U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #13, 97-01-23
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1455
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
January 23, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS and STATEMENTS
1-3 Secretary of State Albright
3 Deputy Secretary Talbott's Talks in Moscow
3 UN War Crimes Tribunal for Rwanda
3-4,10 Reported Landing of Libyan Aircraft in Ghana
4 Statement on Conflict in Eastern Zaire
TERRORISM
4,10 Sanctions Against Syria and Sudan/Financial Investments
13-14 --Alleged Waivers Granted to U.S. Businesses
14-18 --Application of Sanctions
23 --Effect of Sanctions
CUBA
4-6,8 Canadian Foreign Minister Axworthy's Visit/Progress on Human Rights
6-8 U.S.and Canadian Policies towards Cuba
8 International Initiatives Toward Cuba
9-10 U.S.-Canadian Relations
SUDAN
11-13 Foreign Involvement in the Region
22-24 Allegations Regarding Possible U.S. Role in Conflict
SAUDI ARABIA
18-19 Cooperation in Investigation of al-Khobar Bombing
SERBIA
19 Demonstrations/Actions by Serb Authorities
GREECE/TURKEY/CYPRUS
19-21 Flight Moratorium/U.S. Role in Conflict
ALGERIA
21-22 Terrorist Attacks
SYRIA
22 Alleged Whereabouts of Alios Brunner
SOUTH KOREA
24 OECD Deliberations on Labor Laws
BOSNIA
24 Humanitarian Assistance
COLOMBIA
24-25 German Role in Negotiations
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #13
THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 1997, 1:54 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon everybody. Welcome to the State Department
briefing. I want to begin by congratulating Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright for being sworn in this morning. I had a chance to speak to her
just a couple of minutes ago and to congratulate her. She is the
64th American Secretary of State. She's really welcome here at
the Department.
Of course, a lot of us know her well from her tenure as our Ambassador to
the United Nations. She is someone who we believe is going to be committed
to the Foreign Service and the Civil Service, as she said and as the
President said in the Oval Office remarks.
She is probably as well prepared for this job as anyone in recent history
considering the fact that she has been our chief diplomat at the United
Nations. She's been a foreign policy thinker and teacher for all of her
adult life, and her own personal story is so compelling. There's a lot of
excitement in the State Department about Secretary Albright being with us.
We think she's going to be a vigorous advocate for the United States and
for the State Department. All of us want to congratulate her and welcome
her.
She's upstairs right now. She's going to be spending the afternoon doing
a couple of things.
She'll be saying goodbye to Winston Lord who is our departing Assistant
Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.
Winston Lord, as I mentioned last week in my testimonial for him, has done
a magnificent job. Secretary Albright will be wishing him well and
speaking with him.
She's also going to get together with a group of her senior advisors in
about an hour to talk about some important issues and to plan the next
couple of days. Tomorrow will be her first full day on the job. She'll be
coming down here to the Briefing Room at around 1:30 to make some remarks
to you and to give a press conference and to answer your questions. She
wanted to come here first, to the Briefing Room, to talk to the people who
cover the State Department on a daily basis. That's going to be her first
press opportunity as Secretary of State since she was sworn in.
QUESTION: Did you give her a map of Virginia?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me, Barry?
QUESTION: To get to MacNeil/Lehrer show. She doesn't have a map of
Virginia?
MR. BURNS: I can say ON-THE-RECORD, and with no disrespect intended for
Jim Lehrer or Elizabeth Farnsworth, she will not be going first to the WETA
studies in Arlington. She's going to be coming right down here, Barry.
You're going to ask the first question. She wanted to come down here and
talk to all of you who cover the State Department on a daily basis. If
you don't want to be here, Barry, it's your -
QUESTION: I want to be here.
MR. BURNS: You want to be here, good.
QUESTION: What I'd like from you now - (inaudible) is about what you
have (inaudible) more on "B" matter.
We're interested, some of us, who write stories more than 30 words - want
to get into some of the "B" matter. Has she moved in, when you say she's
upstairs? Is she set up there now?
MR. BURNS: I don't think she has yet.
QUESTION: Does she have a parking space? What can you tell us about -
MR. BURNS: I think we gave her a parking pass.
QUESTION: The tricky track she -
MR. BURNS: She has a parking pass. She has her own car now, and she
has a protective detail. She'll be parking in the basement every morning.
At some point, she's going to be moving upstairs. I don't believe she's
done that yet.
QUESTION: She hasn't literally moved in yet?
MR. BURNS: Since she was sworn in as Secretary of State about two hours
ago, her first meeting was to participate in the President's meeting with
Secretary General Kofi Annan. Then she came back here to the Department.
I believe she had some photographs taken. We spoke on the phone. She's
going off to see Winston Lord. She'll be meeting with her advisors later
on.
But I wanted to just finish my thoughts about tomorrow, Barry.
I thought that was significant for all of you.
QUESTION: It is. We're appreciative.
MR. BURNS: The fact that she'll come down here and give a press
conference. She did want her first press conference to be right here with
the State Department Press Corps.
QUESTION: Any telephone calls that she made, or receive any congratulatory
calls you can tell us about?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any. I think she's been very busy. She's
been with the President and the Vice President and with Kofi Annan. So
that's what she has been doing, and I want to welcome her here to the State
Department on behalf of all of my colleagues in the Foreign and Civil
Service.
I also spoke to Strobe Talbott who is in Moscow -- spoke to him a couple
of hours ago. He has had good, useful, constructive talks in Moscow over
the last couple of days. He will continue that tomorrow morning, and I
think returns to the United States tomorrow night. As you know, he's met
with the most of the spectrum of the Russian leadership - Prime Minister
Chernomyrdin, Foreign Minister Primakov, Defense Minister Rodionov, Deputy
Foreign Minister Georgiy Mamedov.
They've been talking - Strobe Talbott and Leon Fuerth, the Vice President's
National Security Advisor - about the Gore-Chernomyrdin meeting that's
going to take place in about ten days/two weeks time. They've also been
talking about European security issues - NATO enlargement, the Russia-NATO
Charter, the negotiations that began between NATO and Russia just a couple
of days ago when Javier Solana, the NATO Secretary General, was in
Moscow.
I just want to update you on Strobe's trip. A couple of announcements.
One very significant concerning the search for justice in Rwanda.
Just this morning, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda informed
the State Department that Colonel Theoneste Bagasora has been safely
transferred to Arusha, Tanzania, where he is being detained until he is put
on trial before the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal for Rwanda.
