I made two or three times yesterday in the little debate that we had here on whither Cuba, and what's the correct policy of the West to have towards Cuba. I've reiterated those fundamental points this morning.

QUESTION: Do you have the names of the dissidents arrested and the circumstances?

MR. BURNS: I believe we have the names of the dissidents who have been arrested. We're choosing not to make them public for one reason which I think, George, you'll understand, and that is we are urging the Cuban Government to release them. We think these people ought to have the right to remain in Cuba. If we go public with their names, it perhaps puts them in a position of further jeopardy, which they should not be in.

QUESTION: These are Cubans?

MR. BURNS: These are Cuban citizens. These are Cuban citizens living in Cuba who have been arrested because of their inclination towards democracy.

QUESTION: Nick, did the Canadian Government express concern to you in some way about your choice of words yesterday, specifically (inaudible).

MR. BURNS: Actually, no, and let me tell you I expressed some concern - me and others - to Canadian Government officials here in Washington and in - I called our Charge d'Affaires, Tom Weston, in Ottawa, because I was concerned by how the stories played, frankly. We had an interesting discussion yesterday, and I felt I made over and over again the points about respect for the Canadian Government; the point about we weren't contesting the fact that Minister Axworthy was traveling there, and I noted positively Minister Axworthy's concern for human rights, and the fact that he was going down there to raise human rights issues.

I felt, frankly, that I didn't see in most of the press reports that those particular points got a lot of attention. They were buried at the end of some of the reports. Some of the other comments that I made in general about our own policy towards Cuba and the fact that we do not have a policy of engagement but one of isolation, those points were up front.

I was concerned about that, so I wanted the Canadian Government - the Embassy here in Washington - to understand exactly what I said and what was behind our statement, and I wanted our chief diplomat in Ottawa to understand that as well. So I took the initiative, and the Canadian Government did not express to me or I believe to anybody else that I've talked to in our government any displeasure over the remarks.

I think we understand something - the Canadian and U.S. Governments. We've had a 37-year discussion of this, which I imagine is going to continue as long as Castro's in power, and we'll respectfully disagree on some issues. But we are united in our concern for human rights, and I was trying to get that point across yesterday. Perhaps today it will get there - get into some of these news reports.

Henry.

QUESTION: When you're talking about inaccuracies in press coverage or at least treatment, you're clearly talking about the American press, one presumes, and not the Canadian press.

MR. BURNS: Well, Henry, I think - no, I had a very liberal view of that question yesterday. I think it was transnational. I think it was binational in this case.

QUESTION: That aside aside, it is reported that you actually phoned the Canadian Embassy in Havana. Is that correct?

MR. BURNS: In Havana?

QUESTION: In Havana.

MR. BURNS: No, that's not correct. I called the Canadian Embassy here in Washington out of respect for them and because of our very close working relationship with Ambassador Chretien and his staff, and I also called, as I said, our Embassy in Ottawa. We didn't want to have any misunderstanding, because I think the press played this issue a lot harder, frankly, than it deserved to be played.

QUESTION: Can I turn your attention to the joint statement coming out, which is not yet public and no one knows what is in it, obviously. What does the State Department intend to do when that document comes forward?

MR. BURNS: We intend to look at it, to read it, to analyze it, think about it and, if it's appropriate, we'll have something to say. But I would think that would be tomorrow. Our understanding from our Canadian colleagues is that this statement will come out later this afternoon - 4:00, 4:30, 5:00 - it's always difficult to know when it will happen. I think we want to take some time to talk to the Canadian Government about the statement, about what it understands the statement to be, to hear what Minister Axworthy says, and perhaps tomorrow we'll have something additional to say about it.

QUESTION: Given the mindset that you've expressed here in suggesting that you do not believe that this visit has any real hope of achieving anything in the area of human rights or convincing the Castro Government to change whatever it is that you feel they're not doing - if that statement had positive remarks in it, is it conceivable that the State Department or the American Government could join in aspects of what's in that statement?

MR. BURNS: We'll have to see the statement first and make our own judgments about it, but I do want to correct the record on one thing. I didn't say anything in today's briefing certainly. I was very careful not to say anything negative about Minister Axworthy's visit.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

MR. BURNS: When I talked about the fact that we remain skeptical about the intentions of the Cuban Government, that reflects the point of view of the United States Government in our experience with the Cuban Government over 37 years.

