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

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #18, 97-02-03

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>


1383

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

February 3, 1997

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

DEPARTMENT/ANNOUNCEMENTS
1-2.....Secretary Albright's Visit to Houston, Feb. 7-8
2-3.....Secretary Albright's Trip to Europe and Asia, Feb. 15-25

BURMA 3-4.....US Policy on Burma: Human Rights/Sanctions/International Investments

FORMER YUGOSLAVIA 4-6.....Demonstrations in Belgrade/Injured U.S. Marine 5, 12...US Condemnation of Use of Police Force in Kosovo 6-10....Karadic Interview with Greek Newspaper re: Dayton Accords

5-8.....Assistant Secretary Kornblum and Charge D'Affaires Miles Protest of Serb Government Actions 10-12...Additional Sanctions/U.S. Support of Serb Opposition/Further U.S. Actions Against Milosevic Government

ZAIRE 12-13...Fighting in Eastern Zaire 13......Political Stability of Mobutu Government 22-23...EU Official's Misunderstanding of U.S. Ambassador's Comments on Hutus

SOUTH AFRICA 14......UK Involvement in Mercenary and Revolutionary Movements

SUDAN 14......Sovereignty of Sudan

COLOMBIA 14-15...Meeting of Justice Minister with Assistant Secretary Gelbard

CHINA 15-16...Recommendation of Preparatory Committee to Repeal Hong Kong's Bill of Rights

PERU 16-17...President Fujimori in Washington: Meeting with President Clinton, Meeting with Assistant Secretary Davidow, Discussions on Lori Berenson

NORTH KOREA 17-18...Joint Briefing with US and South Korea Postponed 18......Cargill-DPRK Grain Deal/Additional Food Assistance

SWEDEN 18-19...Allegation of Discovery of Nazi Gold in Swedish Banks

VIETNAM 19-20...Protest Over VOA Broadcast on 1997 Human Rights Report

TURKEY 20......Sale of Sea Hawk Helicopters

CYPRUS 20-22...U.S. Policy on Resolution of Cyprus Issue

BULGARIA 22......Situation in Sofia

GREECE/MACEDONIA 23......Cyrus Vance Mission

AFGHANISTAN 23......Taliban Delegation Visit to the US


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #18

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1997, 1:28 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BURNS: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department. I want to welcome 10 students from the Washington Semester Program at American University and their professor, Carole Ashkinaze -- I think you're seated on both sides, right? No -- and look forward to seeing some of you after the briefing.

I want to talk first before we go to questions about two trips that Secretary Albright intends to take in the next couple of weeks. One is a domestic trip, and the other is a worldwide trip.

The first trip that she'll be making outside the Beltway as Secretary of State -- she's already made a couple of trips to Capitol Hill -- will be this Friday and Saturday to Houston, Texas. Friday, February 7, Saturday, February 8. She'll be meeting on Friday in Houston at Rice University with the Mexican Foreign Minister, Jose Angel Gurria. She's looking forward to that meeting very much. They had a good phone conversation a couple of days ago, and I think there's no question about the importance of U.S.-Mexican relations in the period ahead. This will be a good opportunity for her to start a working relationship with Foreign Minister Gurria and to get into the major bilateral relations and issues that we have with the Mexican Government.

Later on, on Friday afternoon, mid-afternoon, she'll give a major policy speech at the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. This will be hosted by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and by the Institute Director, Ed Djerejian, well-known to many of you. Ed was our Assistant Secretary for Near East, our Ambassador to Syria and Ambassador to Israel before retiring.

I understand Secretary Baker will be introducing her before her speech. Then she'll make her speech and take questions from students at Rice University. This speech is set for about 2:00 a.m. at the Grand Hall in Rice --

QUESTION: P. M.

MR. BURNS: 2:00 p.m. I'm just trying to make sure you're paying attention. (Laughter) 2:00 p.m.

QUESTION: Who's speaking (inaudible).

MR. BURNS: Secretary Albright, I think, but let me check that. (Laughter)

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

MR. BURNS: Yes, it's Secretary Albright. 2:00 p.m., Grand Hall, Rice Memorial Center. She'll then take questions from students. The following morning, Saturday, February 8, she's going to have a breakfast meeting with former President George Bush at his home in Houston. Those of you who would like to accompany us on the Secretary's trip to Houston are cordially invited to do so, and there will be a sign-up sheet available to you in the Press Office after this briefing.

Secretary Albright, as she has said to you, intends to take many trips within the United States to talk to the American people about the importance of our interaction with the world -- our engagement in the world, and the importance of United States' leadership. She believes that talking about the resources problem, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the fact that the United States has got to have a concerted, active foreign policy are issues that ought to be discussed with the American people at a very high level, and she intends to do that in a variety of fora this year, starting in Houston.

She also believes very strongly in bipartisanship, and therefore, the choice of Houston, the fact that she'll be seeing Secretary Baker and President Bush, meeting with both of them; the fact that she'll be speaking at Secretary Baker's Institute, I think, is an indication of the importance that she attaches to bipartisanship in American foreign policy.

For the second trip, the long-awaited announcement on the second trip. Secretary Albright will be making actually a circumnavigation of the globe from the 15th to the 25th of February. This is the long-awaited announcement, and I want to tell you that she's going to be going both to Europe and to Asia on this trip, because that reflects that statement, and that trip reflects the fundamental national interests that we have, both in Europe as a European power, and in the Asia-Pacific region as an Asian-Pacific power.

She intends in all the places which she will visit to renew relations with the many, many world leaders with whom she has worked over the past four years and some even before that, and to make new acquaintances -- make acquaintances with some of the other world leaders with which she has not worked.

She obviously will be discussing in each of the capitals that she visits the core interests that we have with those countries; the basic issues, both bilateral and multilateral, that are on our agenda with those countries. Let me just run through the schedule very briefly.

She will be leaving Washington on Saturday, February 15, and she'll fly to Rome. She'll spend Saturday night, February 15th and part of Sunday, the 16th, in Rome for meetings with the Italian Government leadership.

On Sunday afternoon, the 16th, she'll fly to Bonn. She'll spend the 16th and part of the 17th in Bonn for meetings with the German leadership.