Three other defendants were transferred from Cameroon to Arusha as well.
According to the indictment issued by the International Tribunal, Colonel
Bagasora was one of the main planners of the 1994 genocide against the
Rwandan people.
The United States Government assisted the Tribunal with security
arrangements for the transfer of Colonel Bagasora. We commend the Tribunal
and the Government of Cameroon which arrested him for bringing him to
justice. He and 11 other defendants are now being detained. They are
awaiting trial for genocide. They're in special cells in a Tanzanian
prison in Arusha, in Tanzania.
This is a highly significant development because it will strengthen, we
hope, the International Tribunal for the Rwandan war crimes and because we
must all contribute to the search for justice and prosecute those who are
responsible for the deaths of up to half a million people nearly three
years ago.
Two other notes. The United States has seen reports that a Libyan
airliner was permitted to land and take off from Ghana's Accra Airport last
Tuesday, January 21. We are investigating this report to confirm the
facts.
If confirmed, this would be a serious violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 748 which prohibits Libyan aircraft from engaging in
international flights, and we will pursue the matter in the Security
Council and in the Sanctions Committee at the United Nations if these
reports are confirmed.
You know why these sanctions are in place. The Libyan Government and
agents of the Libyan Government brought down Pan Am Flight 103 in December
1988. Four of my colleagues were killed in that flight and many other
Americans and many other people from around the world. The Libyan
Government has to be held accountable for that crime of international
terrorism.
Finally, I am not going to read in full but will post a statement on
Zaire. It concerns the profound worries that the United States has that
the conflict in Zaire may be escalating. There is increased combat in
Eastern Zaire which threatens the civilian population, including those who
are displaced Rwandan refugees.
We renew our call today for an immediate cease-fire in Eastern Zaire, for
dialogue among the belligerents there, to achieve a peaceful, political
settlement of this crisis. We also call for the withdrawal of any foreign
forces, including mercenaries who have come into Zaire.
From the start of this crisis, the United States has urged the neighboring
governments not to join the conflict in Eastern Zaire. We have pressed them
to use their influence to restrain the rebel forces operating in the
Kivus.
The United States strongly reaffirms its recognition of the territorial
integrity of Zaire and the inviolability of the existing borders of all
states in Central Africa. This is consistent, of course, with the
declaration of the African leaders who met in Nairobi about two months ago.
The full statement is going to be posted after this conference as is the
short statement pertaining to the incident with the Libyan aircraft.
QUESTION: Nick, I would have like to juxtaposed what you said about
terrorism sanctions and Libya for the U.S.'s own terrorist sanctions with
regard to Syria and Sudan. But I really would like, first, if I may, see
what you might add to what the President has said about the Canadian
Foreign Minister's visit to Cuba. He gave it mixed reviews, as I'm sure
you know. I wasn't sure - "skeptical," I think was his word, that
much had been accomplished.
Is there anything concrete there on human rights? Can you elaborate a
little bit on what the U.S. review is of what transpired in Havana?
MR. BURNS: The President has spoken for the United States in that. The
President welcomed the fact that Foreign Minister Axworthy raised the human
rights issue with the Cuban Government and we hope directly with Fidel
Castro himself, and that is a good thing. We are skeptical that the steps
agreed to by the Cuban Government will lead to meaningful improvements in
the human rights situation.
The United States sees nothing in the communique issued yesterday by the
Cuban and Canadian Governments which suggests an openness to any kind of
fundamental reform on the part of the Cuban Government.
Given that attitude by Fidel Castro and his colleagues, we do not believe
that high-level contacts of this sort are an effective device for promotion
of democracy in Cuba.
As you know, we remain concerned that all of us in the international
community maintain a public spotlight on the human rights agenda.
There's no reason to believe that exchanges and seminars on human rights
with leaders of an authoritarian regime are going to yield positive
results. There's no reason that we can see that the tiger here is going to
change its stripes.
I would just remind you of something I said two days ago, and that is,
there have been several arrests of leading democratic activists in Cuba
just in the last two weeks. That seems to be the inclination of the Cuban
Government, to arrest people who oppose it; arrest people who are
exercising internationally recognized rights of freedom of speech and
freedom of the press.
QUESTION: May I ask you - maybe this goes a little bit to motive, but do
with the question what you will. The U.S. impression of the visit was not
(inaudible) mistake. It was really a business trip. The Canadians
advertised this as an opportunity to make headway on human rights. Now
that it's all over, what was this trip about? Was it about improving
Canada's economic ties to Cuba? Was it only marginally about human rights?
Was it misrepresented by Ottawa?
MR. BURNS: First of all, Barry, I never described this as a business
trip.
QUESTION: There were two different views of it.
MR. BURNS: I would just direct you towards the statements that Foreign
Minister Axworthy has made in his public statements; direct you to the
joint statement made yesterday by the Cuban and Canadian Governments, and
really direct you to the Canadian Government. I think you ought to pay
attention to what the President said in this respect - in this respect to
one of the points he made, and that is, that we do think it's positive that
Foreign Minister Axworthy, who is a respected person here in Washington
and represents an ally of the United States, that he raised human rights.
That's the kind of thing that we think needs to happen with the Cuban
Government. So that's positive. But I think we've also given you our
sense of skepticism that the tiger is going to change its strips.
Henry.
QUESTION: There is a feeling, nonetheless, and I would preface this by
suggesting that you know of the statements that Mr. Axworthy made both in
Havana and this morning in Canada. I'm sure you've been briefed on what
exactly he said. He did tell the Canadian people that this is not the
start of an immediate solution, that it's a long process. He did make it
clear to them that these are the very beginnings of a kind of rapprochement,
leading to what I think you have always said is your goal, and that is the
restoration of human rights in Cuba.
But also implicit in what's going on in Canada is the feeling that this
building and yourself and others in the Administration are telling Canada
that Cuba is off-limits; they should not be involved in their own special
brand of foreign policy. It's hard to understand in many of the comments
that are being made in Canada why there is this sort of visceral feeling
about this Canadian trip when, indeed, the ends seem to be exactly the same
as what the United States is seeking.
MR. BURNS: First of all, the goals of the United States, I think
expressed from every Administration, from President Kennedy to President
Clinton, are obviously respect for human rights of the Cuban people but
also a transition to democratic rule in Cuba.
That is the fundamental objective of the United States and of most
countries around the world. We have in our hemisphere an oxymoron. We
have a state that looks like the states that dominated the Cold War in the
1950s, '60s and '70s - the communists regimes of eastern Europe, a state
that has nothing to do with modernization in our hemisphere or the
increasing democratization in our own hemisphere. Those are the goals of
the United States.