QUESTION: Nick, did you ask the Canadian Government to ask Minister Axworthy to raise the issue of the recent arrests?

MR. BURNS: I didn't bring that up. I'm not aware that we've done that. I don't know if we've done that or not, frankly. We've had a lot of conversations with the Canadian Government.

QUESTION: Is it possible that you've done that?

MR. BURNS: In the realm of the possible - there are so many conversations on a daily basis between Canadian and American diplomats, I simply don't know what is said in all of them. Whether we asked him to raise these cases, I just don't know. Just don't know.

QUESTION: Perhaps on following up on that question, you could give us some advice on what takes place, as you suggested, when Canada informs the United States that, indeed, the visit is going forward. Is that an opportunity for you, then, to speak your mind on what may or may not occur there, and did you?

MR. BURNS: Did we in the past, you mean?

QUESTION: You've told us over two days now that Canada gave you forewarning about going on this trip. Perhaps you could just explain to us the manner of that, and did you raise objections at that time to any aspect of the trip?

MR. BURNS: I don't know what was said in the conversations between Canadian and American diplomats. I understand the Canadians alerted us to the Minister's trip. We're grateful for that. I expect we'll have a briefing by the Canadian Government privately on what transpired during the trip, as one would expect, in relations between two close allies like the United States and Canada.

QUESTION: What would you like to see in that statement - joint statement - from Mr. Axworthy and the Cuban Foreign Minister?

MR. BURNS: I think I'll just have to defer that question until tomorrow. This is a Canadian effort with the Cuban Government. I don't want to prejudge it in any way. Since we have no idea what's going to be in the statement, it's very difficult or us to try to give some public advice to the Canadian Government.

QUESTION: I don't want to haggle this point, Mr. Burns -

MR. BURNS: Not at all, Henry.

QUESTION: You say you don't want to prejudge -

MR. BURNS: This is not a good story in Canada. I can't imagine that Canadian TV would be interested in this story.

QUESTION: I appreciate that. But you say you don't want to prejudge and yet you have clearly said, today and yesterday, that you have grave doubts, I think was your exact word, about anything fruitful coming out of this. Now, on the other hand, you say, "Well, I don't want to prejudge this issue."

MR. BURNS: No. I've been very careful -

QUESTION: Isn't the -

MR. BURNS: -- the textual analysis of my remarks yesterday and today. That would be interesting. But I've been very careful to describe U.S. Government views and U.S. Government

policy. Since we don't know what's going to come out of this communique, we're going to have to let that issue just rest until later on today or tomorrow. But I am describing, as you would expect me to describe, an American Government view of the nature of the Cuban Government. We don't think that Cuba has changed its stripes in the last 37 years.

With the repression of the Concilio Cubano in February of last year, with the recent arrest of these democracy activists over the last two weeks, there's no concrete evidence, Henry, that the Cuban Government is acting differently than its autocratic nature; therefore, I'm just expressing American Government views which I think is within the purview of the State Department Spokesman.

QUESTION: Apologies to my colleagues for one final statement. Doesn't, no matter what effort is made in Cuba by any country to do something about human rights, deserve the support of this country in terms of hoping that it may be against the mind set of the United States, nonetheless something positive?

MR. BURNS: Yesterday, about three times and today at least twice, but let's make it three today, I have said - and this reflects the thinking of all of our leadership here at the State Department and at the White House - that we are pleased that Minister Axworthy is raising these human rights issues. We're pleased that the European Union has done so. We're pleased that the Latin countries, at the Ibero-Latin summit in November, raised these issues. It's the third time today that I've said that. That's the reflection of our very strong view on this.

QUESTION: Same topic, but you may have covered this prior to the Christmas break. It relates the Pope's possible visit to Cuba. Do you have anything to say about that?

MR. BURNS: You're trying to make trouble for me, aren't you, Sid?

QUESTION: No it's pertinent.

MR. BURNS: Rule Number One of Spokesman from the State Department podium: Never criticize the Pope. I will not do that. We have the highest respect for the Pope; the highest respect for him. We wouldn't even think of even entertaining an answer to your question. We have the highest respect for the Pope.