She'll fly the afternoon of the 17th, spend the night in Paris, have meetings the next day with French government officials.

On to Belgium, to Brussels, on the 18th of February, where she intends to have a meeting with Secretary General Solana and a session of the North Atlantic Council -- a Ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council.

Then to London that evening, February 18th, for meetings on the 19th with officials from the Government of the United Kingdom.

Then to Moscow, February 19th and 20th, so evening of the 19th, all day on the 20th for meetings with Russian officials.

Then on the 21st, the Secretary will be flying east to Seoul, with a refueling stop some place in between, probably some place in the middle of Russia, where she intends to have meetings with the South Korean leadership on the 22nd.

And on to Tokyo, Japan, on the 23rd and 24th for meetings with Japanese leaders, and then she'll conclude her trip with a visit to Beijing, China, on the 24th -- the evening of the 24th, meetings on the 25th in Beijing, and then she'll depart Beijing on the 25th and return directly to the United States, arriving back at Andrews Air Force Base sometime in the evening of February 25th.

As you can see, this is going to be an action-packed schedule for an action-packed agenda. She's going to have to move very quickly, because she's covering a lot of ground. We have limited seats available on the Secretary's 707, and for those of you who would like to join us on that trip, I cordially invite you to sign up in the Press Office. There's a sign-up sheet that's available to you.

Barry.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask you about Burma and what course of action the U.S. may have planned there.

MR. BURNS: What course of action we have planned?

QUESTION: If any, yes.

MR. BURNS: As you know, we've been --

QUESTION: I mean, you know, their leading, whatever intellectualist suggested sanctions and all. Is there some new --

MR. BURNS: We have --

QUESTION: I'm sorry. You go ahead.

MR. BURNS: We have been concerned with the situation in Burma for quite a long time and have consistently supported the position of the National League for Democracy and Aung San Suu Kyi for greater political and human rights of the citizens of Burma, but I think we've seen a concerted policy by the SLORC, by the military dictators in Rangoon, that denies the democrats who won the 1990 elections both their seats of power but also denies them basic rights.

As you know, we have followed a rather tough policy against the Burmese Government. We do not encourage American investment in Burma. We have most recently in the last couple of months put in place visa sanctions against the leading members of the government and their families, and we, of course, have worked for the Congress on the Cohen-Feinstein legislation to at least have in reserve the possibility of further U.S. sanctions against Burma, should that be necessary.

We will look seriously at that question as the situation proceeds, Barry, but I'm not aware of any decision that's been made to actually go forth with any of those sanctions, at least at this point.

QUESTION: What do you think of the Unocol Corporation's decision to expand their cooperation with the Burmese Government?

MR. BURNS: We don't encourage American investment in Burma. We don't actively discourage an American company from going in, but we don't encourage it either. What we have done is we've taken away the ability of American companies to draw upon the Ex-Im Bank, OPIC, the Trade and Development Authority. We've also worked to limit the ability of Burma to receive assistance from the IMF and the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. We don't have a trade office or a commercial office in Rangoon and don't intend to open one.

So I guess it's Unocal's decision if it wants to go in, but, of course, this Cohen-Feinstein legislation at least presents the possibility of further sanctions, and should the situation warrant it, then the Administration has that as an option.

QUESTION: Nick, could I ask you about the situation in Belgrade. Have you been following it, and what do you think is happening there exactly?

MR. BURNS: We have followed the situation in Belgrade very, very closely over the weekend, as you can imagine. First of all, let me say we saw the terrible reports of police brutality and state violence directed against the demonstrators yesterday. I understand today that there were exceedingly large demonstrations in the streets of Belgrade and further use of brutal police force against the demonstrators.

The United States strongly condemns the violence by the Serbian police against the demonstrators, who by all accounts have demonstrated peacefully. We call on the Serb police and the Serb authorities, led by President Milosevic, to exercise restraint in the streets of Belgrade.

Yesterday evening, Serbian police used water cannons and tear gas to disperse thousands of protesters. This is the most serious use of police force to date. The Serbian police brutally beat and arrested peaceful protesters as they tried to escape through the downtown streets. This is particularly ironic and particularly disturbing, because the crowd was attempting to disperse at the time when the Serbian police came in to use their physical force.

There were many people injured, some quite seriously, including one of the most noted opposition leaders, Vesna Pesic, and even an off-duty American Embassy Marine guard was caught up quite unwittingly and was also beaten by the Serbian police.

Accordingly, our Charge d'Affaires, Dick Miles, met with Foreign Minister Milutinovic this morning to condemn the police action and to call upon the Serbian Government officially to refrain from using police force in the streets of Belgrade or anywhere else in the country where people are assembling peacefully, as they have for the last two-and-a-half months.

Mr. Miles also met with the opposition leader, Vuc Draskovic, to express our support for the opposition's track record of peaceful protest and to counsel restraint on all sides. We believe that the actions taken by the Serbian leadership to unleash their police and security forces over the weekend will only further Serbia's isolation and deepen the political crisis in Belgrade.

This is an extremely discouraging set of events, and I believe you only have to look at the statements by Foreign Secretary Rifkind, by Minister de Charette and by many other European leaders who are saying the same things that the United States is saying today to understand the gravity of the situation.

I should also say that we've been quite disturbed also by the use of police force against people who we believe have been also exercising their rights peacefully in Kosovo. Just over the last couple of days a disturbing string of incidents with the Serbian police have used force and have sometimes acted unjustly against innocent people in Kosovo, and we have brought this to the attention of the Serbian Government as well.

QUESTION: Does this string of events suggest to the -- to you and your observers that something significant -- that a significant turning point has been reached in this whole crisis?

MR. BURNS: It's hard to know if it's a significant turning point in terms of what the end-game is going to be like, but it's a disturbing turning point, because until about ten days ago, the Serbian Government had refrained from the use of force against the people in the streets, because the TV cameras showed all the world they were acting peacefully; they were not inciting violence, they were not committing acts of violence against the government.

About ten days ago -- I believe it was a week ago Friday evening -- the Serbian police did use force in the streets. Twenty people ended up in the hospital in demonstrations that went into Saturday morning. Now we saw over the last 24 hours an escalation of this strategy to intimidate the opposition. All that it seems to have succeeded in doing is bringing larger numbers of people into the streets today, and that is very disturbing.