I want to be clear about something, Henry, and particularly for the
Canadian correspondents here. We've never questioned the wisdom of Foreign
Minister Axworthy's trip. Canada makes its own decisions. Canada is an
independent country. We have a close alliance relationship with it. We
certainly can't expect Canada always to agree with the United States. I
know the shoe is on the other foot as well. That works the other way
around as well.
We do have a policy disagreement with the Canadian Government on Cuba;
have had for many decades. There's nothing new in that.
We respect the Canadian Government; we respect the Canadian Government's
right to make its own decisions about where their Ministers go and where
they don't go. No one in our government has questioned that. We have just
simply noted the fact that we don't believe that Fidel Castro is about to
turn into a democrat. We don't believe he has democratic tendencies. We
don't believe that he has the interest of his own people at heart, and we
think we know Fidel Castro fairly well because we've lived next door to
him going on 38 years now since he led the Cuban revolution.
QUESTION: Perhaps, Mr. Burns, you clarified one glaring point that seems
to be existing, at least in Canada and other countries that are looking at
this from outside. What is there about the 37-year policy of the United
States which has, I believe, not achieved anything; at least, that's the
view held outside this country? Why is adherence to that policy, which has
achieved nothing, held higher than the Canadian effort made this week
which indeed at least - at the very least - you must acknowledge opened
a dialogue?
MR. BURNS: Henry, you and others here in this room, and quite rightly
because you're journalists doing your job, are drawing the comparisons
between the United States policy and Canada's policy. You're drawing the
comparisons and the contrasts.
We're simply noting that there are differences which I expect will remain,
and we'll live with those differences, because we have more important
issues to deal with between the United States and Canada that do unite us,
and that will remain.
But our policy of the last 38 years - going on 38 years now - is the right
policy, because we're standing up for human rights in Cuba. We're standing
up for the rights of the people who can't speak their mind in Cuba, and the
United States believes that it's in our interest as Americans - and I'm
speaking for the United States here, not for any other country - it's in
our interest to make sure that Castro's influence in our hemisphere is
contained and limited. That is the rationale - the American rationale -
for isolation of Cuba, because Castro poses a danger to the rest of the
people of this hemisphere. He's completely out of step with all the rest
of us, in Central America, South America and North America. That's the
rationale that President Kennedy stated more than 35 years ago, and that
President Clinton has stated, and every President in between has stated.
QUESTION: Nick -
MR. BURNS: We're staying on Cuba?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: Sid.
QUESTION: Can you be more specific? What dangers does Fidel Castro pose
to the United States? He's nearly broke. I mean, what dangers does he
pose?
MR. BURNS: I remember those arguments when I was graduate student about
what dangers do the Soviet Union or communist regimes in Eastern Europe
really pose to us. The dangers they pose is really to their own people.
These are communist regimes that deny fundamental human rights to their
people, and that is a global danger that was largely overcome with the
collapse of communism in the last decade.
But there is this remaining holdout from the past, and certainly, I think,
Sid, you'd probably agree with me, that the Cuban Government presents a
danger to its own people. Therefore, by extension, since we all believe in
democracy in our own hemisphere, we have a responsibility to oppose that
type of communist regime with all of the problems that come with it and the
failed ideology from the past that the East Europeans have recognized, the
Russians have recognized, the Ukrainians have recognized, the Armenians,
the Kazaks, the Kirgyz, the Poles the Czechs have all recognized it.
Sooner or later the Cuban people will rise up and recognize that as
well.
QUESTION: There's no question - I wouldn't argue that he's brutal to his
own people, but you say - your rationale a few minutes ago was that he
poses a threat to the hemisphere, and that's the rationale for our policy.
I just don't see the threat to the hemisphere.
MR. BURNS: He absolutely does, Sid, because any time you've got
communism in our hemisphere, you have to - the United States, as a
democratic country, believes that we must stand up and oppose that because
of the influence that it exerts on other countries and because of the
effect on its own people.
QUESTION: So given your mixed reviews of the Axworthy visit, do you
believe this has advanced or set back the process outlined by Stuart
Eizenstat last year? And do you still believe that Canada's actually
signed on with the EU to promote democracy in Cuba?
MR. BURNS: I think in general this Administration, our Administration,
feels confident that the international community is heading in the right
direction on Cuba, meaning that we have some differences. We have
differences with Canada. We have some differences with our European
partners. But in general we see from the United States, from Canada, from
the European Union, from member states of the European Union, from Latin
countries a concern for human rights. And that's why, as the President
said this morning, we are gratified that Minister Axworthy took the
opportunity to raise human rights issues. That was positive, we believe -
a positive step on Canada's part - and we think the general trend over the
last six to 12 months towards making that issue the central international
issue with Cuba is positive.
We hope that this transition to democracy, which inevitably must come in
Cuba, will be stimulated by the fact that people all around the world are
drawing attention to the fact that Castro jails his opponents, that he does
violate the rights of his own people.
Just witness the arrest of these leading democracy activists - I believe
six of them - just over the last two weeks.
QUESTION: But you don't want to see the European or Latin American -
prominent Latin American politicians going to Cuba following the Axworthy -
MR. BURNS: We're not in a position to judge the travels of other
countries' diplomats. We're not going to put ourselves in that position.
We're not going to denounce European foreign ministers for traveling to
Cuba. Countries have to make their own decisions, and the United States
must respect the right of countries to make those decisions. We will stand
up to our own policy, and we will privately continue our discussions with
all of our friends, including Canada, about our policy, and I'm sure
we'll hear a lot from them about theirs.
But what's positive and what Stuart Eizenstat has done such a good job in
leading is this renewal of concern internationally about human rights in
Cuba.
QUESTION: A question: Mr. Castro said Canada has a lot of prestige. To
go back to your comment the other day about rewarding Mr. Castro with
visits by the Canadian Foreign Minister, do you think Canada has lent Cuba
prestige by making this visit?
MR. BURNS: I think the President has spoken - has given you his
thoughts on Minister Axworthy's trip. I've spoken a lot this week. I'm
not sure there's anything more to add. Canada has a lot of prestige
because of the type of country it is, and that's a self-evident statement.
QUESTION: One final question, Nick, on this issue. In recent weeks or
indeed recent months, Canada led an initiative on Rwanda. There was some
opposition down here to the style in which that went forward. You'll be
aware of the fact a couple of weeks ago Canada led an initiative on
landmines, which ran counter to the proposal that was put up by the United
States, and now we have the Cuba situation.