QUESTION: You're serious?

MR. BURNS: I'm serious. Glyn (Davies), would you agree with this as the Rule Number One of Spokesman?

MR. DAVIES: One, two, and three.

MR. BURNS: One, two, and three. All right, I got it. Especially if you're Boston Irish like me. Grew up in the Catholic Church; exactly.

QUESTION: Do you have a comment?

We have the highest respect for the Pope, His Holiness, the Pope. We have the highest respect for his democracy mission during his tenure as the Holy Father. He has shown his commitment to human rights and democracy all over the world, beginning in his native Poland. So there is no reason for us to question in any way his intentions to travel to Cuba.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR. BURNS: As I said, we have the highest respect for His Holiness, the Pope.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the Catholics in Cuba -

MR. BURNS: I'm just going to have to let my very clear concise remarks stand for the record as the U.S. Government's view on this issue. I understand the need to make headlines but we're going to be true to our policy.

QUESTION: Can I move to another man with whom you have the greatest respect? Kofi Annan is arriving in Washington today. He'll meet the President tomorrow.

MR. BURNS: Yes, he is.

QUESTION: Now you have the man in charge at the U.N. that you wanted. Do you think American relations with the U.N. will settle down or do you think opposition in Congress to repay money to the U.N. will continue to provide problems?

MR. BURNS: You're right. Secretary General Kofi Annan will be in Washington tomorrow. He'll meet with President Clinton at the White House. He will also meet here at the Department with Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Peter Tarnoff, and Under Secretary for Global Affairs, Tim Wirth.

He is someone that we respect greatly. Secretary Christopher met him two weeks ago at the United Nations. Deputy Secretary Talbott had his own meeting with Mr. Annan at the United Nations.

We think that this is a new page in U.S. relations with the United Nations because we believe that Mr. Annan is committed to reform of the institution. He also has a sterling record as a U.N. diplomat in peacekeeping and in other parts of the U.N. bureaucracy, and we look forward to working with him. The President, Secretary-designate Madeleine Albright, former Secretary Warren Christopher have all spoken to the fact that the United States wants to meet its financial obligations to the United Nations and that we will work toward that. We've made that commitment to Secretary General Annan. We take that commitment very seriously.

Tomorrow's discussions give us a chance to talk about that issue, about the very serious responsibilities that the United Nations has for peace and stability in the world, both in regional conflicts, on some of the global issues that Secretary Christopher and Secretary-designate Madeleine Albright have talked about, and the important lead role that the United Nations should take on those issues. So this is a meeting of friends. It's a new time and era in United States relations with the U.N., and we intend to meet our commitments to that institution.

QUESTION: How confident is the State Department that it can persuade Congress that this is a new era?

MR. BURNS: I think that is going to be a challenge because there is a lot of skepticism in the Congress about the United Nations. But they're going to see a new U.N. Secretary General when Mr. Annan visits Capitol Hill and meets with the Congressional leadership. The Administration, of course, will be reminding the Congress that we are the - in many ways, Franklin Roosevelt was the inspiration, conceptualizer of the United Nations. We are one of the founding nations. We are the host nation. We're the largest country, or at least the most powerful country in the United Nations. We have an obligation to meet our commitments. That gets to finances, and it gets to a good faith effort on the part of the United States to be a good partner to the other countries and the institutions. I don't think there's anybody in our government who feels those responsibilities more seriously than our Secretary-designate Madeleine Albright.

QUESTION: Was he not suppose to meet with Ambassador Albright tomorrow?

MR. BURNS: Secretary-designate Albright/Ambassador Albright is awaiting confirmation by the Senate. The Senate, I understand, has begun debate on her nomination. We expect the vote will take place probably beginning in the next hour or two. If she is confirmed - if she is confirmed by the United States Senate, then I would expect she would be sworn in tomorrow and she would assume her responsibilities as Secretary of State.

If that is the case, then it may be possible for her to attend some of these meetings but maybe not. I don't know about the meeting at the State Department, but perhaps a meeting at the White House. We'll just have to see how things go today.