Our Assistant Secretary of State John Kornblum was in Sarajevo today. He has spoken out publicly against this use of force, and he instructed Mr. Miles to go into the Serbian Foreign Minister this morning and to give this very stiff American protest to the Serbian Foreign Minister.

I spoke with John Kornblum on the phone, and I think he in his private discussions and also in his public statements, and Mr. Miles and his discussions have left no doubt about the concern of the United States in this question.

QUESTION: The Marine that was beaten, was he in uniform? What's his name? How was he caught up and --

MR. BURNS: He was off-duty, so, therefore, I don't believe he was in uniforms. Marines -- I think the practice overseas with our Marine guards is that when they leave the compound, they're off-duty, they're not dressed in uniform. I understand he simply had a night out and had had something to eat and was on his way back to his home when he was literally caught up in these demonstrations in the street, and he was one of the people beaten by the protesters. Obviously, we've delivered a stiff protest about this activity, but not just about him, about the actions against all the Serbian protesters in the streets.

It was an eventful 24 hours. Let me go to another --

QUESTION: Just a little more on that before you go on. Was he hospitalized? Is he okay?

MR. BURNS: He's going to be fine. He was beaten, but he does not have serious injuries. He is fine and, as I understand, he's on the job.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR. BURNS: I wanted to stay on this situation just for a little bit. Nearby, Radovan Karadzic spoke up today. I thought I would say a few words about that. You know that Radovan Karadzic is a war criminal. He's an indicted war criminal. Last July 19, the former Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Dick Holbrooke, traveled to the Balkans and worked out an arrangement that prohibited Mr. Karadzic from speaking out in public, from speaking to the press, from running for political office.

Mr. Karadzic stepped over the line today. He gave an interview, I believe, to a Greek newspaper. In that interview, he essentially repudiated the terms of the Dayton Accords. His statements are outrageous. They are in direct violation of July 19 agreement in which he stepped down formally from all positions of influence in the Republic of Srpska, and he has violated his agreement not to appear in public.

Assistant Secretary Kornblum, when he called me just a little while ago, said that he spoke to Mr. Krajisnik and also to Madam Plavsic. I understand that their political party has now issued a formal statement repudiating the words of Radovan Karadzic. Karadzic, essentially, takes issues with the Dayton Accords, takes issue with the fact that he is an indicted war criminal.

He even had some comments, Mr. Lambros, on the situation in Cyprus. I guess his view goes beyond the Balkans these days. Mr. Kornblum reminded Madam Plavsic and Mr. Krajisnik that they are responsible for making sure that the July 19 agreement with Mr. Karadzic is kept and that he no longer steps over the line.

Also our Charge, Dick Miles, in Belgrade has reminded the Serbian Government of its obligation to make sure that Mr. Karadzic stays in line. I just wanted to point that out because it is a particular egregious violation by Mr. Karadzic.

QUESTION: Nick, can I follow up on Mr. Kornblum's trip to the region? As of last week, he was not intending to go to Belgrade. Is the Department --

MR. BURNS: And he did not go to Belgrade.

QUESTION: Is Secretary Albright giving any thought to the notion of sending him to Belgrade to deliver an even higher profile message of America's displeasure?

MR. BURNS: No, there's no reason for that because we have consistently spoken out against the Serbian Government's actions. We have a senior American diplomat who lives in Belgrade who delivers these protests personally to the Serbian Foreign Minister, and we have great confidence in Mr. Miles. So there's no reason to send John Kornblum to Belgrade.

In fact, just the opposite. It's good to give the Serbs a sense that they're not going to have a lot of senior-level visitors in Belgrade as long as they continue these actions.

QUESTION: Well, I was going to ask you the same question in a different way. You know what I'm going to ask you. You just announced a trip where the Secretary of State is going to China whose human rights record the State Department hardly disproves of. This may not be the forum, but, once again, because Yugoslavia is in the news and so is China, wouldn't it give added weight to the American message to upgrade the messengers who is delivering a message? Wouldn't it have more weight if John Kornblum were there?

MR. BURNS: You know, this has been going on, Barry, since November 17. You know that we've had Secretary Christopher, when he was Secretary of State, in late November and early December, did send personal messages to Mr. Milosevic as well as Milutinovic. John Kornblum has spoken out publicly. Our Charge has been in.

There's not a problem here with communication. The Serbian Government has got the message from the United States. It has just chosen to go its own way. In doing so, it just has dug the hole deeper for itself and further isolated itself. The "outer wall" of sanctions will be maintained because of the actions of the Serbian Government against the opposition but also because of the actions of the Serbian Government in Kosovo. We have always said that we believe in enhancement of the political rights of the Kosovars. The police actions against them over the last couple of days are not doing Serbia's case any good in the international community.

So I beg to disagree with these -- I thank you for the advice on how we carry out U.S. foreign policy, but I just think we're doing okay. I think we've really got their attention, Barry.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) logic, who you send your Secretary of State to and who you send the Deputy Ambassador to. So far as Karadzic is concerned, because hanging in the air is a possibility, the second Clinton Administration will be a little more vigorous than the first Clinton Administration in encountering -- I guess the word of choice -- war crime suspects.

MR. BURNS: Is that a verb?

QUESTION: You spoke of when you encounter --

(Multiple questions.)

MR. BURNS: (Inaudible) encounters.

QUESTION: Well, you don't hunt down war criminals. You encounter them. I think you say, "Excuse me, are you Mr. Karadzic?" So, here was --

MR. BURNS: I 'm not sure that's in the instruction booklet. I don't believe that's the first line, Barry. I don't think so.

QUESTION: While it hangs in the air -- so I have a double reason for asking. It's something that happened with Karadzic and hanging in the air is the possibility of a more vigorous pursuit, as if there's been pursuit. Was the U.S. Government aware of Mr. Karadzic's coming out of the closet, so to speak? Maybe he doesn't have to be in the closet. Maybe he's been public all along.

MR. BURNS: He came out of the closet, so to speak, this morning. We were not aware that he was going to do so but once he did, we decided that we had to fire a little shot across his bow which is why I'm saying what I'm saying and why John Kornblum personally complained to Plavsic and Krajisnik.