Although the quote is not attributed to you, Canada was described and
you're aware of the quote, that they were somehow a country-club nation;
that their forays into foreign affairs were not well received down
here.
In light of the Cuban affair, are you suggesting or do you believe people
down here are suggesting that Canada ought to butt out of international
affairs, and that they have - (laughter) - quite frankly, I didn't -
MR. BURNS: Henry, it's kind of my first day on the job working for
Secretary Albright. Do you want to get me fired?
QUESTION: Well, I did not make the quote, Mr. Burns.
MR. BURNS: You want to get rid of me, don't you?
QUESTION: But you are familiar -
MR. BURNS: You don't like my views on baseball? (Laughter)
QUESTION: Well, I take you back to that, though. I know we can be
humorous about that, but I take it back; people here know that that quote
was put out, and there is a general feeling among people who regularly
cover Canadian-American affairs that Americans do not like interference in
international affairs by Canada.
MR. BURNS: Let me be very serious for a minute, Henry, because you
raised a profoundly troubling point. I don't know who the person in our
government was who used that term to describe Canada's foreign policy, but
I can assure you with 100 percent accuracy that that person does not speak
for our leadership, for President Clinton or for Secretary Albright.
Canada has been our truest partner. Just look at what we did together in
two world wars, in the Cold War, in Korea. Look at the commitment that
Canada has made in Bosnia and in Europe in general. We are not putting
ourselves in a position to question the fact that Canada ought to have as
an independent country its own foreign policy. We respect that.
Look at the relationship that President Clinton has had with Prime
Minister Chretien. Look at the respect that your Ambassador here in
Washington has - Ambassador Chretien - and the relationship I know that
Secretary Albright wishes to build with Minister Axworthy in an early
meeting. This is a country - Canada - which is our closest neighbor, and
if anyone described Canada in those terms, they are not speaking for the
United States Government, and that kind of thought ought to be utterly
rejected. We have the greatest respect for the Government of Canada and
the Canadian people, and I mean that quite sincerely.
QUESTION: Nick, could I go back to your statement about the Libyan
airliner? According to the reports from Ghana, the pilot said that he had
25 minutes of fuel left. Do you not believe that, or do you think he
should have crashed?
MR. BURNS: We are looking into - well, first of all, no one would ever
advocate that a pilot run out of fuel voluntarily and crash his or her
airplane. Secondly, we're looking into the facts. We believe an effort
may be underway by Mr. Qadhafi - Colonel Qadhafi - to test the United
Nations' sanctions against him. He's done that before. In fact, he's done
it regularly over the last couple of years, and it's prudent as a member
of the Security Council for the United States to look into the facts,
and as we develop the facts to present them to the Security Council if that
is warranted.
We're flagging this issue today as a not so subtle warning to the Libyan
Government. We can't speak to them in Tripoli. We can speak to them
through CNN, however. We're flagging it for the Libyan Government as an
item of concern the Libyan Government ought to abide by United Nations
Security Council sanctions.
QUESTION: Barry, in his initial question, asked you about Sudan and this
exception reported to have been made in sanctions there. Was there in fact
an exception made to U.S. commerce investments in Sudan?
MR. BURNS: I think this may be a case of there's less here than you
might think from reading the newspaper article.
Let me just explain. There have been long-standing comprehensive United
States' embargoes on five of the seven nations that the United States lists
as state sponsors of terrorism. Let me list them. Libya, Iraq, Iran, Cuba
and North Korea.
These types of total U.S. embargoes have never been applied by any U.S.
Administration or Congress to the other two nations on the terrorism list -
Syria and Sudan. We have placed sanctions - particular, specific sanctions
- on those two nations - Syria and Sudan - for their support of terrorism.
For example, neither Syria nor Sudan is eligible for arms transfers from
the United States or for any kind of United States economic assistance.
The new anti-terrorism legislation from 1996, which went into effect last
year, is intended to ban the transfers of money, of funds, that would
support acts of terrorism in the United States.
Therefore, financial transactions and commercial transactions with Syria
and Sudan are very closely reviewed by our government.
If the individual financial transactions are found not to have an impact
on any potential act of terrorism or to fund any group that supports
terrorism, then these transactions - these financial transactions or
investments - may be permitted. So I wanted to make that distinction,
because if we were talking here about Iran or Libya, it would be a
different scenario. But there are two countries in the list where the
sanctions' effect is not total; it's partial.
QUESTION: Still on (inaudible). Nick, yesterday, I mentioned the
articles on the Executive Outcomes, one of which was in the London
Observer from January 15th, where they describe the Executive
Outcomes as the advance guard for major business interests engaged in the
latter day scramble for the mineral wealth of Africa. In the Figaro
article, also on the same subject, they list the members of Executive
Outcomes, and it looks a "Who's Who" of British, SIS and SAS officers,
including Sir David Steel, Tony Buckingham, Simon Mann, and their
interrelationship with companies like Heritage Oil, Ranger Oil, the
Canadian company, all of which are obviously interested in some of the
resources in Africa.
Given the statement by the Sudanese Ambassador in London that among the
troops who were fighting in Eastern Sudan, many of them happened to be
white, gives you an indication that this operation based heavily in Uganda
is also connected to what is, I think, effectively not a civil war in
Eastern Sudan, but a British orchestrated destabilization. And given the
role of Baroness Carolyn Cox, the public master of John Gerang, the only
person who has not signed a peace agreement -
MR. BURNS: Is there a question in there? There's a question.
We're getting the question.
QUESTION: Okay, I'm getting to the question.
MR. BURNS: Thank you. It sounds like a tirade against the ally of the
United States, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
and we do not engage in any kind of criticism, at least from my side, of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
QUESTION: But given these facts, Nick, if the statement you made
yesterday, addressing yourself to the parties involved in the conflict was
not disingenuous, then I think it should be directed, among others, to
London where those Executive Outcomes has its headquarters in the Chelsea
District and in which Baroness Cox is a main player. Otherwise, it becomes
a rather interesting situation.
MR. BURNS: Let me just say, let me just say that all of our statements
are genuine. They reflect the views of the United States Government - what
we say here. Let me just put that ON-THE-RECORD.
Second, there is no reason for the United States to question in any way,
shape or form the actions or the policy of the United Kingdom pertaining to
the conflict in Eastern Sudan. The United Kingdom is an ally of the United
States, and we're not aware of any action that would trouble us by that
country in Eastern Sudan.