QUESTION: Nick, when is -

MR. BURNS: But she doesn't want to presume in any way, shape, or form her confirmation by the Senate. That is a constitutional duty that the Senate must perform without undue interference from those of us at the State Department.

QUESTION: When does Secretary-designate Albright expect to start making announcements of her appointments?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe she's made that decision yet. She is not confirmed. She must respect the wishes of the Senate and the role of the Senate. Once that confirmation process is over and the vote is taken, she'll begin to think about her first meetings and any other issues. But she has been very, very careful not to presume that.

QUESTION: Are you trying to say that she has given no thought at all to who she is going to name to top jobs in critical -

MR. BURNS: No, I'm not trying to say that whatsoever. I'm just saying that she's careful and I've been very careful on her behalf publicly to give due deference to the constitutional role that the Senate must play. So it wouldn't be appropriate for us to talk about any of these issues until she is confirmed, if she is to be confirmed by the Senate.

QUESTION: Nick, if I could take you back to the German-Czech agreement, or whatever you want to call it. Just a point of historical interpretation on the Administration's part. Do you think it was appropriate for the Germans to demand that the Czechs apologize, I guess is the right word, for the expulsion of Germans prior to the war, and for the Czechs to come forward with that statement and apology?

MR. BURNS: It is not for the United States to position itself as some kind of judge or arbiter about these incredibly complex political, social, ethnic, and emotional issues stemming from what happened during the Second World War and what happened in the aftermath of the war in Czechoslovakia at the time.

We just note that two very good friends of the United States have made an agreement at the highest levels; that they've asked their parliaments to ratify that agreement; that they've asked their peoples to carry on a relationship between each other in a spirit of that agreement. That's frankly good enough for us. I don't think it's appropriate for us to cast judgment on complex issues like this when so many years have gone by, when you have Chancellor Kohl and Prime Minister Klaus and President Havel now taking that responsibility on themselves. There are emotions on all sides of this issue, as you know, on the Sudeten question and others. But we simply cannot put ourselves in a position to comment on that.

QUESTION: Nick, there are a number of articles in the British and French press in the last couple of days exposing the work of a group called "Excutive Outcomes" which is characterized as a multinational war comprised of former South African intelligence officers, former SIS officers which are closely connected. They're said to advise the Rwandan Patriotic Front -SPL. They're heavily financed by raw material concerns.

In light of the instabilities in countries like Zaire and Sudan, I wonder if the United States is aware of the operations of "Executive Outcomes" and if it's concerned that they might be conducting some of their operations to destabilize countries in the hope of winning new gains in the rich raw materials existing in these countries?

MR. BURNS: I am not aware of the existence of this group. I've not heard any reports privately about the operations of any such group.

Yes, Howard.

QUESTION: You issued a statement on Israel. Can you at least give the short version of that?

MR. BURNS: It's very difficult to - it's so complex, but let me just try to do that and then we'll post it. I've got a lot of things I can say, perhaps now or later.

As we understand it, under Israel's judicial system, the rabbinical courts exercise jurisdiction over all Jewish citizens and residents of Israel in cases of marriage, divorce, and related issues such as child support and child custody. There's been recent cases that have come to our attention of our Consulate General in Jerusalem and our Embassy in Tel Aviv involving American Jews who entered Israel as tourists and who have been prevented from leaving Israel because of cases filed against them in the rabbinical courts of Israel that are pending jurisdictional ruling. So these are cases, for the most part, where private citizens, usually in divorce cases or child custody cases, bring a claim against an American citizen. That person - man or woman - who finds themselves in Israel as a tourist, they're forced to stay in Israel to submit to the jurisdiction of the rabbinical court on a matter that may have already been decided or ruled in an American court.

In these cases, some of the American citizens have been forced to remain in Israel for prolonged periods of time while the Israeli courts consider the question of jurisdiction. We simply feel an obligation to remind the American traveling public as well as American citizens living in Israel, particularly those who are of the Jewish faith, that this situation exists and that they may fall under the jurisdiction or the claim of jurisdiction of these courts. It's very complicated, so we are issuing today a consular notice to the American public advising them of this situation.

QUESTION: Are these cases where one of the parties is seeking a rabbinical divorce? Is that what's happened here?