QUESTION: I'm not trying to be picky, but the interview appeared in print when you heard about it, or you knew he was giving an interview?

MR. BURNS: No. We actually saw it. I'm sure Mr. Lambros saw it, too. I think I've got it here.

QUESTION: But you didn't know about it until it was in print, eh?

MR. BURNS: No, we didn't. Am I pronouncing this right -- Eleftheros Typos?

MR. LAMBROS: Eleftheros Typos.

MR. BURNS: Thank you. Mr. Lambros has a better Greek accent than I do. Eleftheros Typos. Mr. Karadzic has a friend in the newspaper there. He had quite a sensational interview where he talked about world events. He talked about -- he said all sorts of outrageous things, and we just felt we should take note of this today.

Let me just say one more thing because Charlie and Barry have given us some useful tactical diplomatic advice. I think we've got their attention. I think we've communicated our message to the Serbs and the Bosnian Serbs, and the fact that the Serbs have isolated themselves, they don't have any economic assistance, they don't have a relationship with the World Bank or IMF. The Bosnian Serbs are not getting any of the money that the United States and the European Union are putting forward for reconstruction. This is the penalty and it's a very severe penalty and they know that. We just take the opportunity to remind them of that from time to time when their actions are particularly outrageous as they have been over the last couple of days.

QUESTION: One of the things that he said in this interview was that he's surrounded by 2,000 bodyguards who would start shooting the minute someone tried to arrest him. He said that anybody who would tried to arrest him knows that they'd immediately have 500 dead bodies on their hand and it wouldn't be Serb fighters. Was this aspect raised in Kornblum's conversation with the Bosnian Serb authorities? And what's your response to that kind of statement?

MR. BURNS: I think it's probably an exaggeration. I think Mr. Karadzic is prone to exaggeration. But in terms of the number of people around him, I don't think he has that many friends left in Pale.

What's interesting to me to read all of the commentary about the issue of war criminals, which is a very serious issue, is that often times we forget that the fundamental commitment and the fundamental responsibility to arrest the war criminals lies with Mr. Krajisnik and Madam Plavsic and Milosevic and Tudjman and Izetbegovic. They're the people who have the responsibility. They're the ones who said they would do it. They have not done it with the exception of Mr. Izetbegovic who has complied more or less with the war crimes provisions.

It is also true, as Barry helpfully points out, that when SFOR soldiers encounter war criminals, they are obligated to detain them and arrest them and that has not happened over the last year, but they're obligated to do so. Those are the rules of engagement, as we've spelled out everyday, probably since December 1995.

I don't say this in order to avoid the Western responsibility for this issue, only to note that the fundamental commitment lies with the parties to the accords, and we continue to address ourselves to them.

John.

QUESTION: Nick, despite the overtures and the messages from the United States and its allies to Mr. Milosevic, consistently announced since December, there hasn't been an improvement. In fact, irregardless of what we've said and the Western Europeans have said, he's not only maintained his position of refusing to let them take their seats in the municipalities but has increased the use of police force.

Once upon a time there was a suggestion that perhaps we might think about new sanctions. I'm wondering whether or not given what's happened over the weekend there's any new impetus or thought in that direction either by ourselves or in concert with our allies?

MR. BURNS: Any additional sanctions -- if you're talking about reimposition of the full-scale sanctions that were in place during the Bosnian war, that would require the unanimous decision of the Security Council. So I'd just note that as a fact out there, which would be difficult to achieve.

But I don't think you and I ought to minimize the effect of the current sanctions in place on Serbia. We can't control the situation in Serbia, and we can't change it by ourselves. But we certainly can make it hurt when Mr. Milosevic continues to obstruct democratic elections, as he clearly has done over the last three months.

A country the size of Serbia, having gone through a war for five years without access to the IMF and the World Bank, without access to normal credits from Western and North American Governments, that country is not going to succeed. Milosevic can't play the game forever. Without access to capital, he will not succeed. His economy which is already on the skids will skid further. So he's got to be worried about that. We think he is. That is a very severe penalty, and I would not minimize that. That's the penalty that the United States, through its application of the "outer wall" of sanctions has placed upon him.

QUESTION: The opposition today, though, said it would like to see an increase in pressure from the international community on Mr. Milosevic although we know they oppose the reimposition of full sanctions. Are there any thoughts in terms of other kinds of even symbolic measures that the West can take vis-a-vis Mr. Milosevic?

MR. BURNS: It's hard --I think it's a little bit difficult for the United States to get much tougher, and let me tell you why. We don't have an ambassador, unlike most countries. We've chosen to have sub-standard diplomatic relations. We have a Charge d'Affaires. We have these "outer wall" of sanctions. We have no U.S. assistance to Serbia. We have held out the prospect that he will not have a normal relationship with us in any way or form until he acts in a democratic way towards the opposition.

The United States has taken a very tough, forward-leaning position, ahead of almost all other countries in the world, consistently since about two days after these elections. So we're going to maintain that very tough position. I think that is going to hurt him over the long term and I think at some point will affect his behavior.

QUESTION: Given what's going on, though, over the last couple of days, do you think it's inappropriate for our allies to continue maintaining full diplomatic relations with Serbia, including the presence of their Ambassador still in Belgrade?

MR. BURNS: The United States has made its own decisions. I'm going to leave it to our allies to make their decisions, but I think there is an increasing sentiment in Europe as well as North America that there has to be a way found to isolate Mr. Milosevic. The United States has done it's part, and we certainly don't want to give public advice to our allies. But if you look at the statements issued today, particularly from London and Paris, they were very tough statements. That reflects the increasing frustration with Mr. Milosevic in the West.

QUESTION: How actively or how frequently is the United States talking to, or U.S. diplomats, talking to alternatives -- alternative political leaders?

MR. BURNS: We have an active relationship with Mr. Draskovic and Ms. Pesic and others -- the opposition leaders -- Mr. Djindjic as well. We'll continue that. I don't mean to say that we've signed on to their political program because we don't want to interfere politically to that extent, but we certainly support their rights to demonstrate in the streets, to have themselves seated in Belgrade and the other municipalities because they won the elections in 15 of the 18 constituencies. So we'll continue that policy of speaking to the opposition and creating links to them.