We have called for a peaceful resolution of the many disputes that trouble
the Sudanese government and the Sudanese people, including the civil wars
that have been underway for a long time - many years in the south - and the
current fighting in Eastern Sudan. We've called for an end to the fighting,
and we have asked that any outside countries in that part of Africa refrain
from involving themselves in the fighting in Eastern Sudan.
We are aware that there are mercenary groups that hire themselves out on
one side or another in a variety of African countries in the past,
certainly in Angola and in Sierra Leone. We understand what Executive
Outcomes is. I've done my homework over the last 24 hours. Our advice to
the Angolans, to the Sierra Leoneans and our advice to all of the actors in
Eastern Sudan these days is not to hire mercenary outfits, not to bring
arms in that just kill innocent civilians, but to try to lead the situation
towards a peaceful outcome through negotiation. That is our advice.
QUESTION: But isn't it true, Nick, that the civil war is effectively
over? I have here a document called the "Political Charter" from April
1996, signed by the leading figures who were in a fight with Khartoum.
These are people who represent the various groups in southern Sudan who
have come to terms with the Khartoum Government and who represented 80
percent of the rebel forces. Now, the only one who has not signed this is
Mr. John Garang, who at the behest of Lady Cox who went to Eritrea
-
MR. BURNS: Well, first of all -
QUESTION: -- in Asmara to pay - to offer the Eritreans money to set up
the Garang rebels in Eastern Sudan -
MR. BURNS: You know, I don't think that -
QUESTION: The civil war is over, but the destabilization continues.
MR. BURNS: I don't think it's appropriate for this briefing to turn
into a harangue against - a tirade against Lady Carolyn Cox. I don't think
that's appropriate. There are other ways you can do that. If you want to
ask about United States' policy, I've given it to you, and I don't believe
it's true that the fighting is over in southern Sudan or in eastern Sudan.
It's a greatly troubled country.
Sid.
QUESTION: Nick, can we go back to the Syria -
MR. BURNS: Ron wants to stay on Sudan for a minute.
QUESTION: Your Embassy responsible for Sudan has issued a statement,
apparently saying that all these reports about foreign involvement are an
attempt to divert attention from the Sudanese Government. That's not
something you've said from here. Is that something that the State
Department believes?
MR. BURNS: We have an Embassy that represents American interests in
Khartoum, but that Embassy sits in Nairobi, and you know the reasons why
Ambassador Carney must be in Nairobi, because of the fact that Sudan has
not done a good job of protecting American diplomats, providing protection
for American diplomats in Sudan.
We have asked all parties, domestic or foreign, whoever they may be,
including the firm that's been identified here - if that firm is interested
in getting engaged in this problem, Executive Outcomes - to refrain from
fueling the fighting in eastern Sudan.
That's a statement that I've made, I think, twice this week, Ron, and I
think it's entirely consistent with what Ambassador Carney and his
associates have said from Nairobi.
QUESTION: Well, that statement seems to indicate that the U.S. Embassy
responsible for the Sudan doesn't believe that there is any foreign
involvement.
MR. BURNS: My statement is quite general, and my statement speaks for
itself but is in no way inconsistent with what our Embassy has been
saying.
QUESTION: Nick -
MR. BURNS: Still on Sudan?
QUESTION: Go back to Sudan - Syria's story in the Post this morning.
Couple of questions. First of all, was the waiver granted Occidental
Petroleum?
MR. BURNS: Was a waiver -
QUESTION: Was the waiver granted?
MR. BURNS: Sid, my understanding is - that's the reason why I wanted to
take you through the law - is that there are no blanket sanctions -
comprehensive sanctions on either Syria or Sudan. There are business
activities that are permissible under the law. If you'd like, I can just
take you through the law.
It's Section 321 of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996, and the intent of this law by the framers is to limit the ability of
terrorists to promote terrorist activities in the United States, as you
know. But that law does not confer upon either Sudan or Syria any kind of
blanket comprehensive sanctions that would require in all instances a
waiver.
QUESTION: I think you're saying you don't know that there was a specific
waiver granted for this company.
MR. BURNS: If you're asking what happened in the specific case of
Occidental, I'd have to go back and check on who did what and who said
what. But what I'm trying to explain is it's a different situation than
say Iraq or Iran in terms of waivers, but I'd be glad to look into it and
give you a written response. I think that's the best thing to do.
QUESTION: I think the allegation was sort of embedded in that story,
which I don't know if you even want to touch on, is that the waiver was
granted because Occidental contributed a lot of money to Bill Clinton -
MR. BURNS: You know I'm not going to touch that question.
I don't think it's appropriate for us to touch it.
QUESTION: And just one more. And in Syria - it also raises the question
of Syria. Have there been waivers - if that's the right word - granted to
Syria to American businesses trying to conduct trade with Syria? And, if
so, what are those waivers?
MR. BURNS: I don't know the answer to that question, but I'll be glad
to take that as well, Sid.
QUESTION: I have a few questions on the same subject - Syria - same
general subject.
MR. BURNS: Okay.
QUESTION: As you describe sanctions applying to these two countries,
obviously that's the way those sanctions apply to all seven on the list,
right? They're not blanket.
MR. BURNS: No, no. I think you were out of the room when I went
through this, Barry. Let me just give you the headline.
QUESTION: These two get limited sanctions regularly?
MR. BURNS: There are comprehensive American embargoes on five of the
seven countries that are on our terrorism list.
The two other countries, Syria and Sudan, have specific sanctions placed
upon them -- for instance, on arms transfers and economic assistance - but
they do not have the same comprehensive coverage as the others.
QUESTION: Sudan went on rather late. Syria has been on a long time.
Was it always the case with these two countries?
MR. BURNS: I'd have to check that. I'm not an expert on how the law's
been applied over the last ten years.
QUESTION: Well, if you have to check that, you'd probably have to do the
same with the next question, which is have they been eased and hardened,
responding to whatever your reasons are - business interests, Middle East
diplomacy?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any -
QUESTION: You turn them on and off.
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: You turn them on and off.
MR. BURNS: No. There are specific, continuous sanctions in place on
Syria and Sudan. I have mentioned two of the examples with - there's no
possibility of exporting arms, if you're an American arms manufacturer, to
Syria or Sudan. There's no possibility for the United States Government to
extend economic assistance to them. But the sanctions placed on the other
five countries are more comprehensive, more far-reaching, broader
sanctions.
I guess the prime example of that would be Iran, and the extra steps that
the President took in May of 1995 that essentially cut off any U.S.
business contact of any kind whatsoever with the state of Iran, as you
know.