MR. BURNS: I assume that to be the case. But since I'm not an expert on rabbinical law or on the Israeli judicial system, I don't want to give a legal interpretation. But, Judd, I think you're in the ballpark. I think you're in the ballpark.

It's our understanding - let me just read this - that in cases where it has jurisdiction under Israeli law, the rabbinical court may impose sanctions, including jail terms and restrictions on leaving the country on persons married in Jewish religious ceremonies who, in case of divorce, refuse to give their spouses a religious divorce. We understand this was the basis for some of these stop orders that have already been issued by these rabbinical courts.

So we just feel an obligation to American Jews, among others, to bring this matter to their attention because it could have a bearing on a certain number of people in our own country.

QUESTION: Nick, part of the by-product of Netanyahu's election has been a tightening of rabbinical law. That's a fact, in granting and exercising broader powers by the rabbinical court. Would you agree with that - I don't know how you can disagree - and do you have maybe a broad statement on the impact of his rule on these matters?

MR. BURNS: I think that Rule No. 5 of Spokesman is never criticize Chief Rabbis in the State of Israel, never criticize Imams in Muslim countries, or Popes, or Archbishops or Cardinals. That's a pretty good rule. I think Glyn and I have tried to maintain Rule No. 5 as well. So I will respectfully decline answering that question, Sid. I think you understand why.

QUESTION: But you won't go to the defense of the Dalai Lama?

MR. BURNS: You're really trying to get me into trouble this week. There's a pattern in this room. You're trying to get me fired during the transition; right? You're doing a good job.

We've spoken repeatedly about the Dalai Lama. I can just refer you to all of the very clear and concise statements that we've made about Tibet and about religious freedom and about Mr. Choephel and about the Dalai Lama. We've had a lot to say on that.

Carol. Are we getting off religion and back to politics and government and foreign policy?

QUESTION: Exactly.

MR. BURNS: Good.

QUESTION: In her questions, written questions to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Ambassador Albright talks about a new initiative for the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union. She suggests this will be to move them from economic stabilization to economic growth. I was wondering if you could provide anymore details about this? How much it's going to cost, and any of the particulars?

MR. BURNS: Yes, I also noted that in the written responses. Carol, we're working on getting you and everyone else a response to that. I would prefer, perhaps, we await the decision of the Senate today and then perhaps the Secretary-designate, or people she appoints, will be in a position to talk about that.

Strobe Talbott is also in Moscow. I want to get a chance to talk to him before we go into this in much detail, but we will get you an answer on that question.

QUESTION: Does this have any connection to the whole NATO enlargement question, comprehensive package -

MR. BURNS: I don't believe it's inextricably bound to it. We have had, since President Clinton took office and, indeed, President Bush followed this policy, we've had a very aggressive policy of support for democracy, press freedoms, economic change and reform in all of these countries of the former Soviet Union. We've had the largest single bilateral assistance program of any country in the world to these 12 countries.

I know that Secretary-designate Albright was speaking in that spirit. But I do want to get you an answer on the specific question of what is this new initiative; what's the money behind it, and what are the concrete parts of the program. So I will get that to you.

QUESTION: Can you say, Nick, whether this is a Madeleine Albright idea or a Clinton Administration proposal?

MR. BURNS: In a couple of hours, the two will be synonymous. If she becomes Secretary of State, she will speak for the Clinton Administration.

QUESTION: In her written responses, she was speaking for Madeleine - I mean, theoretically, she would be speaking for Madeleine Albright.

MR. BURNS: And, of course, reflecting the views of the U.S. Government. I think this is a proposal that has been worked on for a while. Because she mentioned it in these written questions, it means that she has given her support to it which is a very significant thing, considering the position she's going to hold.

Yes, sir, and then Laura.

QUESTION: On a new topic. The South African Cabinet has this morning postponed the decision on possible arm sales to Syria. Your reaction to that? Is it disappointing for the State Department, or perhaps encouraging that they may be listening to you?

MR. BURNS: I would just say that we note the action taken by the Cabinet today. We've understood from the press and the South African Government that this decision has been taken. We will continue to discuss this issue privately with the South African Government. Our position, of course has not changed, but we'll look forward to continuing productive and, we hope, cooperative discussions on this issue with the South African leadership.