QUESTION: Was it the Secretary last week who said the Dayton Accords don't depend on one individual or --

MR. BURNS: That's exactly right.

QUESTION: That's just an inference at that point. Can you flesh it out? Are you -- is the U.S. Government actively trying to bolster support, show its support for -- register its confidence in -- are you trying to grease the skids for Milosevic, or are you going to be a little more tactful about it for a little bit? (Laughter)

MR. BURNS: We're always tactful, Barry. We're almost always tactful.

QUESTION: What is it the U.S. is doing, or is it doing besides conversation? Is the message that the U.S. is looking for an alternative leadership in Belgrade?

MR. BURNS: First, it is quite right to say that the Dayton Accords do not depend irrevocably on one individual or one or two or three individuals. Mr. Milosevic is not indispensable to the functioning of the Dayton Accords.

Second, we have reached out to the opposition, and we'll continue to do so. It just makes good, common sense to have political links to them. But I want to be clear about what our role is here. The United States is not giving its support to any political party. We're not siding with one political party against another in this internal dispute in Belgrade. But we have spoken out publicly and we'll continue to speak out about the right of people to demonstrate in the street because the elections were stolen from them; the right of people not to have Serbian police goons beat them up in the street when they demonstrate peacefully. That's what we saw. It was reminiscent of 1977 or 1967 or '57, as opposed to 1997.

It is strange to see, still, in Central Europe but a sad truth that there are authoritarian figures who deploy these security goons to beat up democrats and to beat up people who are demonstrating peacefully.

Let me give you a little bit more information about Kosovo because we're very disturbed by it. We understand that three ethnic Albanians were killed by Serbian police on Friday. Over 100 ethnic Albanians have been arrested by Serbian police in what appears to be a coordinated police round-up in Kosovo itself. Forty are still in custody.

A Serbian policeman charged with police brutality last week shot and killed his Albanian accusers and their lawyers. This violence is symptomatic of the ongoing Serbian repression of the Albanian population, the Kosovars, in Kosovo. We're concerned about this situation. As you know, we maintain a U.S. Information Office and a U.S. Foreign Service officer in Pristina. We have first-hand accounts of this, and we have complained directly to the Serbian Government about this recent treatment of the Albanian population in Kosovo.

This Serbian state of repression has been underway since 1989. There is a basic denial of human and political rights to the Albanian population which will remain a big concern, a great concern of the United States.

QUESTION: A new subject. The fighting in Eastern Zaire seems to be spreading a little. The authorities, apparently, are bringing in foreign troops to assist Zairian military. Specifically, an official said this morning that planes are being chartered to bring in troops from Morocco, Togo, and Chad. Are you aware of this?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me -- chartered by whom?

QUESTION: By the Zairian authorities, to bring in troops from Morocco, Togo, and Chad. Number one, are you aware of this? And, secondly, are you concerned about the fighting spreading?

MR. BURNS: I don't have information that Zaire may be bringing in foreign troops into Zaire, into the fighting in Eastern Zaire. But our position has been for many months that the United States supports the territorial integrity of Zaire. We do not wish to see Zaire dismembered.

The United States does not support the rebel groups that are fighting to destabilize the Zairian Government, the rebel groups in Eastern Zaire -- the rebel alliance. The United States does not support any neighbors of Zaire intervening in the fighting in Zaire in an unhelpful and destabilizing way. We hope that the fighting could be brought to an end by mutual agreement between the Zairian Government and the rebels themselves. That is our position.

We remain concerned about some of the Rwandan Hutu refugees who we believe did not make it across the border in the exodus in November but have been trapped inside of Eastern Zaire by the fighting. We're concerned about the humanitarian situation of these people. The United Nations and other humanitarian groups have tried to get supplies to them and we've tried to support those efforts, as you know.

QUESTION: When President Mobutu went back to Zaire after his long absence of illness, you said you hoped that he would be an individual who is able to restore order. Are you still hopeful that he can do that? He's out of the country again. I think he's in Morocco at the moment. Nothing really seemed to have changed in the week since he has returned.

MR. BURNS: We believe that stability in Zaire is important to stability in Central Africa as a whole. We do not wish to see further instability or a challenge to Zaire's borders. We think that's a very important principle. African countries, above all, should understand the importance of that.

Therefore, some of the reports that there have been troop movements across the border into Zaire have been disturbing.

QUESTION: What about Mobutu himself? What about Mobutu? Do you still believe that he is the right man to hold this country together?

MR. BURNS: It's not for the United States to choose Zaire's leaders. As you know, we've had an uneven relationship, not always perfect, with Mr. Mobutu in the past. We've tended to have a closer relationship with other members of the government over the last couple of years. We can't choose the leadership of Zaire. That's up to others. But we simply have to note the principle of the inviolability of state borders, in this case as in others, in Africa and around the world.

QUESTION: Korea?

MR. BURNS: Still on Africa? Still on Africa.

QUESTION: You mentioned earlier the U.S. position with regard to the mercenaries in the area. I was wondering, there was a report that was issued under President de Klerk in South Africa. A General Stein had done an investigation regarding the use of mercenaries and the transformation of some of the internal South African military and paramilitary forces into private agencies.

The Stein Report was issued and given to President Mandela who did not make it public but it was then given to Archbishop Tutu who did make it public. It indicated that there is extensive activities of these mercenary groups in a variety of countries in Africa where they're stockpiling arms in order to be able to overthrow established governments.

I'm wondering -- if there is also indication that there was collaboration, as was mentioned earlier, with a suggestion that there was close contact with British SAS on some of these matters. I was wondering if the Stein Report has been made available to the United States, and, if so, what position do you have on it?

MR. BURNS: I just don't know if it has made available. As you know, in the past, I've rejected any kind of inference from any question that would implicate the United Kingdom in these types of mercenary -- well, you're reporting them so I have an obligation, I think, to an ally to say that I would reject any implication that the United Kingdom has done anything untoward.

As you know, we have a firm position on the use of mercenary groups in civil wars in Africa.

QUESTION: With regard to the sovereignty of the countries in Africa, does this position also extend to the situation in Sudan?