QUESTION: When you say "economic" with respect to Syria, you really mean
economic, broadly speaking, right?
MR. BURNS: I'm not getting the drift of your question.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, we could go on for hours, and I don't want to do
this to anybody else. What I'm saying is, are there types of economic
activity with Syria that are permissible and others that are not?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Arms - to get arms - I understand arms.
MR. BURNS: Yes is the answer to both questions. Let me just explain
very briefly. We went through this when you were out of the room. Any
financial transactions or investment opportunities which the United States
Government believes may lead to support a certain group that is a terrorist
group or a group that wishes to carry out a terrorist attack in the United
States are prohibited.
The reason we review financial transactions with Sudan and Syria is to try
to identify those transactions and to prohibit them.
But if there are financial transactions that we believe do not have any
kind of impact on the issue of terrorism - if they're genuinely commercial
and they will not benefit a sponsor of terrorism - then they may proceed in
Sudan and in Syria, and that distinguishes those two countries from the
other five.
QUESTION: Last question. That's a very purist description in the sense
that it seems to be quite within terms of how Syria behaves and Sudan on
terrorism and whether something will impact on terrorism in one way or
another. Does the State Department - does the Administration - has the
Administration eased sanctions on Syria to promote what you might at this
particular moment consider to be promising developments in Middle East
diplomacy, or is your approach to Syria and sanctions entirely based on the
issue of terrorism and not whether they're cooperating or not cooperating
with your attempt to work at a peace agreement?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any instance where the United States has
given Syria a break in the application of our law because we wanted to
promote a Syrian position on the Middle East peace negotiations.
QUESTION: Or the open talks on the Eastern Shore -
MR. BURNS: We have to apply our law. We have to be faithful to our law,
and that is a sole criterion that animates U.S. Government actions on these
issues.
QUESTION: What agencies would do this if a businessman -
MR. BURNS: Obviously, I think the two principle agencies involved here
in this type of thing would be the State Department and the Treasury
Department - the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control.
QUESTION: I'm still a little confused why the five have a complete
embargo and the other two don't. I think -
MR. BURNS: The framers of the law decreed that it would be so. So
therefore members of Congress decreed that this would be the case, in
consultation, I suppose, with various Administrations in past years - the
Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration, possibly even the Reagan
Administration. I'm not an expert on the legislative history here, but
Congress makes the laws, Congress determines what the law will say. The
Executive Branch administers and implements the law. You know, that's how
it works.
QUESTION: And they can veto it if they don't like it.
But of the -
MR. BURNS: Listen, let's just get this straight. President Clinton has
firmly believed in the effort - in the need for the United States
Government to stand up against terrorism, and he's made some tough choices
in the case of Iran, for instance, to do that - choices that in some case
were injurious to U.S. business opportunities, but there's a greater good
here, and that is the fight against terrorism worldwide.
QUESTION: What I'm trying to get at is whether the United States
believes that those two countries are somehow less dangerous than the other
five, and the reason I ask is because Sudan appears to have been involved
in a bombing - a massive terrorist act in the United States, and Syria is -
the jury is still out on whether it was involved in the bombing in Saudi
Arabia.
MR. BURNS: We are concerned by the actions of all seven countries whom
we have said are state sponsors - are involved state sponsors of terrorism
or harbor terrorist groups. We're concerned by the actions of all seven.
But it is also true that the Congress and the Executive Branch need the
ability to tailor sanctions to particular states in order to achieve
important foreign policy goals.
Not all states are created alike. Not all states are as involved in
supporting terrorism as others. We'd have to identify Iran as the major
sponsor of terrorist groups in the Middle East, but all of these states
have problems or else they wouldn't be on our terrorism list.
QUESTION: Doesn't this contradict what you said to me?
MR. BURNS: No, Barry.
QUESTION: If you tailor sanctions to meet foreign policy goals, and one
of your foreign policy goals is an agreement between Syria and Israel -
MR. BURNS: No, no. It is very important to -
QUESTION: Do you apply sanctions to Syria one way on a Monday and
another way on a Wednesday, depending on how the Mideast negotiations -
MR. BURNS: Barry, you're missing - to be fair to you and me, you're
missing -
QUESTION: I bet it's terrorism that's your yardstick.
MR. BURNS: You're missing an important distinction. The Congress
creates the law -
QUESTION: On your recommendation.
MR. BURNS: The Congress creates the law - Section 321 of the Anti-
Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 - right?
QUESTION: But there has to be -
MR. BURNS: It's Congress that determines the extent of the sanctions.
QUESTION: It's the (inaudible) laws -
MR. BURNS: Right, right?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. BURNS: And the only criterion for implementing these actions is the
law. But the Congress and the Administration, as they discuss laws - the
formation of laws - have to have the ability to tailor sanctions, and that
goes into the makeup of a law. But that has nothing to do with the
implementation of the law.
QUESTION: Once they're in place -
MR. BURNS: And you can only implement the law based on what you are
committed to do. That's the responsibility of the Executive Branch.
QUESTION: Now, once they're in place, those sanctions are applied
irrespective of U.S. foreign policy.
MR. BURNS: That's exactly right.
QUESTION: About Iran -
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Yes, Judd.
QUESTION: The Attorney General this morning questioned the cooperation
that the investigation into Khobar has gotten from the Saudi Government.
Has the State Department been making this case with the Saudis?
MR. BURNS: You've seen the statements by Attorney General Reno and by
Director Freeh. They speak for themselves. The State Department wishes to
support the efforts of the FBI to work with the Saudi authorities to
determine who was responsible for the Al-Khobar bombing. We have
assurances from the highest level of the Saudi Government in Riyadh of the
full cooperation of the Saudi authorities. That is the standard that must
be met, and I believe that Director Freeh and the Attorney General have
spoken to that standard over the past 24 hours. It's hard for me
to improve upon their statements, which I thought were quite clear.
QUESTION: (Multiple questions)
MR. BURNS: The State Department does assist the FBI from time to time
in communicating with the Saudi Government on this issue, and you can bet
that Ambassador Fowler and others are following up with the Saudis at every
opportunity about this issue, because it's an important issue between our
two countries. I want to be clear about where the authority is here in the
U.S. Government.
It's with the FBI as the lead agency, and the State Department is
supportive, but our Ambassador and his Embassy officials are very active on
this issue.
QUESTION: Nick, if I could follow up. I was there when Ms. Reno
responded to these questions. It says in the last paragraph of this
article by The Washington Post that Freeh said part of the Saudi's
hesitancy stemmed from the "implications of what the evidence may show."