QUESTION: Do you have any information as to why it's being deferred, because a decision was expected today?

MR. BURNS: I do not. But I'd refer you to the South African Government spokespeople on this issue for that analysis.

Laura, and then Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: On the subject of the Serbian students visit today. Can you tell us, did they have any specific requests of the U.S. Government, perhaps, that there be more pressure put on Mr. Milosevic? Or was there a specific request for - I read something in the wires yesterday about some students meeting with a representative of the State Department requesting perhaps some funds to help them in their independent media. Was any of that discussed today?

MR. BURNS: I don't know if they made specific financial requests or programmatic or policy requests of Mr. Kornblum. I know that they are very appreciative of the public role the United States has taken.

As you know, we've also taken steps to support Radio B-92 and BOOM and the other remaining independent radio and TV stations. We believe press freedoms are important. We'll continue to do that through RFE, Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe, and through the Voice of America and through the State Department.

QUESTION: Given the fact that you have consistently criticized the actions of the Serbian Government and the fact that you're concerned and you've expressed your concern for the last couple of days that there is starting to be a use of force against the demonstrators, is there any consideration of taking additional measures against the Serbian Government to get your message across? Is consideration of additional sanctions or -

MR. BURNS: We've basically gone to the mat on this issue. As you know, we've maintained the "outer wall" of sanctions which prevents international financial institutions from extending the economic assistance to the Serbian Government that it badly needs.

We have said that we will not have a normal relationship. We're not going to have an Ambassador in Belgrade. We have encouraged the strongest possible action on the part of the OSCE. We've been publicly, and I think unusually in these matters, critical of the Serbian Government but for good reason.

So I think we've taken the steps that we want to take but have expressed our displeasure, and there is no hope for a normal relationship between Serbia and the United States as long as these clearly anti-democratic actions continue.

Yes, Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: How do you respond to Ankara's blackmail of not allowing NATO enlargement in Europe unless Turkey becomes first an EU member?

MR. BURNS: I'm not aware, Mr. Lambros, that that is the position of the Turkish Government. We've never heard that from the Turkish Government. I was at the NATO meetings in December where NATO enlargement was discussed, and Mrs. Ciller made no such statement to her NATO colleagues. So I wouldn't believe everything you read in the press about these matters.

QUESTION: Did you have the chance to find out if Mr. Cavanaugh discussed with Mr. Pangalos a moratorium over the Aegean Sea, too?

MR. BURNS: Yes, thank you, I did, and Mr. Cavanaugh did not request that the Cypriot Greek and Turkish Governments consider an extension of the flight moratorium from the territory of Cyprus to the territory of the Aegean. He did not make that request. We're talking about a moratorium that pertains to the airspace above Cyprus.

QUESTION: Then my question is, what is your position for a moratorium over the Aegean, as it was proposed by Professor Khristos Rozakis?

MR. BURNS: Our position is that the flight moratorium on Cyprus is a proposal that can make a difference in improving the relations between Greece and Turkey and Cyprus with Turkey. Our ideas in the Aegean are well known. We think that Greece and Turkey should identify together steps to reduce their tensions in the Aegean. If they wish to have the United States as a partner in that process, we'd be most willing to do that.

QUESTION: But for moratorium over the Aegean, what is your position?

MR. BURNS: Our position is that Greece and Turkey should decide the appropriate steps to diminish their rivalry and competition and uneasiness with each other on the Aegean in particular.

QUESTION: Instead of moratorium of not using weapons, why you do not propose moratorium on not buying weapons?

MR. BURNS: One moratorium at a time, Mr. Lambros. You know we're trying to work out a moratorium on Cyprus. We think this proposal is a winner. We think it's good for everybody concerned. We'll concentrate our efforts on that through the offices of our American Ambassador Ken Brill.

QUESTION: According to Defense Minister today, the Turkish Government ordered new advanced U.S.-made weapons over $500 million of value. I'm wondering why, as in the case of Cyprus, you do not ask Ankara not to buy them for a specific period of time?