MR. BURNS: We do not wish to see Sudan dismembered, no. But we have a major series of disagreements with the Sudanese Government - specifically, it's support for terrorism, as you know.

QUESTION: This morning, the Minister of Justice of Colombia met with Ambassador Gelbard. Can you tell us if there were any concrete results or satisfying your expectations on Colombia's anti-drug performance?

MR. BURNS: I haven't received a report on Assistant Secretary Gelbard's meeting. But if you would call his bureau, I'm sure they would be glad to give you a briefing on what transpired.

As you know, the U.S. Government has not yet made a determination on the terrorism list configuration that will be announced shortly in 1997. That's an issue we need to continue to look at. We've not made a determination yet.

QUESTION: You mean the drug list?

MR. BURNS: The drug list, yes.

QUESTION: You said terrorism.

MR. BURNS: Did I say terrorism? I'm sorry. I meant drug. Sorry to confuse you.

Betsy.

QUESTION: Nick, do you have anything on steps taken this weekend, votes taken to curtail human rights in Hong Kong?

MR. BURNS: Yes. As you know, I think we spoke out 10 days ago when the original recommendations were made by the sub-group to the Preparatory Committee. We saw over the weekend - we understand now that China's Preparatory Committee has recommended to the National People's Congress that some portions of Hong Kong's Bill of Rights be repealed on the grounds that they are inconsistent with China's basic law for Hong Kong.

We also understand that the Preparatory Committee did not accept the full recommendations of its legal sub-group and decided not to automatically reinstate the previous colonial-era public ordinances that were replaced in 1991.

The National People's Congress, we understand, will take up this matter at its meeting in March. As we have said, the protection of civil liberties in Hong Kong is an important part of the 1984 Joint Declaration between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China. It's also an important element of China's own basic law for Hong Kong.

This is a critical component of Hong Kong's way of life. We believe it is vital to continue both confidence within Hong Kong after July 1, 1997, and also international confidence in Hong Kong. Therefore, the United States is deeply concerned by the attempts to weaken these civil liberties and these basic freedoms in Hong Kong. Any recommendations of this type made over the weekend do not help foster confidence and stability in Hong Kong itself.

Therefore, we will continue to convey to the Chinese authorities in Beijing and to future Hong Kong Government authorities as well the importance that the United States attaches to China's actions in upholding its commitments for Hong Kong, as expressed in the Joint Declaration and in the basic law.

Most recently, this issue was raised by the NSC's senior Director for Asian Affairs, Sandy Kristoff, in her visit to Beijing just last week. We will continue to raise this as a priority issue on our agenda with China.

On Hong Kong? Patrick.

QUESTION: Do you know of any plan for the United States and its allies to evacuate from Hong Kong Chinese dissidents now residing in Hong Kong before China takes over control of the territory?

MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any such plan, Patrick. No.

QUESTION: You've said that you're deeply concerned by attempts to weaken the Bill of Rights. What's your message to China on what economic impact, if any, such moves might have? Do you think that China might kill the goose that lays the golden eggs - a popular phrase about Hong Kong - if they go too far with this? And are they going too far with it in these steps that they're taking?

MR. BURNS: The United States certainly does approve, and does not approve in any way, these recommendations by the Preparatory Committee because they seek to diminish the political and civil rights of the people of Hong Kong. We believe that there is a link between measures taken to repress people politically and economic growth of the type that we've seen in China over the last decade or so.

The President spoke to this in his own press conference last week and talked about this link. We don't believe that the Chinese Government can comfortably figure that in the long run repressing people politically is going to help in any way to build the type of market economy that they seem to want. We believe the two go hand in hand. You can't have a fully functioning market economy, which is based on information and the free flow of economic data and information - you can't have that type of successful economy and repress people at home as well. There is a link. We are obviously concerned by these developments over the weekend.

QUESTION: On Korea. Do you want to go to Korea or do you want -

MR. BURNS: Still on Hong Kong? I think Steve was next, Bill. Then we'll get to you.

QUESTION: Nick, do you have, or can you tell us what the message has been from the Administration to Peruvian President Fujimori? And beyond that, could you explain why his meeting was moved to the White House with the President rather than with the Secretary of State here as apparently was planned.

MR. BURNS: I believe that -- you'll have to ask Mike McCurry this -- but I believe that the President decided, once he understood President Fujimori was coming, that he wanted to have a meeting with him. So it's as simple as that. When the President's going to have a meeting, the Secretary of State normally joins the President's meeting, in most cases without having a separate bilateral meeting.

What I'd like to do is direct you to the White House. The President had the meeting today. Secretary Albright participated in that meeting, and I believe that Mike or David Johnson is going to give a readout on that particular meeting.

We have a well known position on Peru, which we've articulated many, many times since the beginning of the crisis. Our Assistant Secretary of State Jeff Davidow went out to the airport on Saturday night to meet President Fujimori; had a good discussion with him on the way in to town. He covered a lot of issues, not just the hostage crisis but other issues in our relationship with Peru.

We're very pleased that we had this opportunity to have these discussions with President Fujimori, who obviously is in a very difficult position, and we hope for the early and immediate safe release of all the hostages.

QUESTION: And on Korea -

QUESTION: Can I stay on the same subject?

MR. BURNS: On Peru?

QUESTION: On Peru. Do you know whether the Lori Berenson case came up in any discussions with State Department officials?

MR. BURNS: I know that Assistant Secretary Davidow raised the case with President Fujimori on Saturday evening, yes.

QUESTION: Do you know what was said in those discussions? Could you give us something more?

MR. BURNS: I know that Assistant Secretary Davidow reaffirmed some well known concerns we have about the fact that she was tried in a military court without normal due process that one would expect in a civilian court, and about the conditions of her detention in the prison in which she's being held.

QUESTION: Nick, two questions on Korea. Will the North and South be meeting in New York on Wednesday as scheduled? And the second question is it's been reported that the North Koreans will not meet until some kind of basic guarantee, some kind of - something financial, I think, some support - underwriting I think is the word, Nick - by the U.S. Government for grain sales through Cargill to supply their needs. Can you comment on either of those?