The Saudi leadership is divided over whether to press a confrontation with
Iran. Does this government believe that Saudi Arabia is indeed laying
off on Iran, and what may be produced by solid implication or anything?
MR. BURNS: Bill, you know I'm not going to address that question. The
FBI Director and the Attorney General have spoken.
They both outrank me. They both have more important positions than I do.
They've spoken for the U.S. Government. What we've said is self-evident.
QUESTION: Nick, new subject.
MR. BURNS: Let's go to Jim, and then we'll go to you.
QUESTION: The situation in Belgrade appears to be getting uglier. Have -
would you agree with that assessment, and would you think that there is
anything that international pressure can or should do?
MR. BURNS: We would certainly agree that the situation is uglier. The
student demonstrators in Belgrade are in, I think, day five of their sit-in
as part of their peaceful standoff with the police. The only problem is,
the police are beginning to use force against the peaceful demonstrators.
We are deeply concerned by the actions of the Serbian authorities to use
force and the threat of force against the demonstrators.
We're deeply concerned that the attempts by the Serbian authorities to
curtail press freedoms continue.
We have the newspaper Nasa Borba in the State Department today. Some of
us will be meeting with the editors of that paper afterwards in an attempt
to convey to them our support for media freedoms.
One thing, Jim, you asked, what can we do about this? We can continue to
support the independent media in Belgrade and throughout Serbia so that the
people of Serbia have an accurate picture of what is happening in their
country. Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty will
continue their efforts to actively and in concrete ways support them.
We'll continue to meet with Serbian students, as John Kornblum did
yesterday, and with the Serbian press, as I'm going to do after this
briefing, to make that point.
There have been all sorts of judicial problems and mix-ups over the last
couple of days. But, basically, the Serbian Government is trying to tie up
the Electoral Commission in knots with repeated appeals to the judiciary
whose independence, of course, cannot be completely accepted.
We would just call again upon the Serbian authorities to respect the votes
of the Serbian people on November 17th.
QUESTION: The Greek Foreign Minister, Theodhoros Pangalos, proposed
publicly today, referring to your government: "The Greek Government would
gladly accept the proposed moratorium by Carey Cavanaugh on the condition,
however, that the United States will be responsible to shoot down Turkey's
warplanes in case of violation." How do you respond to Mr. Pangalos'
proposal?
MR. BURNS: On condition that what? I'm not sure I heard - "on
condition that the United States" will do what, Mr. Lambros?
QUESTION: Is willing to shoot down Turkey's warplanes -
MR. BURNS: Shut down?
QUESTION: Yes.
QUESTION: Shoot.
QUESTION: Shoot down in case of violations. How do you respond Mr.
Pangalos' proposal?
MR. BURNS: I would be very surprised if that's an accurate - with all
due respect - sometimes things get misunderstood as they're written in the
press. I'd be very surprised if that were an accurate representation of
the Greek Government proposal, because Greece is a NATO ally of Turkey and
the United States is a NATO ally of both. No one is going to shoot down
anyone's planes, Mr. Lambros.
This issue will be resolved peacefully, I would bet you. We'll continue
to working on the flight moratorium over Cyprus. It's a very important
confidence building measure as we seek to resolve completely the Cyprus
problem.
QUESTION: Would your answer be the same if he said "shut down" Turkish
airplanes?
MR. BURNS: Where it's "shut" or "shoot."
QUESTION: They are different.
MR. BURNS: There is a difference, Barry, but we would not agree with
either proposal. We're for talking, discussing, negotiating. We're not
for the use of force or the threat of use of force.
QUESTION: Persuasion.
MR. BURNS: We're for persuasion. That's right.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) U.S. that the Turks would not violate the
moratorium. That's what he said.
MR. BURNS: Listen, it's good to see that Greece and Turkey and Cyprus
have an interest in talking about the flight moratorium.
We will continue our efforts to help them reach an agreement.
I don't believe they're there yet, but we'll do most of this in private,
not in public.
QUESTION: What is the U.S. role now? I'm thinking in Mideast terms --
MR. BURNS: Are we mediators -
QUESTION: How Dennis Ross changes - you know, he takes off his mediator
suit; he becomes the negotiator. I've never understood - the assurer, the
guarantor -
MR. BURNS: We're friends to all the parties.
QUESTION: The U.S. is not - I'm trying to ask this question without
loading it. The Greek-Turkish issue hasn't reached the point where the
U.S. is prepared to take the kind of role that might involve offering
assurances in order to lower the threshold of -
MR. BURNS: We've told the Greeks and Turks and the Cypriot Government
that we're willing to play whatever role they want us to play, but they
have to determine that. The best possible solution is if they take matters
into their own hands and talk directly. Greeks and Turks often talk
directly to government officials. Cypriot Government officials talk to
Turks . That's healthy. Sometimes they need some facilitation. The United
Nations provides that; the United States sometimes; the United Kingdom
sometimes. We're happy to play that role. Very happy.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) assurances yet? They've got to talk first?
MR. BURNS: We're going to try to help them put together an agreement on
flight moratoriums on Cyprus. I can't get into hypothetically trying to
determine how that's going to be constructed.
QUESTION: Who is going to guarantee the moratorium in case of violation
by --
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, there is no agreement yet. Once there is an
agreement, we'll be glad to describe it but there's no agreement yet. So I
can't talk about what are the building blocks of an agreement that does not
yet exist.
QUESTION: You do not exclude the possibility that you're going to
provide any kind of guarantee in order for the moratorium to be existing in
that area?
MR. BURNS: We will play the role that we have to play, and we're a
friend of Greece and Turkey and the Cypriot Government.
We're going to have to determine what our role is going to be but we're
going to do this privately, not publicly.
QUESTION: A question about Algeria. Speaking today in Rome, one of the
leaders of the Algerian opposition has asked officially the intervention of
the U.S. as the last chance for the possibility for peace in that
country.
As you know, the situation is really tragic in Algeria. There's violence
almost on a daily basis with a number of deaths. It seems to be unstoppable.
Can you comment on this proposal?
MR. BURNS: I can only say that the United States firmly rejects
terrorism in Algeria and rejects the actions of the terrorists who killing
innocent Algerians and killing innocent foreigners.
I'm reminded of the death of the French monks just a couple of months
ago.
So that's the position of the United States, that we all ought to support -
we all ought to act against terrorism and hope and pray for a peaceful
resolution of these problems in Algeria.