MR. BURNS: I think Glyn's (Davies) gone, but I think Rule No. 7 is that each correspondent only gets two questions. You had four. I'm just being facetious. But, Mr. Lambros, Turkey is a NATO ally of the United States, and we have a defense relationship with Turkey. There will be arms sales between the United States and Turkey, and Turkey will purchase arms from other countries. You can't generalize about these issues. Turkey has legitimate defense needs, as does Greece, as does Cyprus. We've made a determination in the case of the antiaircraft system for Cyprus that it is not helpful to the search for a peace on Cyprus.

QUESTION: As a last, I was told that Mr. Cavanaugh proposed the creation of two mini-states in Cyprus on the federal basis system. Therefore, I'm wondering how the territorial integrity of that federal city or state would co-exist with the -

MR. BURNS: I cannot confirm those reports. I can only say that Mr. Cavanaugh's mission was meant to reiterate the well known American concern over the last three decades to play a role in the search for peace in Cyprus and to diminish the conflicts along the boundary lines that have resulted in the deaths of two people in the last six months, and to search for a solution on some of these overflight problems.

QUESTION: The boundary lines for Cyprus - it's an area for invasion, occupation.

MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, this will be the last question. Please don't infer any political importance to these statements. They're commonly referred to by all the parties just for practical reasons, to take note of the practical disposition of forces. That's what they're referring to. I didn't make that term up.

Yes, George.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the venue for the North Korea talks?

MR. BURNS: That still has not been agreed to or not been decided, and the day is January 29th, which is - what is January 29th - a week from today - and I suppose that sooner or later we'll have to arrive on an agreement on where to meet.

QUESTION: Rule No. 9 is never disclose the venue of the North Korea talks. (Laughter)

MR. BURNS: No, it's not. Actually, we're willing to disclose the venue of the talks once a decision has been made.

QUESTION: The people in New York think it's going to be up there.

MR. BURNS: Which people in New York - the reporters up there?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BURNS: Well, you know, don't believe everything you read in the press. I keep telling you.

Sid. Actually, you know, we had --

QUESTION: Could I go back to Lambros' question.

MR. BURNS: Okay, and then we'll go to the back of the room for questions.

QUESTION: On the question of NATO expansion and EU expansion. Is it still the - what is the Administration's position on parallel expansion of NATO and the EU?

MR. BURNS: Our position is that NATO enlargement is a decision to be taken by the 16 countries of NATO. The decision was made in January '94. The Madrid summit will identify the countries with which we wish to negotiate the terms of NATO membership as NATO expands eastward.

The decision on European Union expansion is a decision not for the United States but for the European Union. We are not in a position to give them advice on this issue. They have to make their own decisions. It's a very difficult and complex issue for them. In general, we do hope that the European Union in general will reach out to the new democracies of Central Europe and the former Soviet Union and bring them in in some fashion to a system of integration of their economies with Europe, and that will also allow us to do the same with North America. That includes the Baltic countries as well as the other countries that I've mentioned.

QUESTION: Does it make any sense for the Administration - or what is the sense of telling some of these countries you're good enough for NATO but you're not good enough for the EU. I mean, there is this suggestion that the Europeans -

MR. BURNS: I'm not sure that that's happening exactly.

QUESTION: Well, let me -

MR. BURNS: I'm just not sure that's happening, actually. I'm just not sure that's the case.

QUESTION: There is this suggestion that the main motive the EU has in keeping its club closed is to protect itself from economic competition from countries where things can be produced less expensively and sold less expensively in Western European markets.

MR. BURNS: We've had a lot of discussions with the European Union over many, many years, and I think there's a strategic agreement between the United States and the EU in our transatlantic dialogue that all of us have a responsibility and a self-interest to bring these developing economies and developing democracies into the Western institutions in some fashion. That's what NATO enlargement is all about; that's what EU enlargement's all about, and our own policies here in the United States reflect that commitment to make sure that the economies of these countries have a fair shot at competing with ours. That's good for them, and it's good for us in the long term.

But please don't take anything I say in that regard as any kind of slight towards the EU. The EU makes it own decisions. We have a consultative process, but the United States is not a member of the EU, so we must respectfully stand aside and watch the EU as it develops. I think your question is more appropriately aimed - should be aimed at the EU representative here in Washington or at some spokesperson in Brussels.