MR. BURNS: We do not expect that the North and South and the United States will be meeting in New York this coming Wednesday, as we had proposed and as we had set. The North Koreans have told us once again that they need to give, as they say, first priority to their business discussions with Cargill and others for the procurement of grain. So therefore it is uncertain when this joint briefing will be rescheduled.

I think having postponed it once and set a date, I don't think we're in a position where we want to set a date again. The North Koreans believe they need to go through their grain discussions. We hope that when those grain discussions are concluded or perhaps even before that they might decide to have this briefing by the United States and the Republic of Korea, which is the first step, we hope, in putting together negotiations for a peace treaty in the Korean peninsula of the type proposed by President Clinton and President Kim last April.

QUESTION: So this has been indefinitely suspended, this meeting, and the question about underwriting - was the U.S. asked by North Korea to underwrite a grain deal between Cargill and North Korea, and what would the definition of "underwrite" be?

MR. BURNS: I don't know the answer to that question, but I can tell you that the United States Government believes that these are private grain discussions; that the North Koreans ought to work out their deal with Cargill or any of the other companies with which they are dealing, and that the United States Government involvement would be limited to granting an export license if a deal is consummated with an American company.

QUESTION: Nick, can you take that question about whether the North Koreans wanted the U.S. to underwrite the deal?

MR. BURNS: I'd be glad to take that question, yes.

QUESTION: Nick, are there any plans -

QUESTION: Could we go back -

QUESTION: -- to give any further grain to North Korea?

MR. BURNS: We understand that the World Food Program is considering an emergency appeal for North Korea based on the findings of their assessment mission visit by the World Food Program and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations just about five weeks ago in December of last year.

What we have said consistently is that if these organizations do make an appeal, the United States will consider it very seriously. We haven't received the appeal, but we understand they're going to make one, and therefore we'll treat that as a very serious issue. As you know, the United States has responded to these appeals in the past.

Still on Korea. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: As a member of the Swedish TV, I have a question here about the so-called "Nazi gold" and funds linked to Nazi Germany, that is something that is under discussion over in Europe right now. Sweden possibly holds about seven tons of this gold, and, first, what is the U.S. position on that issue? And, secondly, is it in the U.S. interest to investigate this?

MR. BURNS: First, we've seen the reports but cannot confirm the reports that the recent finding of Nazi gold - allegedly Nazi gold in the Swedish National Bank - the Riksbank - I would refer you to the Swedish Government, I think, for the best answer to that question. But if this is true, this would raise, of course, complex factual and legal questions which would have to be reviewed thoroughly by the members of the Tripartite Gold Commission. The members of that commission are the United Kingdom, France and the United States. This was set up just after the Second World War to deal with this issue, the adjudication of Nazi gold issues among various countries. I think there were 12 in Europe at the time.

I know that that consultation with the Swedish Government will be under way. We're confident that the Swedish Government will respond to this issue in a forthright and very quick manner. But the fact is that Sweden has a quite good, commendable track record on these issues since the Second World War.

We understand that just after the Second World War, the Swedish Government at the time carried out an inquiry and was in touch with the Tripartite Gold countries - the three that I mentioned - including the United States, and that some gold presumed to have been looted by the Nazis was returned to the Tripartite Gold Commission by Sweden.

We know that the World Jewish Congress visited Stockholm in November; that they had discussions with the Swedish Government on this, and we know that the Swedish Government has created a high-level commission to look into the issue of gold and Holocaust-era assets by Jews and by other governments around the world.

We understand the Swedish Government expects this commission to report its findings by August of this year. We're in contact with the Swedish Government, and we think that the Swedes probably don't need a lot of public advice from us, but they do need our encouragement to get to the bottom of these questions, and they have it.

I would just note we have an excellent relationship with Sweden, with the current government, particularly with the Swedish Ambassador, Henrik Liljegren, here who's done a lot personally to elevate the relationship between Sweden and the United States over the last five years.

QUESTION: Nick, if it is established that Sweden actually possesses some remaining amounts of funds or gold, would the Commission or the United States claim that gold on behalf of the Holocaust victims?

MR. BURNS: I'm not an expert in the internal workings of the Tripartite Gold Commission. I'm not familiar personally with the mechanics of that process, but I do know that this is an issue that the Tripartite Gold Commission could possibly have an interest in. But that will depend on the study, the Commission that the Swedish Government has set up, and I think we need to let the Swedes do their work, and then we expect to work very cooperatively with that government.

QUESTION: Nick, are you aware of the Government of Vietnam's angry reaction - they lashed out at VOA, but VOA was simply doing a broadcast on the Human Rights Report, calling it slanderous and all that. I suppose the Human Rights Report didn't get a great reception in lots of countries, but are you aware of Vietnam's apparently frontal assault on the VOA and really on the Human Rights Report, and do you have anything to say about it?

MR. BURNS: We saw the press reports of the Vietnamese protest, but I must say there were lots of countries that were very unhappy with the Human Rights Reports. We saw lots of interesting statements made the day following our presentation. We expected that. It's particularly the authoritarian governments, the governments that do not accord to their own people basic human rights, that seem to scream the loudest when these Human Rights Reports are issued.

QUESTION: Are they an authoritarian government?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me?

QUESTION: Is Vietnam an authoritarian government?

MR. BURNS: I didn't single out Vietnam. I said particularly the authoritarian governments like the Libyans and the Iraqis and the Iranians.

QUESTION: Oh, sure.

MR. BURNS: Vietnam has its own system, but it doesn't have - the Vietnamese people do not have full civil and political rights by any stretch of the imagination, as we said in our Human Rights Report issued last week.

Yes, Yasmine.

QUESTION: Nick, Congressman Gilman wrote a letter to Secretary Albright last Wednesday, asking her not to go forward with the sale of the Sea Hawk helicopters to Turkey. I have two questions on that. First of all, what's the U.S. Administration's policy on the proposed sale? And, secondly, does this government see any link between the situation in Cyprus and the military sales to Turkey?

MR. BURNS: First, let me just take the first question and try to get you an answer. I don't know if we've articulated a position on the Sea Hawks.