The United States has not been asked by the Government of Algeria to play
the kind of role that this individual has suggested. We have to respect the
wishes of the Government of Algeria, obviously, in a case like this.
Yasmine.
QUESTION: The Greek Government, Nick, announced two days ago that it had
evidence that Alios Brunner, the Nazi criminal, is residing in Damascus?
MR. BURNS: Alios -
QUESTION: Brunner.
MR. BURNS: -- Brunner, the Nazi.
QUESTION: Does the United States have any information to support the
Greek claim, or otherwise?
MR. BURNS: Yasmine, I'll have to look into that for you.
I'm aware of the individual and his notorious past. I don't know whether
we have information on where he may be now.
QUESTION: Would you also look into - I mean, if there is such information
at all, if you could please look into if this government has raised the
issue at all with the Syrians in the past?
MR. BURNS: I'll be glad to take that question. I'll be glad to get you
an answer to that question.
QUESTION: I'd would like to go back to the Sudanese situation, please.
Is there any American contacts with the Sudanese Government right now,
asking them to calm the situation or anything? The Washington Post said
that the American Government was angered by reports by the Washington
Post that it aided, or given aid to the rebels and the countries
surrounding Sudan?
MR. BURNS: Let me take the second question first, because it's quite
interesting. I spoke the other day about this. It is not possible that
the United States Government extended military assistance to Sudan's
neighbors. You know why? Because it has not yet arrived.
In Fiscal Year 1996 appropriations process, around $25 million, I believe,
was appropriated for various types of military assistance - non-lethal,
meaning the provisions of boots and backpacks and uniforms but not the
provision of arms. But even the non-lethal aid hasn't arrived. So how
would it be possible for the United States Government to be running arms to
countries? We don't have a lethal assistance program. I would hope the
Washington Post would look into that question on a factual basis.
On the first part of your question, the United States maintains a
diplomatic relationship with the Government of Sudan even though we have a
lot of problems with the policies of the Government of Sudan. We do that
through our American Ambassador, Tim Carney, who resides in Nairobi. He
resides there for very good reasons, but he does visit Khartoum and other
cities in Sudan as do his embassy officers from time to time. In fact,
regularly. So we're discussing the situation with the Government of
Sudan.
QUESTION: Four out of the seven countries that are slated as states who
sponsor terrorism are Arab countries. What do you think that will have -
an impact on the Arab-American relations in general?
MR. BURNS: It shouldn't have an impact, because there are, I think, 22
Arab countries. So the vast majority of them are not countries that
sponsor terrorism. The vast majority of Arab countries and Arab people
reject terrorism, but there are a few bad apples and the Arab countries
know this better than we do. Iraq and Libya are two of them. We have the
support of the Arab countries in trying to contain both Iraq and Libya,
because they haven't been helpful to their own Arab neighbors.
QUESTION: Have these sanctions been working with Sudan and Syria? Do
you think they have an effect?
MR. BURNS: We hope they have an effect. They're designed to have an
effect, and we will continue to apply them because of the policies of both
governments.
QUESTION: I just want to ask you -- Sudan also? Okay.
I'm sorry. Go ahead.
MR. BURNS: We're just going to stick with Sudan and then we'll go to
North Korea.
QUESTION: Just on this political charter, isn't it the case that
Ambassador Carney also was very much involved in trying to pull all the
parties together to stop the civil war and that it was well on its way to
being resolved, including freedom of religion and everything that anybody
would want to ask of such an agreement? And that a certain point, somebody
pulled the plug on this thing and then all of sudden you had this war not
in the south anymore but in the east?
Wasn't it the U.S. policy that this should be the direction that things
should take in Sudan, and all of a sudden it stopped?
MR. BURNS: The United States, in the person of Ambassador Carney, has
acted on behalf of peace. We reject those who would try to foment
war.
QUESTION: As you may know, the OECD, the Secretary General announced a
statement this morning that the OECD welcomed the South Korean President's
initiative (inaudible) considering the terms of the new labor laws at
parliament. As one of the major members of the OECD, do you have any
comment on this new development in Korea?
MR. BURNS: I know the United States participated in the OECD deliberations
on the South Korea labor laws. I was not aware that a statement had been
issued. We'll have to look at that before we can give you a comment.
QUESTION: Nick, thanks.
MR. BURNS: Betsy has got one. Betsy.
QUESTION: The World Food Program, the U.N. Organization, has asked for
food aid for Bosnia, fearing that there will be starvation there this
spring if there is not a given - will the U.S. participate in this
program?
MR. BURNS: The United States, of course, has always responded in the
past to appeals for aid to Bosnia. We are providing $600 million in
assistance on a three-year basis to the Bosnian people.
We'll continue that assistance. I'm not aware specifically of the appeal,
Betsy, but I'm sure that our officials are in touch.
I can't anticipate whether we'll respond to this appeal or whether our
current humanitarian assistance would apply. That's a technical question.
I'll have to ask that.
QUESTION: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: In Colombia. A couple of days ago we spoke about the sentence
of the Orejuelas - the brothers. The latest in this event is that the U.S.
Government through the Ambassador in Colombia, Ambassador Frechette, has
issued a statement or has given some information that the German Government
has requested negotiations with the Cali cartel leaders in Colombia. The
German Government has refused. They have rejected that, saying that
the Ambassador is lying. Is there any comment to this situation?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if the charges have been that severe. I'd be
surprised if they were. All I can say is this:
We, of course, stand by our Ambassador - Ambassador Frechette - in what
he's been doing to lead in the fight against narcotics trafficking.
I should also say in the same breath that we have no reason to question
the actions of the German Government. The German Government is an ally of
the United States. We have the highest respect for that government and for
its officials - and for its officials.
QUESTION: This has not created in any way any friction between the U.S.
Government and the German Government -
MR. BURNS: We have an excellent relationship with the German Government.
We don't always see eye to eye on everything, but we have an excellent
relationship, and I think that will remain the case.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) approach happen. It's supposed to be in the
middle of July last year that the German Government proposed to the U.S. to
negotiate with the Cali cartel leaders some sort of -
MR. BURNS: I cannot confirm that, no. I cannot confirm that.
Last question to Ugur.
QUESTION: There's an AP story here which says the jailed sheik says the
FBI is behind letter bombs to the Arabic newspaper, al-Hayat?
MR. BURNS: You believe that? (Laughter) He's jailed because of the
World Trade Center bombing. He's a criminal. I would just consider the
source here.
(Press briefing concluded at 2:52 p.m.)
(###)
|