QUESTION: I have one on Sudan. What is your comment on the recent military advances of the SPLA in Sudan? And the other part of the question would be, how do you feel about the aggressive atmosphere in the neighborhood there? I'm thinking of Sudan on the one side and Eritrea and Ethiopia on the other.

MR. BURNS: As I said yesterday - we did talk about this a little yesterday, and I don't think our position has changed since yesterday. The United States is very concerned about the recent fighting in eastern Sudan. We have urged all parties to avoid harm to civilians and to avoid harm to private property; to treat all prisoners of war according to international convention, and to resolve their disputes amicably at the negotiating table but not on the battlefield. That's our general position which we have communicated to all concerned.

It's no secret that the United States Government has had a lot of problems with the way that the Sudanese Government has treated its own population and treated us and treated the Egyptian Government. We have a lot of problems with the Government of Sudan that need to be worked out, and it's no secret that they've had a lot of internal civil problems, particularly in the south and southeast, because of the policies of the Sudanese Government.

But I say this - going back to the major point - we don't support armed rebellion. We don't support any kind of civil war. We're not actively supporting it. In fact, we're encouraging those who would foment a civil war to go back to the negotiating table.

Speaking of diplomatic immunity, I have nothing further to say at this point about the Georgia or New York cases, because we haven't received the police reports. But I was asked yesterday about "Operation Foreigner" in Moscow. I don't believe the Foreign Ministry in Moscow has told our Embassy in Moscow that there's any formal operation going on, but I would just note anecdotally that the Moscow traffic police have stopped American Embassy employees, American diplomats and a lot of your colleagues - American journalists, Western journalists - with a very high degree of frequency over the last couple of days.

There have been lots of document checks, and I even understand some policemen have made comments, "Now you know how it feels to be a Russian living in New York." Kind of interesting. I would just say that in light of this marked increase in the number of reports from our Embassy staff who have been asked to stop for document checks on the streets of Moscow, we expect our diplomats in Moscow to abide by Russian laws. We expect Russian diplomats in New York and Washington and San Francisco and Houston and other places to abide by American laws, and I think we can agree with the Russian Government on that.

If there is an "Operation Foreigner," we would respectfully hope that it would stop, and we can assure the Russian Government that Russian diplomats are not being singled out on the streets of New York or in the streets of Washington, D.C.

QUESTION: Is this something that Deputy Secretary Talbott was going to raise?

MR. BURNS: I don't know. I mean, he had a lot on his plate. I don't know, but I think that other people in our Embassy have - our Embassy officials have made these concerns known to the Russian Government. But it's not an incredibly serious matter. I was just trying to follow up on the question asked yesterday and make sure I gave you a good response to the good question that was asked.

QUESTION: Is the onus on the Moscow city government or the Russian Government?

MR. BURNS: It's hard to say in these cases. We certainly expect that our police authorities will treat all diplomats equally and with no sense of bias. I have no indication that that's not the case, so it's hard to say. I mean, you'll have to ask that question of the Russian Government, but I would note the marked increase in people being stopped.

QUESTION: When you say "marked increase," a "high degree of frequency," and so forth, do you have numbers to back that up? You're talking about a few, a few dozen?

MR. BURNS: I don't have specific numbers, but the numbers are high enough to amount to some concern on the part of our Embassy officials in Moscow. But again this can be resolved, I think, with a little good will on both sides and with the reaffirmation of the basic diplomatic truth, and that is when you go and serve in a country, you have to abide by that country's laws. That's true of Americans. That's true of anybody else in our country.

QUESTION: None of these incidents, though, has been of the degree of seriousness of the New York incident, though.

MR. BURNS: No, nothing like that at all that I'm aware of.

QUESTION: In these talks with the Russians about this by the Embassy, they were never able to determine if there was in fact - I mean, did they ask if there was an "Operation Foreigner"?

MR. BURNS: I understand that we have not been informed by the Russian Foreign Ministry that so-called "Operation Foreigner," as reported by Michael Goldfarb on NPR on Friday, is in existence. We've not been told it exists.

QUESTION: There have been several reports on this, actually.

MR. BURNS: Yes. That's the one I listened to, which I thought was an interesting report.

QUESTION: The Washington Post.

MR. BURNS: The Washington Post, right. Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 2:11 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 Wednesday, 22 January 1997 - 23:19:29 UTC