Second, we have a view on Cyprus, and that is that all parties should work together for peace on Cyprus. We have some very important commitments made by the Government of Cyprus not to deploy the Russian anti-aircraft system, not to deploy Greek fighter aircraft to the base that's being constructed in Cyprus. Those are very important concessions - very important statements by the Cyprus Government.

We also have an alliance relationship with both Greece and Turkey, and there will be continued U.S. military assistance to both countries in the context of that NATO alliance. So no one's talking here about shutting down military relationships that are vital to the United States and to those governments.

QUESTION: Today some Greek newspaper reports that Secretary Albright sent a letter to Greek Foreign Minister Pangalos, and the same kind of letter that President Clinton sent to Prime Minister Simitis to urge them, the Greek Government, to cool down the Aegean subject and don't provoke especially in the Cyprus issue. Can you confirm these letters?

MR. BURNS: I'll have to look into whether or not a letter was sent. I'm not aware of it personally. It may or may not have happened. But in essence the advice we've given to Cyprus, Greece and Turkey is to usher in a period of restraint in their relations with each other, so that this issue might be resolved.

QUESTION: Follow-up. Yesterday, a major U.S. daily by referring to U.S. officials said that reunification is the secret desire of the Administration as a way out of this problem. Has there been a shift from bicommunal, bizonal federation solution?

MR. BURNS: There's been no shift in the position of the United States in what we believe should be the outcome of the Cyprus conflict - bizonal, bicommunal.

QUESTION: Reunification is not in the cards?

MR. BURNS: Pardon?

QUESTION: Is reunification -

MR. BURNS: I just want to tell you there's been no shift in our language. There's been no shift in our position, and we stick to our position.

Yes, Dimitri. In just a minute, Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: Can you comment on the meeting by Mr. Hannay here in the State Department today?

MR. BURNS: Mr.?

QUESTION: David Hannay.

MR. BURNS: Yes, I know that he's in town. I don't have actually his schedule, but we can look into that for you. Perhaps our European Bureau can get that for you.

Mr. Lambros, you've been waiting.

QUESTION: According to The Washington Post, the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr. Clerides, has given the U.S. a commitment, as you said earlier, that no Greek warplanes will be deployed to Cyprus as long as he's the President of the Republic. He promised that to Mr. Cavanaugh when they met in Cyprus last month. President Clerides, however, yesterday denied categorically the existence of such a commitment. Who is wrong finally? Clerides, Cavanaugh or Washington Post? (Laughter)

MR. BURNS: That's an easy one. Clerides and Cavanaugh are right. Clerides and Cavanaugh have to be right because they had the conversation together. I believe, Mr. Lambros, that the assurance that we have is that Greek military aircraft will not be deployed to the new base on Cyprus for 13 months. I believe that is the assurance here, and so therefore we have great confidence in Mr. Cavanaugh and we have great respect for President Clerides, and I believe their conversation was along those lines.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Turkey so far for your proposed moratorium over Cyprus.

MR. BURNS: Well, why don't you ask the Turkish Government. We want to follow up on that moratorium. We think it's a good idea, and we'll continue to raise it in our conversations with all the concerned parties.

QUESTION: But the Greek Minister of Defense, Mr. Tsokhatzopoulos, stated yesterday, "We cannot speak of a moratorium in Cyprus, a country under occupation, where the airplanes of the occupation powers at any moment can circulate undisturbed over the island." Any comment?

MR. BURNS: No comment.

QUESTION: Nick, do you have anything new about the situation in Bulgaria, which is getting worse?

MR. BURNS: I don't have anything new to say. We made a statement last week of concern for stability and for peaceful adjudication of disputes. We think that's a very important principle. Our Ambassador, Avis Bohlen, has, of course, been in contact with the government and many others in Sofia, and we'll continue to assert the principle that civil problems ought to be adjudicated on a peaceful basis.

QUESTION: Was this today or was this - is this still from last week?

MR. BURNS: I don't know about her actions today, but I know that she's been active over the last week.

QUESTION: Can we go back to Zaire for a second. Speaking today in Brussels, European Union Commission Emma Bonino on her way back from Zaire said, and I'm quoting: "I heard statements that upset me supposedly from the U.S. Ambassador in Kigali, according to whom - and I'm quoting - no more aid should be sent to these people - meaning the refugees, the 200,000 refugees - in Zaire." Ms. Bonino said, "I found this inappropriate said by a diplomat of a civilized country, and I hope this would be denied in the form - in the substance of the statement." So if you'd like to -

MR. BURNS: It might have been a good idea if she had checked officially with the United States Government about what was said and what was not said. The United States Government is concerned about the Hutu refugees who have been trapped inside of Eastern Zaire. That's our policy. We have said it repeatedly from this Department and, of course, our Ambassadors in the field all agree and are following that policy. So I believe that our Ambassador, who I would like to defend here, has been misquoted, and I would think that a responsible person in the European Union would want to check to make sure the statement was accurate before making such a statement against an American Ambassador.

QUESTION: Cyrus Vance is almost ready to submit his final conclusion and the Greek Foreign Minister, Mr. Pangalos, stated in the Greek Parliament the other day, "In the worst case, the name will be simply mainly 'Macedonia,' but in the best case composite." What that means is up to Mr. Pangalos to explain, but do you have anything on that?

MR. BURNS: I do not. We have great confidence in former Secretary Cyrus Vance, and we don't want to get ahead of his mission and his own report.

QUESTION: On Afghanistan, there's reportedly a high-level Taliban delegation in the United States or coming to the United States following a meeting that Robin Raphel had in Pakistan with the Taliban. I wondered, do you know of this delegation? Are they meeting somebody at the State Department and what level?

MR. BURNS: Assistant Secretary Raphel had meetings in Pakistan with a Taliban representative. We reported that to you, and we said at the time that the Taliban would be sending a delegation to the United States. So I expect a delegation will arrive. Let me check and see if they are here and with whom they are meeting. Our position on the Taliban is that we don't recognize it as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. We don't recognize any of the parties to the conflict as the legitimate government. But if the Taliban is here, they're going to hear a lot from us about their fundamental violation of the rights of women and girls inside Afghanistan, which is a big concern of the United States.

Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 2:26 p.m.)

(###)


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

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.01 run on Tuesday, 4 February 1997 - 0:20:17 UTC